free will vs omniscience

[Juan_Bottom]

Evolution denies God,

Only by the strictest definitions. The loosest would say "God works in mysterious ways."

The First Law of Thermodynamics states "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" (speaking in terms of natural processes). Therefore, the universe has the same amount of matter as it did when it began. Matter cannot come from energy or anything else. Matter cannot be created naturally.

Apply the Law of Thermodynamics to God. The theory of the big bang(an actual theory, unlike God[hypothesis]) at least, takes this law into account. Science works by gathering new knowledge, and adding to what you already know. So laws can change, theories can change....
Any way, It's amazing that you use my science to prove the existance of your God, but ignore my science if it disproves he exists.
"Thanks for the nukes science, now go away."

we aren't counting Eastern Europe through WWII. Britain and Saxony are not the same.

I was unaware that we weren't counting world wars. Anyway, Israel and Israel aren't the same either. Do they only count if the religion is similer? Or if all the people had to flee?

I consider science to be one of the most important things man could pursue. Science is great, as long as it isn't mis-applied (which it often is).

Ironic...

The thing about a god creating the universe is this... (s)he could do whatever they wished.... but so far everything seems at least at some point, understandable... A god could give fish the ability to speak, without vocal cords. Or rocks the right to wag wars amongst themselves. But so far everything has that alternative explaination...

Which is what I think was ment by:
"I mean, if a being could create the universe, we'd probably be able to understand every aspect of it."
If our universe is created to follow these "laws," then it is completly understandable...

[joecoolfrog]

If evolution denies God then why do the vast majority of Christians worldwide not have a problem with it ? The NewTestament was put together by The Holy Roman Church ( Catholics ) . Denying anything that they dont like seems to be a speciality of creationists and in fact evangelists in general, when dogma takes precedence over truth then you better realise that anything built on shaky foundations will collapse eventually.

[jonesthecurl]

The law that says "matter can either be created nor destroyed" does not say "except by God".
An equally good logical explanation is that all the energy/matter that is around today has always been around (since it couldn't have been created).

[Juan_Bottom]

The law that says "matter can either be created nor destroyed" does not say "except by God".
An equally good logical explanation is that all the energy/matter that is around today has always been around (since it couldn't have been created).

That's how I take it. And all versions of "The Big Bang" take this into account.

[jonesthecurl]

Yes, the matter/energy was in a vastly different form, but still the same amount as I undertand it.

[LocutusofBorg01]

The theo

ry of the big bang(an actual theory, unlike God[hypothesis]) at least, takes this law into account.

Actually, the Big Bang is not a theory. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when large amounts of evidence agree with it. None (or at least very little) comes even close to agreeing with the big bang hypothesis.

Any way, It's amazing that you use my science to prove the existance of your God, but ignore my science if it disproves he exists.
"Thanks for the nukes science, now go away."

What science am I ignoring?

I was unaware that we weren't counting world wars. Anyway, Israel and Israel aren't the same either. Do they only count if the religion is similer? Or if all the people had to flee?

Geography isn't the same as the nation being reborn (then Iraq and Babylonia would be the same). Culture, people groups, religion, in conjunction w/ geography, etc. are the real factors.

If our universe is created to follow these "laws," then it is completly understandable...

Again, that's like having an aquarium full of guppies and expecting the guppies to completely understand the laws of tank cleaning, the air filter, the chlorine content, etc.

If evolution denies God then why do the vast majority of Christians worldwide not have a problem with it ?

Two words SELL OUT

The NewTestament was put together by The Holy Roman Church ( Catholics ) . Denying anything that they dont like seems to be a speciality of creationists and in fact evangelists in general, when dogma takes precedence over truth then you better realise that anything built on shaky foundations will collapse eventually.

The system of the Catholic Church as it existed then was set up by the 2nd century Christians. When the Bible was put together, it was still within the truth. However, like I said, what became the Catholic church added the Apochrypha, while the true Christian church did not.

The law that says "matter can either be created nor destroyed" does not say "except by God".

Correct, but the law assumes no supernatural interference.

That's how I take it. And all versions of "The Big Bang" take this into account.

Not really, but which version are you talking about?

The "theory" (really hypothesis, but theory sounds better) of evolution is extremely unlikely. This is from "It Couldn't Just Happen" by Lawrence O. Richards.

