What do you mean 'making sure they're aware of opposing points of view'? You mean, making sure they're aware of viewpoints you personally reject? I'm sure it's difficult to present your viewpoint and opposing viewpoints, without sounding biased and encouraging them to adopt your own personal position.
Re your eldest, I think some do RE as an exam subject because it's considered easier than others! And if there's teachers who teach RE who reject the concept of a god, I'm sure they're plenty who study it who also reject it!
What about 'healthy debate' over something which has an alternative explanation? Comparing the existence of God and discussing the origin and development of the universe, is not on a par with discussing 'purple unicorns'. There's a wealth of evidence suggesting an alternative viewpoint on the Answers In Genesis website. Yes, you can reject that and maintain your own conclusion, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence suggesting the alternative viewpoint? Likewise, I think most of 'you guys will never be happy (nothing will persuade you)'. And I also think discussing such things on forums is often fruitless. I also seem to often get the impression that '(as ever) you guys just put your hands over your ears and repeat the same old mantra'. While I disagree with you, I respect that you're entitled to your opinion, and am all for it being presented alongside creationism!
What about the wealth of evidence on, for example, the AIG webpage. Because you disagree with their conclusion, do you conclude they've 'no evidence' and take no interest in at least considering why they're concluding what they do, and relegate it to 'just a guy with a magic wand and no evidence to support this whatsoever'?
I'm sure you don't just look to adopt the position of whoever has the highest credentials. Just because someone is dead, doesn't discredit their views. Just because someone isn't a specialist in a certain field, doesn't discredit their views. Why is there a need to conclude that these scientists are 'lunatics'? What about the ones who don't predate Dawin, anyway. You're saying there that even if creationist scientists outnumbered scientists who believed in evolution, we must have regressed back to 'some religious dark age'? You mean, you believe as fact that ever-changing science is conclusive proof there's no God? OK, you've got experience and concluded nothing makes senes without evolution. Because I studied Computer Science and Mathematics, am I not entitled to come to a conclusion myself based on what others more read than me believe? That includes what evolutions say, as well as creationists.
BelfastRich, I think I've read most of the comments nested comments between this thread and the 2 other recent ones on creation. Sorry that you thought I was getting at you, I didn't mean that. My genuine apology for the misunderstanding and not being clearer. But to me, it does seem in reading many of the comments various people are posting, that Trevor, for example, is being attacked personally, for example, someone assumed he was 'uneducated'. Others do seem to be expecting him to write something, and see him not doing so as some sort of cop-out. I think it always species if a letter is submitted by email, for example, Lisa Charles' from Friday's letter. I know Pastor Trevor is familiar with email. I also know that many people aren't subscribed to and don't use forums, that doesn't mean they're not 'new fangled' enough to use email!
Yeah I did. I read stuff online all the time that I consider, it maybe influences my opinion on something, but I don't just adopt it, and Ken Ham wasn't suggesting that people just believe what's on AIG. He was pointing people to further resources. What's strange about that?
I'm pleased to hear that. Sometimes I get the impression that those who disagree with the creationist viewpoint won't even present it at all to their children. You said they were 'exposed' to it. In what way? I don't have kids yet, but when I do, while I obviously want to be an influence on them, I also want to encourage them from as early an age as possible to think for themselves.
I suggested the pastor might not read the BT online and reads the letters, in the hard edition, in which case he doesn't read and respond to comments here. Replying to him on this forum, on which we don't know if he has an account or not, and expecting a response, and then concluding that he's hiding and ignoring comments, I don't think is logical. I know how a forum works, thanks. I do think it would be helpful to make comments graciously, and politely, and it's possible to do that while disagreeing. I don't see a need to attack people personally and make jokes about them, it doesn't seem very mature.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Brainchild