Yes, it's "submission". Also, "subjecting" as Alex used it (again it's rare, but accurate) means "to present for consideration; submit". I wouldn't exactly consider it any more forceful than "submission" which reminds me of MMA holds... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by TheMetatron
Yes, thank-you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetatron
From my Thesaurus;Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
subjection
noun
subjugation, domination, oppression, mastery, repression, suppression.
That's why you don't use a thesaurus to define words :)Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
subject:
In my thesaurus, "submission" has "subjection" as an option. Subject is listed as well under submit...
- "submit: refer for judgment or consideration; "The lawyers submitted the material to the court"
- rare to present for consideration; submit
Creationism has no evidence credible in the scientific community. Creationism and/or intelligent design are not science and do not belong in any science class.
With the USA's despicably poor levels of public education, this poll is as unsurprising as it is sad.
Evolution as a means of creation is totally unsupported as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by markevens
I'm not saying that evolution does not exist, but there is no evidence of "evolution as a means of creation."
There has never been one documented event of life coming from non-life. To belive that life just somehow began, without any intervention from some form of life is taking "faith" to a new level. To do so is throwing out every observed event of life coming into this world, and assert that while it has never happened before, life just somehow "popped" into existence.
Even Richard Dawkins admits this:
YouTube - Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
Matt
Matt, while I am on your side on this your post begs the question: Where did God come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith. And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.
....AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Evolution addresses how species change over time -- not how the first organisms arose. It certainly explains the "creation" of modern species (e.g. humans), but not the creation of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
In any event, the Gallup poll was mentioned in the OP with regard to the fact that 40% of the respondents believed "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". This is the "Strict Creationism" referenced in the article's title, and it's what is entirely at odds with evolution (and science in general).
The fact that science hasn't this far been able to prove how life was actually started leaves no room for beliefs of any kind. There are only several theories to study and test and maybe science will some day show us how it happened (this is a question of believe of course:). This far science has been always able to do so. It is mostly religions that are so quick to offer the God of their choice as an explanation when there is something we don't really know yet. I do not think that science would try to show that life just popps here and there. Not by itself or snapping of somebodys fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Now science will not include/exclude any divine interventions unless there are facts that such thing exists. This far there hasn't been need to do so. Now believing something we don't physically know is ok of course if it makes life better, but with the contest of the OP teaching something as a truth when there really is no any fact to support such thing is, how to say, not so good idea.
This is a bit confusing as in my language there are different verb for believing something that can be physically explained (my car, public transport or my wife etc) and different for believing something divine or supernatural. In my point of the view this conversation has been very much like that (with all respects not you but in general):)