[Help me get it done...Family of 7 with babies]

The first thing I would do if I were you is the meal planning. For me, having to think about what to eat every day - I mean really think and wonder and decide about what I have on hand, etc. - is very stressful. It helps me very, very much to make out a two week schedule of what we are going to eat every day for dinner at least. That way I know what to shop for and don't overspend at the grocery store, I know what to take out of the freezer the night before, and I feel calm heading into the afternoon knowing early on what I plan to prepare for dinner. After doing this for several weeks, I just rotate the meals. Often, I will look at the plan and decide I don't feel like making what I planned so If switch out the meals, but I eventually end up making all the ones on my two-week plan.

 

I tried to use MOTH, too and it left me feeling more stressed. Not sure why, but I just couldn't keep up with it.

 

What I suggest is to just make a general outline of what you want to do and in what order. I like the idea at Large Family Logistics of picking a day to concentrate on one area of the house/your life. Monday, do the laundry. Tuesday, focus on the kitchen. Here, my daughter teaches piano to a few students on Thursday afternoons, so Thursday mornings are for straightening the front rooms and cleaning the bathrooms. We vacuum then too. Once a week is all we can manage right now. If someone else comes over on another day, we do a quick clean up, run the vacuum and wipe down the bathroom sink.

 

I have also designated chores to specific children. I was listening to Michelle Duggar on this topic (Tea with Michelle Duggar DVD that a friend gave me) and she uses the word jurisdictions, not chores. That seemed odd to me and I bristled at it, but I like it now. It means that each child is responsible for certain area or task and it is more like being in charge of it than having to do work. Does that make sense? It gives the children the idea that they are being depended on, they are needed. Your 14yo can do the heavy work - stuff like taking out trash, vacuuming, mopping floors. Your 11yo and 8yo can sort laundry and get it through the cycles of washing and drying. Everyone can help fold.

 

You have a toddler and an infant. Please know that you are in the trenches. These are the most difficult years. Do not expect much more than what I've already mentioned as far as housework goes. Don't worry about changing the sheets every single week or making sure the beds are made or having all the toys put away in the bedrooms. Every once in a while set the timer and have your 3 oldest race to see how much they do in their rooms for say 15 minutes. Then sit down and just be glad for what got done and maybe enjoy a few minutes with a snack and a read-aloud. It will get easier, the older they get.

 

When your meals and your house are somewhat in order and you've established a flow of sorts, then you can turn your attention to the schoolwork. Again, plan a very simple schedule and just work on doing one thing after the other - not necessarily on a timed schedule. Do math first, then writing, then reading. Take a break for lunch and then do history and science. If you don't get to history or science or art or p.e. don't stress about it. The main thing (for me, anyway) is that my children are learning to be obedient, dependable, kind, caring individuals. Of course, I want all the academic stuff too, but not at the expense of relationships. I've always thought of homeschooling as family-centered education. I want to build up my family and build strong relationships with each one. I want them to learn to be patient with each other, kind and forgiving. I want them to learn that they need God's grace to do these things and to depend on Him and ask Him for His grace to be the kind of person He wants them to be. Academics have always been secondary.

 

I just read an article in the HSLDA magazine by Mike Farris (he has a very large family, too) and he stressed that math and language were the main areas to concentrate on. They are two different kind of languages that should be mastered (as much as you can) by the time they finish high school. Anything other than that is icing on the cake. History and Science can be just reading for now. I'm guessing you are concerned for your 14yo as he is in high school and you probably feel like now it really counts and you need to be more demanding and hold him more accountable. I understand that because I have a 15yo and I feel like that myself. I have gotten my son to plan his own schoolwork, do it fairly independently and check his own work. He is weak in math and science so I monitor those pretty closely. I also have him write as often as I can.

 

Focus on your 11yo for now and just try to keep him up to speed on math and language. I know grammar is big here on these boards and that many use what I would call rigorous grammar programs, but in your situation I might skip grammar for now (save it for middle school) and just concentrate on writing a clear sentence and then work up to a paragraph. Susan Bradrick, in Understanding Writing, recommends spending the 7th or 8th grade year just on the study of grammar. If I were you, I would just have your 11yo write letters to friends and family, write description paragraphs and process paragraphs. The thought that goes into any of those three things is plenty for an 11yo to be doing.