Imagine covering the state of Texas knee-deep in silver dollars, marking one of them orange. Then, blindfold a person and put them in Dallas and say, "Find the orange one, keeping the blindfold on". The odds of evolution happening are as likely as that person finding the orange silver dollar on the first try.

[Snorri1234]

The theo

ry of the big bang(an actual theory, unlike God[hypothesis]) at least, takes this law into account.

Actually, the Big Bang is not a theory. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when large amounts of evidence agree with it. None (or at least very little) comes even close to agreeing with the big bang hypothesis.

Actually, most of it does. The main argument for it is the observation that we live in an expanding universe, which means (ignoring the presupposition of God creating us pre-expanded) that if you travel backwards in time the universe would do the opposite and thus start from somewhere. Observations like background-static from the "bang" lend further credibility to this.

[LocutusofBorg01]

No doubt you've noticed the recent flurry of newspaper articles and TV interviews which have been proclaiming that the Big Bang theory had finally been proved. An observation by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite had verified a basic prediction of the Big Bang, so astronomers claimed. In fact, this discovery was so stupendous, "It was like looking at God, if you're religious," one said.

Within a week of the pronouncement, I happened to be at a major observatory, and discussed the find with a resident astronomer. He, too, was bubbling with excitement as he spoke. The Big Bang was now a fact, not merely a theory, I was told.

Upon further questioning, he admitted that the Big Bang concept had been at death's door, despite the fact that students have always been taught it, without reservation. This discovery had "saved" the Big Bang.

This astronomer admitted that many recent discoveries had seriously weakened the Big Bang theory. You see, the theory predicts some 15 or so billion years ago, all the matter and all the energy in the entire universe was packed into a single "cosmic egg," a super-dense electron-sized particle. An instability arose, and it exploded (i.e., in a big bang), producing an even distribution of matter and energy in all directions.

This was "proven" by the discovery, in 1964, of a very low-level background radiation the leftover "whisper" of the Big Bang. In all directions, the background radiation was measured at 2.7° Kelvin (equivalent to -270.5° Celsius!) with no variation—perfectly smooth.

But recent observations of the universe have revealed a very "lumpy" universe, with huge clusters of millions of galaxies and immense voids—not at all as expected from theory or the smooth background radiation. This led astronomers to propose that there must have been irregularities in the original "bang" to account for the present "lumpy" universe.

So now you know why astronomers were ecstatic when the COBE satellite measured small fluctuations in the background radiation, for now the Big Bang—everybody's favorite story—had been fully "proved."

But wait! It must be recognized that the variation has not been verified yet by others. No one has yet carefully examined the data. Most telling, the variation was extremely slight—only 30 millionths of a degree. At a lecture this week, one of the designers of the satellite told Dr. Gish that the COBE was not capable of measuring such a small variation. Others have said it is impossible for anything to be perfectly smooth, and even with these variations, the background radiation is smooth! And given the large-scale "lumpiness" or non-homogeneity of the universe, these small variations hardly seem related.

The astronomer I talked to said he was "quite religious, in a way." He knew there must be a God, since there were many things in astronomy he couldn't understand. But now he knew that God either must either be the Big Bang or have caused the Big Bang.

No, the Big Bang hasn't been "saved." At best, its death has been postponed for a few years. Worse, astronomers now have an excuse to continue in their "willful ignorance" (II Peter 3:3) and unbelief.

From:
Is the Big Bang Saved?
Dr. John Morris
The Institute for Creation Research

[joecoolfrog]

Blind deaf and overwhelmingly dumb - All hail the creationists !

[Nickbaldwin]

You'd think God would uncreate them for being so stupid......

THEREFORE God doesn't exist.

[PLAYER57832]

No doubt you've noticed the recent flurry of newspaper articles and TV interviews which have been proclaiming that the Big Bang theory had finally been proved. An observation by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite had verified a basic prediction of the Big Bang, so astronomers claimed. In fact, this discovery was so stupendous, "It was like looking at God, if you're religious," one said.

Within a week of the pronouncement, I happened to be at a major observatory, and discussed the find with a resident astronomer. He, too, was bubbling with excitement as he spoke. The Big Bang was now a fact, not merely a theory, I was told.

Upon further questioning, he admitted that the Big Bang concept had been at death's door, despite the fact that students have always been taught it, without reservation. This discovery had "saved" the Big Bang.

