Boy, what kind of "physics" they teach? Physics of resurrection? How to turn water into wine? Physics of Adam creation? Of partenogenesis?Physical nature of God(s)? Which physics laws He obeys and which does not? Superluminal management of all civilizations in Universe at qnce? Bending dimensions at will? Quantum consciouseness?

Rich, faith (accepting unproven) and knowledge (accumulating information about proven) are mutually exclusive. If you know how evolution works, you do not need Adam. If you do not know, you have two choices - to learn, or to accept Adam. Because learning requires work (reading, homeworks, etc =is hard) and sometimes some intellectual capacity (not everyone who enter college graduates), I may understand why some people accepted Adam.

I contacted a few scholars and educators occasionally, and my impression was that good scholars/professors are not good believers (to tell the truth, I know NONE of even medium-strength believers among them - most of them are either atheists, or say: well, I do not know much about certain subject (say, Big Bang, or evolution)- and may be there is "something unexplainable" there. But a few years ago I met a few good believers who taught or did some research - and guess what?-they were not good scientists/teachers, because they had huge gaps in their education - they did not know where physics laws come from, or how species evolve, how stars work, how genes work/evolve, why the probability of order is much less than the probability of disorder, etc etc. And everything THEY did not know, they attributed to God(s). Strange that they seem did not like to listen to somebody explaining them how things work.

I can not proudly say that I graduated college or university. In fact, most of my education came from reading.

What I may recall about my teachers - none of them needed God(s) to explain things. And always their explanations were logical and consize: here is the equation, and there is the solution, thus the phenomenon goes this and this way, and there are no other solutions, thus it can not go that way.

Sometimes they did not know the answer, and in this case they said: I am not a specialist in this particular field, so I can not say anything because I do not have enough knowledge about this subject - you should answer experts in this field.

So, I am very sorry that you did not have a choice to get better teachers.

• Alexander, You know are rated at the level of Jisbond!!! - richard - February 3, 2001 - 03:14 UTC
  • Who cares about rating here? - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 04:06 UTC
    • a word to the wise, if i may - gwynj - February 3, 2001 - 21:50 UTC
      • Of course, it is easier to read Bible than to learn. - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 23:33 UTC
        • to clarify - gwynj - February 4, 2001 - 02:07 UTC
• Oh, come on, now. - stormcrow - February 3, 2001 - 03:29 UTC
  • Adam and evolution? This is something new. - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 04:29 UTC
    • Re: Adam and evolution? This is something new. - stormcrow - February 3, 2001 - 04:35 UTC
      • Re: Re: Adam and evolution? This is something new. - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 05:32 UTC
        • Re: Re: Re: Adam and evolution? This is something new. - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 05:54 UTC
          • Re: Re: Re: Re: Adam and evolution? This is something new. - stormcrow - February 3, 2001 - 12:13 UTC
          • maybe if put this way - gwynj - February 3, 2001 - 16:33 UTC
            • Re: maybe if put this way - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 19:17 UTC
              • Re: Re: maybe if put this way - gwynj - February 3, 2001 - 20:13 UTC
                • Reading the Holy Bible, I found the following: - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 22:17 UTC
                  • Re: Reading the Holy Bible, I found the following: - gwynj - February 4, 2001 - 01:59 UTC
                    • Lack of knowledge is good? - alexander - February 4, 2001 - 03:29 UTC
                      • Let's start with The Basics, ok? - gwynj - February 4, 2001 - 14:39 UTC