 

I also heard (not sure where) that when your children are not the most obedient, focus on the younger ones. Train them to obey (I spanked and I know you're not keen on that), but it can be done lovingly and redemptively and does not need to include anger in any way. It can be done very calmly as a way of teaching and training a child to listen to you and obey you. If spanking is out of the question, you must find a way to make sure your word is obeyed. In any case, put your energies into your youngest children and hopefully the olders will catch on. It is easier to train younger children so you will gain a sense of accomplishment if you can get them on the right track.

 

I'm sorry about your marriage troubles. I've been married 25 years and one thing I can tell you is that marriage is difficult no matter what anyone tells you. It's just a hard thing to put two people together, with their quirks and differences and sin natures, and not have to put up with some grief and sorrow and disappointment along the way. When I'm feeling like things are stressed between my dh and myself, after I get over the feeling of injustice and get past my pouting, I get out my Bible and read I Cor. 13. It's very tempting to then think of how dh should be loving me this way, lol, but I try to push those thoughts out of my mind and just consider that my dh needs to be loved too. Love transforms people. Just keep loving him, overlook his faults, be patient, and most of all forgiving. We spend most of our lives just forgiving others and being forgiven by them. None of us can escape it. If we do not forgive, we become bitter, angry people and that spills out on others (our children most especially) and so any feelings of being ill used or not appreciated or whatever need to be laid aside. I think marriage is where we learn best how to die to ourselves and where God shapes us into the image of Christ the best. It is very hard - sometimes it feels unbearable, but God will give you the grace. Cast all your cares on Him for He cares for you.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[Tired of the same old gifts? Need some humorous or unique ideas?]

These are great! I love the nose soap dispenser.:D

 

My doctor has a tissue dispenser in her waiting room that looks like a face - you pull the tissues out through one of the nostrils. Kind of makes you feel like its already been used.:tongue_smilie:

[Baby pics]

Not to be too repetitive, but you have a beautiful family. They ooze with sweetness.

[Any YEC have children entering natural science fields?]

Sorry about that! I figured I wouldn't get all of those links correct!

 

Here is the link for Part 3. I also fixed it in the quote in this post and I will go back and repair it in previous posts I made, as well.

 

Thank you!:)

[Any YEC have children entering natural science fields?]

Derivation of the Universal Force Law - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - The derivation of a new universal force law based on Ampere's Law, Faraday's Law, Gauss's Law, Lenz's Law and Lorentz's Law. This universal force law is expected to predict the behavior of all entities in the universe at all scales, something that Einstein endeavored to do but did not achieve before his death.

 

RegGuheert, I can't get Part 3 to download. I've tried messing with the URL but still no success.

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.:)

[Any YEC have children entering natural science fields?]

I think Apologia is fine for a transcript since textbooks are not included on transcripts. They are decent textbooks for fulfilling the high-school science requirements. (OTOH, MomsintheGarden informs me that this may not be true for California schools. She also says that some colleges will request textbook lists to accompany transcripts.)

 

That said, we do not feel they go beyond that level. In other words, they do not seem satisfactory for AP preparation for students who want to get through some of their college-level science early. For instance, in high school DS21 used Apologia Chemistry for both Level 1 and Level 2 but he only achieved a 3 on his Chemistry AP, which was not high enough to place out of it. By contrast, DD18 used Apologia Chemistry 1 followed by Zumdahl and got a 5 on her Chemistry AP. (Please note that this is not at all a fair comparison, since DD18 has an unbelievable memory and is really quite advanced in chemistry. DS21 is a great student, but his strengths lie in problem solving rather than memorization.) IMO, Zumdahl is an absolutely fabulous chemistry textbook. I was absolutely floored by the massive amount of application information found in the beautiful sidebars with nice, color pictures. For instance, one of the sidebars discussed some detailed information about how semiconductor physics works. That was information I didn't learn until my third year in electrical engineering!

 

I will say that I am more than a little bit annoyed that Jay Wile will not include the new physical model for the atom in his chemistry curriculum. He believes that the "magnetic pinch effect" does not exist. I assume he may be limiting his thinking to Maxwell's equations, which include the same faulty point approximation for charges that hinders so many other models in physics. As a result, he is missing the opportunity to get a jump on educating a new generation to a model that has many benefits over the currently-popular model.