This astronomer admitted that many recent discoveries had seriously weakened the Big Bang theory. You see, the theory predicts some 15 or so billion years ago, all the matter and all the energy in the entire universe was packed into a single "cosmic egg," a super-dense electron-sized particle. An instability arose, and it exploded (i.e., in a big bang), producing an even distribution of matter and energy in all directions.

Once again, you show not mastery of science, but of how Creation teaching take bits and pieces of real science ... and then either add to them, twist them, or take tiny generally irrelevant information and claim that disproving those small pieces puts holes in the "whole theory" ... never mind that more often that not, those "pieces" are really side notes, not part of the central theory at all


You have a lot of details here that are not part of the Big Bang theory, but ideas that some scientists have about how it would work.

Specifically, the time line ... is never anything but approximate, a "guess", if you will. Any actual time line is highly debated, though certain scientists will hold strongly to one or the other. However disproving one time line or another does NOT disprove the theory.

Similarly, the idea that everything was combined into an "electron size lump" is one theory. Further, it generally is bespeaking matter, not energy. The more prevalent idea is that that lump was considerable larger than an electron, though size estimates vary.

This was "proven" by the discovery, in 1964, of a very low-level background radiation the leftover "whisper" of the Big Bang. In all directions, the background radiation was measured at 2.7° Kelvin (equivalent to -270.5° Celsius!) with no variation—perfectly smooth.

Not quite ... what really prompted it was the very real discovery that everything in the known universe is drifting apart. This is true. There are variations on that movement. It is not longer considered a smooth path, as it was once.

It could be that this 1964 radiation idea was once mentioned in conjunction with the Big Bang, might even still be a part of the theory. However, I am suspicious because this aspect was notably absent from my many years of excellent science education.

It really sounds more like Creation "scientists" sifting through to find ideas they can challange and then claiming they are "central to the whole idea and that they have thereby "disproven" the big theory. As I have said before, this is deceit, not science! Science can take many, many challanges. ALL theories get revised because people don't start out knowing everything ... we get ideas, then test them, then disgard possibilities and refine theories as necessary.

It is only Creationists who claim they "know the truth" from the start ... and who go through the most ludicrous perambulations to try and "prove" their narrow ideas.

But recent observations of the universe have revealed a very "lumpy" universe, with huge clusters of millions of galaxies and immense voids—not at all as expected from theory or the smooth background radiation. This led astronomers to propose that there must have been irregularities in the original "bang" to account for the present "lumpy" universe.

Again, you have this partially correct. But, the bottom line is this in no way puts the Big Bang theory in question, as you claim.

NOTE: there ARE competing theories still. The Big Bang IS a theory. But, to poke holes, you have to at least get the basics on what the theory IS, first.

So now you know why astronomers were ecstatic when the COBE satellite measured small fluctuations in the background radiation, for now the Big Bang—everybody's favorite story—had been fully "proved."

But wait! It must be recognized that the variation has not been verified yet by others. No one has yet carefully examined the data. Most telling, the variation was extremely slight—only 30 millionths of a degree. At a lecture this week, one of the designers of the satellite told Dr. Gish that the COBE was not capable of measuring such a small variation. Others have said it is impossible for anything to be perfectly smooth, and even with these variations, the background radiation is smooth! And given the large-scale "lumpiness" or non-homogeneity of the universe, these small variations hardly seem related.

Your point?

So,one scientist might have overreached a bit. That is quite a long ways from proving or disproving anything. All it says is that the (scientific) "jury" is still out. This happens a LOT! It is called science!

The astronomer I talked to said he was "quite religious, in a way." He knew there must be a God, since there were many things in astronomy he couldn't understand. But now he knew that God either must either be the Big Bang or have caused the Big Bang.[/quote]
This might be why a LARGE number of Christians suspect the Big Bang is real, because it is QUITE consistant with Genesis.

Yet, you seem to think this disproves science? Quite a leap!

No, the Big Bang hasn't been "saved." At best, its death has been postponed for a few years. Worse, astronomers now have an excuse to continue in their "willful ignorance" (II Peter 3:3) and unbelief.

And now you make a HUGE leap. First you refer to a 1964 theory, then instantly leap forward to claims that one scientist might have made greater claims than his research actually supported. (and, based on the context, it seems quite likely that he was merely chatting and not really presenting scientific results).

From:
Is the Big Bang Saved?
Dr. John Morris
The Institute for Creation Research

And that reference does a LOT to explain your gross inaccuracies and ommissions. The Institute for Creation Research has a whole policy of distorting science however they can to make it fit their theories and make it SEEM as if they are practicing real science.

