Evolution on "trial" in Kansas

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
...How far away from Montreal is Ontario?

hijack

Ontario is a province. To get right to the border, it may only take you about an hour.

Montreal to Ottawa is about 3 hours and Montreal to Toronto is about 7 hours.

/hijack

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
hijack

Ontario is a province. To get right to the border, it may only take you about an hour.

Montreal to Ottawa is about 3 hours and Montreal to Toronto is about 7 hours.

/hijack

That's right, I knew that!! I wasn't thinking. I will actually be in Ottawa in July so I'm looking forward to seeing different parts of the country!

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
I'm moving to Montreal! I'm so excited! It's a long stinking way from home, but it'll be a great experience. HAHA you are going to love this, I'm actually going up there to do some missionary-type work. There is a missionary in Montreal that our church supports. I am going to help their church start a private school (I'm a teacher). As I mentioned earlier, it's probably a good thing for me to be getting out of the public school system! How far away from Montreal is Ontario?

Going to the "City of Churches" (sorry, old nickname) for missionary work?

Montreal to Quebec City or Ottawa are nice passable day (if you leave early enough) or weekend trips... both are a blast during the summer. If your in Ottawa during July, look into the Government's Experimental Farm across the canal from Carleton - should be Tulip Festival; the Market's always busy... and of course check out the Changing of the Guard and the Governor General's House (I used to be one of the guys in the red jacket and black fur hat ) - if you go to the GG's take the time to wander the grounds and toru the house - don't just stop at the gate and take pictures of the Guards or the PM's house across the street. Quebec City during the summer is also great - stick to the Old City and you'll feel like your in Northern France - with the language, architecture, art & antique chops, cafes, and relaxed attitude.

One thing to get used to in Canada is that everyone discusses distance in time not actual distance - driving, flight, train, walking, etc. (as evidenced by Lady Pi Phi's answer)

Finally come dressed for the heat - the summer is hot up here too... and can be very humid.

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by RACooper
Going to the "City of Churches" (sorry, old nickname) for missionary work?

If your in Ottawa during July, look into the Government's Experimental Farm across the canal from Carleton - should be Tulip Festival; the Market's always busy... .

Umm, the Tulip Festival's in May. Going on right now, actually.

www.tulipfestival.ca

Originally posted by RACooper
Going to the "City of Churches" (sorry, old nickname) for missionary work?

Montreal to Quebec City or Ottawa are nice passable day (if you leave early enough) or weekend trips... both are a blast during the summer. If your in Ottawa during July, look into the Government's Experimental Farm across the canal from Carleton - should be Tulip Festival; the Market's always busy... and of course check out the Changing of the Guard and the Governor General's House (I used to be one of the guys in the red jacket and black fur hat ) - if you go to the GG's take the time to wander the grounds and toru the house - don't just stop at the gate and take pictures of the Guards or the PM's house across the street. Quebec City during the summer is also great - stick to the Old City and you'll feel like your in Northern France - with the language, architecture, art & antique chops, cafes, and relaxed attitude.

One thing to get used to in Canada is that everyone discusses distance in time not actual distance - driving, flight, train, walking, etc. (as evidenced by Lady Pi Phi's answer)

Finally come dressed for the heat - the summer is hot up here too... and can be very humid.

Thanks for the advice!! I've heard it's just beautiful and I can not wait to see the sights and especially all the old cathedrals. I don't know if you can really call what I will be doing missionary work. Our church supports a missionary in Montreal and I will be helping his church start a private school. So, not really evangelical type work....but it should be great.

[ADPi Conniebama]

Originally posted by valkyrie
I don't know if this is going way too far out on a limb, but...

For those of you who believe in God -- what exactly IS God? Does God have a physical presence? Where is God?

I read your post, and realized I needed to do a little studying on how to answer your question properly. I came across this website that I personally found interesting.

http://www.carm.org/seek/God.htm

The question "Who is God?" is a good question. It is better than asking "What is God?" This is because God exists, created us, loves us, is concerned for our being, desires to provide for us, and sent the Son to redeem us. If we were to ask "What is God?" we might be tempted to say that God is the infinite being, the creator, a presence, or something like that. In some respect, this would be true. But the first question brings us closer to understanding more of who God really is in His character and His love for us as revealed in the Bible.

The Bible teaches us that in all existence, from all eternity, there has been and always will be only one God. God was never created, is completely loving, completely just, completely holy, completely merciful, and that He desires the best for us. God is holy and He can have nothing to do with sin as the Bible says, "His eyes are too pure to look upon evil," (Hab. 1:13). This does not mean that God cannot see what someone does that is wrong. It is a way of describing how holy God is. God cannot sin. He is perfect.