You can agree or disagree with any theory, BUT teaching LIES is NOT CHRISTIAN!!!!!

PERIOD!

Look into REAL research and REAL, published scientific information. DO NOT rely on the "creation science institute" if you want to know ANYTHING about what scientists actually teach!

[polarbeast23]

It should be noted that all the energy spent on discovering the origins of the universe and fighting with inflammatory grandeur detracts from, what I believe, is the real meaning of life. To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.

[LocutusofBorg01]

Oh the arrogance! (to quote several other posts) Unless you have PhDs in the field of science, how can you claim to know more about science than a doctor/president of a reputable institute for scientific research?

This will be my last post. If the past week has shown me anything, it's that you'll never convince me of evolution, and I'll never convince you of creation (or anything else we've debated on). In this post, I'm not going to respond to anything you've said specifically.

God created man perfect in the Garden of Eden. He had perfect fellowship with a man and his wife while in the garden. However, mankind rebelled against God and fell into sin. He was banished from the Garden, but a Savior was promised.
About 8,000 years later, Jesus was born to a Hebrew girl. He was both fully God and fully man. He grew up and, for three years ministered in the Palestine area, ticking several people off in the process. He was crucified at the Place of the Skull (location unknown; outside Jerusalem). He was dead, He was buried, and He rose again. He was on earth for 40 more days, then ascended to heaven to sit at the Father's right hand. His death on the cross covered the sins of anyone who believes. Because of sin, God can no longer have fellowship with mankind. Someone had to pay for man's sin, and Jesus Christ was the only who could pay the price. God offers this gift freely. You must only trust in His blood.

"Choose this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Jeremiah 22:16

Ladies and Gentlemen, children of all ages
Anyone listening, I've got an announcement to make
There's been some confusion about a certain someone
A lot of discussion and a lot of debate
So if I may take just a moment to say who Jesus is to me

Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
The air I'm breathing
Why my heart is beating
Everything I'm needing
Jesus is life
Jesus is life

Imagine the deepest sea without a drop of water
An infinite galaxy without even one single star
That's how I would be...so absolutely empty
Without Jesus' life in me there'd be no life at all
More than just a part, He's the very heart of everything I am
-Steven Curtis Chapman

I'm praying for you. Don't bother to reply, I won't read it.

[Snorri1234]

Oh the arrogance! (to quote several other posts) Unless you have PhDs in the field of science, how can you claim to know more about science than a doctor/president of a reputable institute for scientific research?

OH MAN!


Wait:

In this post, I'm not going to respond to anything you've said specifically

WELL THAT SURELY WILL HELP YOUR CAUSE!

God created man perfect in the Garden of Eden. He had perfect fellowship with a man and his wife while in the garden. However, mankind rebelled against God and fell into sin. He was banished from the Garden, but a Savior was promised.
About 8,000 years later, Jesus was born to a Hebrew girl. He was both fully God and fully man. He grew up and, for three years ministered in the Palestine area, ticking several people off in the process. He was crucified at the Place of the Skull (location unknown; outside Jerusalem). He was dead, He was buried, and He rose again. He was on earth for 40 more days, then ascended to heaven to sit at the Father's right hand. His death on the cross covered the sins of anyone who believes. Because of sin, God can no longer have fellowship with mankind. Someone had to pay for man's sin, and Jesus Christ was the only who could pay the price. God offers this gift freely. You must only trust in His blood.

"Choose this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Jeremiah 22:16

Ladies and Gentlemen, children of all ages
Anyone listening, I've got an announcement to make
There's been some confusion about a certain someone
A lot of discussion and a lot of debate
So if I may take just a moment to say who Jesus is to me

Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
The air I'm breathing
Why my heart is beating
Everything I'm needing
Jesus is life
Jesus is life

Imagine the deepest sea without a drop of water
An infinite galaxy without even one single star
That's how I would be...so absolutely empty
Without Jesus' life in me there'd be no life at all
More than just a part, He's the very heart of everything I am
-Steven Curtis Chapman

THANK YOU FOR THE PROPAGANDA!
To this day, I had never heard of Jesus or his message. Neither has Player, despite being christian.

I'm praying for you.

Thank you. I'll be sacrificing babies for you.

Don't bother to reply, I won't read it.

If life has taught me anything, it's that people usually don't mean this.

[Jenos Ridan]

Despite that, even assuming free will exists, that only means we are free to make choices, not that things are so radically free that our personalities are virtually chosen.

I see that I have gotten the responce that was to be expected.

[Snorri1234]

Despite that, even assuming free will exists, that only means we are free to make choices, not that things are so radically free that our personalities are virtually chosen.

I see that I have gotten the responce that was to be expected.

But the question is: How much freedom do we have then? Can we decide what things we like? Can we decide what influences us? Can we decide who we love? Can we decide what we actually believe?

[joecoolfrog]

Oh the arrogance! (to quote several other posts) Unless you have PhDs in the field of science, how can you claim to know more about science than a doctor/president of a reputable institute for scientific research?

This will be my last post. If the past week has shown me anything, it's that you'll never convince me of evolution, and I'll never convince you of creation (or anything else we've debated on). In this post, I'm not going to respond to anything you've said specifically.

God created man perfect in the Garden of Eden. He had perfect fellowship with a man and his wife while in the garden. However, mankind rebelled against God and fell into sin. He was banished from the Garden, but a Savior was promised.
About 8,000 years later, Jesus was born to a Hebrew girl. He was both fully God and fully man. He grew up and, for three years ministered in the Palestine area, ticking several people off in the process. He was crucified at the Place of the Skull (location unknown; outside Jerusalem). He was dead, He was buried, and He rose again. He was on earth for 40 more days, then ascended to heaven to sit at the Father's right hand. His death on the cross covered the sins of anyone who believes. Because of sin, God can no longer have fellowship with mankind. Someone had to pay for man's sin, and Jesus Christ was the only who could pay the price. God offers this gift freely. You must only trust in His blood.

"Choose this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Jeremiah 22:16

Ladies and Gentlemen, children of all ages
Anyone listening, I've got an announcement to make
There's been some confusion about a certain someone
A lot of discussion and a lot of debate
So if I may take just a moment to say who Jesus is to me

Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
The air I'm breathing
Why my heart is beating
Everything I'm needing
Jesus is life
Jesus is life

Imagine the deepest sea without a drop of water
An infinite galaxy without even one single star
That's how I would be...so absolutely empty
Without Jesus' life in me there'd be no life at all
More than just a part, He's the very heart of everything I am
-Steven Curtis Chapman

I'm praying for you. Don't bother to reply, I won't read it.

No the past week has taught you nothing because you have a closed mind, you will always therefore remain ignorant ....waste of a brain really !

[polarbeast23]

Oh the arrogance! (to quote several other posts) Unless you have PhDs in the field of science, how can you claim to know more about science than a doctor/president of a reputable institute for scientific research?

This will be my last post. If the past week has shown me anything, it's that you'll never convince me of evolution, and I'll never convince you of creation (or anything else we've debated on). In this post, I'm not going to respond to anything you've said specifically.

God created man perfect in the Garden of Eden. He had perfect fellowship with a man and his wife while in the garden. However, mankind rebelled against God and fell into sin. He was banished from the Garden, but a Savior was promised.
About 8,000 years later, Jesus was born to a Hebrew girl. He was both fully God and fully man. He grew up and, for three years ministered in the Palestine area, ticking several people off in the process. He was crucified at the Place of the Skull (location unknown; outside Jerusalem). He was dead, He was buried, and He rose again. He was on earth for 40 more days, then ascended to heaven to sit at the Father's right hand. His death on the cross covered the sins of anyone who believes. Because of sin, God can no longer have fellowship with mankind. Someone had to pay for man's sin, and Jesus Christ was the only who could pay the price. God offers this gift freely. You must only trust in His blood.

"Choose this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Jeremiah 22:16

Ladies and Gentlemen, children of all ages
Anyone listening, I've got an announcement to make
There's been some confusion about a certain someone
A lot of discussion and a lot of debate
So if I may take just a moment to say who Jesus is to me

Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
Jesus is life, yeah, oh, oh, oh
The air I'm breathing
Why my heart is beating
Everything I'm needing
Jesus is life
Jesus is life

Imagine the deepest sea without a drop of water
An infinite galaxy without even one single star
That's how I would be...so absolutely empty
Without Jesus' life in me there'd be no life at all
More than just a part, He's the very heart of everything I am
-Steven Curtis Chapman

I'm praying for you. Don't bother to reply, I won't read it.

What about the part about crushing your enemies?