In Christianity, God is a Trinity. This means that God is three persons, not three gods. Technically, the doctrine of the Trinity states that in the one God is the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is not the same person is the other; yet there are not three gods but one. This is similar in analogy to the nature of time. Time is past, present, and future. The past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. But, there are not three times. There is only one thing called time.
_____________________

The website goes on further, but, I didn't want to go on and on.

Edited for spacing. Also, I can't spell.

[Tom Earp]

Just a question?

Who really gives a shit?

OMG, all of the do rightousness is killing me.

We are living, we do certain things that Animals cant. But Animals still screw and reproduce.

I dont peck some women I Would like to as Birds! Oh, would we lay eggs?

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by ADPi Conniebama
In Christianity, God is a Trinity. This means that God is three persons, not three gods. Technically, the doctrine of the Trinity states that in the one God is the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is not the same person is the other; yet there are not three gods but one. This is similar in analogy to the nature of time. Time is past, present, and future. The past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. But, there are not three times. There is only one thing called time.

I wanted to point out that this is a conservative position on God that is held by those (like me) who model themselves after the 1st century church. My response to valkyrie goes into a little more with the question.

BTW - I have much love for CARM!!!

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
Just a question?

Who really gives a shit?

OMG, all of the do rightousness is killing me.

We are living, we do certain things that Animals cant. But Animals still screw and reproduce.

I dont peck some women I Would like to as Birds! Oh, would we lay eggs?

Questions are being asked and answered in here. Do you have a question?

[honeychile]

I never saw carm.org before - def going to bookmark that for some reading! Thanks, Conniebama!!!!

Originally posted by Tom Earp
Just a question?

Who really gives a shit?

OMG, all of the do rightousness is killing me.

We are living, we do certain things that Animals cant. But Animals still screw and reproduce.

I dont peck some women I Would like to as Birds! Oh, would we lay eggs?

What an insightful contribution from our trusty moderator.

[damasa]

Originally posted by ADPi Conniebama
I am not arguing anything I am just stating for the last time. Public schools should not teach "theory" (or opinion) as FACT.
Public schools should not teach the "theory of evolution" as a scientific fact. The End.

AKA_Monet we all get it you are a scientist or a scientist wannabe. This thread does not lead me to "argue" with you about evolution. You have the right to believe what ever you want to believe, and study whatever you want to study. I respect your right to flex your scientific muscles on GC however you are arguing with yourself about, God knows what, when I was making a statement about how public schools shouldn't teach scientific theory vs scientific fact.

Your god wouldn't be proud of you trying to belittle another "creation" by using phrases such as "scientist wannabe." When someone doesn't take YOUR beliefs as FACT do you try to hurt them with words? You should pray, someone should pray for you, bad person you.

On a serious note, I have never ever heard of any public school teatching Evolution as "fact" as you seem to continue to go on and on about. When I was in school it was presented to me as "The Theory of Evolution." As it is in countless textbooks which are used in countless classrooms around the country. How does theory translate to fact?

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by damasa
On a serious note, I have never ever heard of any public school teatching Evolution as "fact" as you seem to continue to go on and on about. When I was in school it was presented to me as "The Theory of Evolution." As it is in countless textbooks which are used in countless classrooms around the country. How does theory translate to fact?

And, I appreciate that evolution is honestly called a theory. My concern is that it is considered the only valid theory when it is not. So, when evolution is taught alone, with no suggestion that it could be incorrect, the implication is that it is, indeed, fact.

[damasa]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
And, I appreciate that evolution is honestly called a theory. My concern is that it is considered the only valid theory when it is not. So, when evolution is taught alone, with no suggestion that it could be incorrect, the implication is that it is, indeed, fact.

If parents wish to have their children learn the "theory" of Creationism, they should send them to private school. If they can't afford it, teach it to them at home. Learn it in church....etc, etc.

I apprecaite your opinion but our public school system applies the study of sciences, not religions (to an almost certain extent). If we open the door to teaching creationism, we must also open the door to other theories.

Are we willing to spend the tax dollars needed to hire more teachers, expand schools and classrooms, purchase more textbooks, all of which would be required to adapt to such a change? I just don't see the vision.

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by damasa
If we open the door to teaching creationism, we must also open the door to other theories.

I'm not suggesting that evolution and creation be taught. Earlier in this thread, I commented that it would be useful and fair for textbooks to have just one chapter on origin theories - to include the most widely held theories, not only evolution and creation. I consider evolution to be as scientific as creation. Origin theories cannot be considered purely a matter of science.


ETA: There would be no considerable change in teaching. As for the cost of textbooks, the government already has a schedule for providing updates to textbooks. This addition would simply come at the next update.

My suggestion does not change the study of science, as I've pointed out before.

[ADPi Conniebama]

Originally posted by damasa
Your god wouldn't be proud of you trying to belittle another "creation" by using phrases such as "scientist wannabe." When someone doesn't take YOUR beliefs as FACT do you try to hurt them with words? You should pray, someone should pray for you, bad person you.

On a serious note, I have never ever heard of any public school teatching Evolution as "fact" as you seem to continue to go on and on about. When I was in school it was presented to me as "The Theory of Evolution." As it is in countless textbooks which are used in countless classrooms around the country. How does theory translate to fact?

1st - I always find it interesting that people judge me more then God judges me. I am just a "rotten" sinner saved by grace.

2nd - I had no idea what your career choice was and for all I knew/know you are just a scientist wannabe. Just because people use some scientific words doesn't mean they are a scientist. I am a restaurant owner and a millionaire wannabe. So, please don't take offense to anything I might or might not say. (As I am sure you didn't) However, anyone can pray for me anytime they want, cause, I need it.

A school or program doesn't have to say "Evolution is a fact" to teach it as fact. For instance. I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, when they stated something like - Paleozoic era - 300 million years ago amphibians and first reptiles on roamed the land. They didn't say "some scientist believe that . . . . " They just made the statement as fact. How is that OK? (scientifically speaking). I am not asking them to read Genesis to public school kids I am saying that they should "effectively" teach an unproven theory as such.

[damasa]

Originally posted by ADPi Conniebama
1st - I always find it interesting that people judge me more then God judges me. I am just a "rotten" sinner saved by grace.

2nd - I had no idea what your career choice was and for all I knew/know you are just a scientist wannabe. Just because people use some scientific words doesn't mean they are a scientist. I am a restaurant owner and a millionaire wannabe. So, please don't take offense to anything I might or might not say. (As I am sure you didn't) However, anyone can pray for me anytime they want, cause, I need it.

A school or program doesn't have to say "Evolution is a fact" to teach it as fact. For instance. I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, when they stated something like - Paleozoic era - 300 million years ago amphibians and first reptiles on roamed the land. They didn't say "some scientist believe that . . . . " They just made the statement as fact. How is that OK? (scientifically speaking). I am not asking them to read Genesis to public school kids I am saying that they should "effectively" teach an unproven theory as such.

I can assure you that I'm not a scientist or a scientist wannabe. But the context you said that in sure didn't seem to come off as "maybe you are trying to be a scientist" but more like "flex your muscles you big bad scientist you." But I could truly care either way, I just wanted to poke at you.


Regarding evolution and fact, again, I have never been told by any teacher in any school that this theory is indeed being taught as fact. Im' sure it could be taught as fact, if one so believed, just as much as certain people believe creationism is "fact."

I mean, if I think Santa Claus is real, or the Tooth Fairy is real, or that Big Bird is a real, seven foot tall, bright yellow bird, that would be fact to me. In my experience, more people that believe the theory of creationism believe it as fact, while certain others may view evolution as fact, many that I have known still approach it as an "unproven theory."

We could get into deep philosophy, epistemology , or even the metaphysical but I think certain people would be lost. And I'd rather drink the beer I just bought.

Toodles!

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ADPi Conniebama
A school or program doesn't have to say "Evolution is a fact" to teach it as fact. For instance. I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, when they stated something like - Paleozoic era - 300 million years ago amphibians and first reptiles on roamed the land. They didn't say "some scientist believe that . . . . " They just made the statement as fact. How is that OK? (scientifically speaking). I am not asking them to read Genesis to public school kids I am saying that they should "effectively" teach an unproven theory as such.

Woah... hold on... the Discovery Channel talking about amphibians and reptiles 300 MYA would be discussing other sciences - Geology & Physics... so now those sciences in addition to Evolutionary Theory are now in question? Is all science questionable because it may contridict Bibilical scriptures? Talking about creatures living 300 MYA involves Nuclear Physics - radiological dating; Geology - the dating and age of rocks in which discoverys have been found, stratification.

[KSig RC]

Let's change focus for a minute . . .


Can anyone provide physical and scientific evidence AGAINST evolution?

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Let's change focus for a minute . . .


Can anyone provide physical and scientific evidence AGAINST evolution?

The problem is that the same evidence that supports macroevolution/microevolution supports creation/adaptation. We have to remember that this line of study is fairly recent in the whole scheme of things. It's not that people before us were gullible idiots...

I find it very interesting that so many Initiated Creation stories are so similar.