[Juan_Bottom]

If the past week has shown me anything, it's that you'll never convince me of evolution,

No one has tried. Go to the CreationismVSEvolution thread for that. I'm sure we would love the argument. We've been winning that one since like the 1800s. It's amazing to me that you are so arrogant to think that you've managed to figure it all out while the rest of the world sold out. And why?

Once again, you show not mastery of science, but of how Creation teaching take bits and pieces of real science ... and then either add to them, twist them, or take tiny generally irrelevant information and claim that disproving those small pieces puts holes in the "whole theory" ... never mind that more often that not, those "pieces" are really side notes, not part of the central theory at all

That's what I've been saying. And I've repeatedly given LOB the chance to correct himself/herself.

Oh the arrogance! (to quote several other posts) Unless you have PhDs in the field of science, how can you claim to know more about science than a doctor/president of a reputable institute for scientific research?

Oh the Arrogance! You have no idea who PLAYER57832 is do you? If I were you, I'd disappear forever now.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh the arrogance! (to quote several other posts) Unless you have PhDs in the field of science, how can you claim to know more about science than a doctor/president of a reputable institute for scientific research?

A doctorate is an expert in ONE NARROW area of his field ... specifically, in most sciences they must have conducted original research and know a smattering about their subject as a whole. They are not experts in even their entire feild, usually, never mind all of science.

And PhD's can quite easily be disputed or downright wrong. They are not Gods.

Finally, the Creation "Science Institute is absolutely NOT a "respected institute for scientific research" except by a few creationists. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I won't read it.

Yes, we know .. we won't agree with you, so why bother trying to see if there is anything to what we say.

That is not the way of Christ, sorry. Christ teaches truth. Refusing to see, to even check and verify your ideas, is not truth.

[Juan_Bottom]

(S)he may actually be a genious of comedy.... Because "the Big Bang Hypothesis" made me laugh. For really...

[PLAYER57832]

(S)he may actually be a genious of comedy.... Because "the Big Bang Hypothesis" made me laugh. For really...

It would make me laugh, too, (does, but "gallows humor") except that these folks have permeated the Bush administration and several prominant businesses. They are, unfortunately, not to be dismissed.

Crazy, illogical and completely misguided, but powerful none-the-less. And, you can see just how "open" to debate or truth or proofs they are.

Watch out ... its coming to a school near you.

[Juan_Bottom]

You must have missed it...

My High School was very small. Our only Science teacher was also a vital member of the community church... He failed those of us who weren't christians...

He had Bible studies in his classroom during lunch hour...

And for every science he taught our class, he would also teach the bible's version. Our tests would have a butt-load of "bonus questions" on them. 50 about Evolution, for example, and 50 bonuses about Creationism.

I was nearly flunked out of school, and had to take correspondance courses. I couldn't get anyone to stand up for us. We had a Jehovah's Witness in our grade, but her parents just switched her school.

I hate that guy.

[PLAYER57832]

:lol: You must have missed it...

My High School was very small. Our only Science teacher was also a vital member of the community church... He failed those of us who weren't christians...

He had Bible studies in his classroom during lunch hour...

And for every science he taught our class, he would also teach the bible's version. Our tests would have a butt-load of "bonus questions" on them. 50 about Evolution, for example, and 50 bonuses about Creationism.

I was nearly flunked out of school, and had to take correspondance courses. I couldn't get anyone to stand up for us. We had a Jehovah's Witness in our grade, but her parents just switched her school.


I hate that guy.

Now I remember, actually.

Don't waste your time hating that guy, though. It will burn you up inside without touching him in the least. (much easier said that done! ... I know!)

If its a public school, You could contact the ACLU, but if its not a public school, there is not much anybody can do. If it is a public school, you would either have to be in that school still or somehow currently harmed (unable to get into College or get a job due to poor grades, for example). And you would have had to have kept all your exams, etc. If you do know anyone else there, you might suggest that course of action to them.

Other than that, learn real science well and pass it on as much as you can. AND you might try writing your congressman and state officials, if they are not Creationist.

[Juan_Bottom]

He doesn't teach anymore. He got sick and both of his legs were removed. The School District also had enough of parents complaining, and took that step out of the dark ages... only they waited till after I graduated . The trouble I had trying to get him removed before was that the community protected him. And It was a public school.

Now my problem is people like Borg running amuck. And I will meet them, everytime. And though I was quite condesending with him/her, I still gave 'em a chance to correct his/her errors. Should I shout them down? I have always been of the opinion that the only way to change a body's mind is through earnest conversation.