 

Where can I learn more about this new physical model for the atom? Forgive me if you already addressed this question in a previous post.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

Well, clearly you aren't explaining it very well if so many people are not understanding it. You may want to try again. I think there may be a few people in the bleachers you have not offended.

 

And saying having a moral code that is not based on your concept of Christianity cannot co-exist with an acceptance of evolution just makes no sense. What the heck does that even mean? What do you know about evolution? What do you know about anyone's moral code and how they apply it?

 

So, if one is a fundamentalist christian with a pre-scientific worldview who does not accept evolution one has the right to stand in judgment of others and tell them that their behavior is good or bad? But, if one is not a fundamentalist christian with a pre-scientific worldview then one must accept the bad behavior of others with no comment? Because an acceptance of evolution means that we have ceded any right to expect good behavior from others and hold them accountable for their actions?

 

What?

 

OK, I just tried to clarify in my last post which you hadn't had the opportunity to read when you posted this.

 

I take objection to your term "pre-scientific." Technically, if God created the world then He is the Author of science and there is nothing in the Bible that has been refuted by science - not observable science anyway. I really don't want to get into that - it's just that I want to make it clear that I don't agree with creationism being unscientific. Of course, I realize you don't believe that God created the world so it's probably not worth going back and forth over. I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other.

 

I'm hoping that I'm not holding anyone to my version of Christianity or my version of anything. Obviously, I have to have some beliefs that I call my own about the Bible. My pastor says that it is a good thing we have different denominations - he thinks it is God's way of keeping man humble and continually searching the scriptures. I do think the moral code found in the Bible is the correct one. I realize that Christians can disagree on that here and there, too. Some Christians believe the death penalty is fine; others believe it breaks the commandment not to kill. I get that there are differing viewpoints even among Christians. I will only say that all of us (Christians, that is) need to keep going back to scripture and reading it carefully and praying for the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. We are fallen creatures - our minds and hearts are fallen as well - we will not know all there is to know until we are in Heaven. (Now we see through a glass darkly; then face to face. I Cor. 13 near the end.) What I am holding up as the standard is not my version of anything, but hopefully I am pointing folks to the Word of God - the Bible.

 

ETA: I just realized I did not address your question, What do you know about evolution? Well, I admit I haven't read Darwin's Origin of the Species, but I was taught all though school and college from an evolutionary viewpoint. All the PBS specials and other cable tv channels that cover animals, origins, etc. teach it. Like I said before, I took Biology 101 in a state college (James Madison University) and a science methods course for elementary education, both of which were taught by firm believers in evolution - the methods professor was almost militant about it. I know that the basic premise is that all of life formed from non-life. First small one-celled beings existed and then gradually over millions (billions?) of years all the life forms we see today evolved to their present states of being. This evolution was not purposed by any mind - it occurred by pure chance and that is why it needed so many millions of years to happen. The beings (I'm trying not to call them creatures) or organisms, if you will, somehow "knew" what adaptations they needed so they gradually adapted to accommodate these needs and became the reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, humans, insects, and other organisms (thinking now of molds, paramecium, bacteria, etc.) that are on the planet today. Is that basically it?

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

I didn't mean to imply that evolutionists are to blame for the students' behavior or the other scandalous behavior. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior. I guess that is what I have been missing in all of these replies. Sorry. Perhaps I should have said that it is possible for someone to reach the conclusion that every man can choose what's right and wrong for himself if he has been brought up to believe in evolution - that he is just an animal. Isn't that the way biology textbooks classify man - a primate? an animal? I took biology in college in 1980 (state school - not Christian) and I'm pretty sure that's what it said. What I meant was it doesn't surprise me that if someone gets taught that line of thinking all their lives, it seems reasonable to conclude that we can all make up what we think is right and wrong. It's possible those students just see themselves as the product of time and chance with no moral restraints. And if that's true for them, then it's true for everyone else as well, including the folks involved in the scandal.

 

Someone else pointed out that there were many students who did not agree with the rioters - I haven't looked at the news reports this evening but I think someone here said that. I imagine these students, too, were brought up to believe evolution is true (at least the vast majority of them anyway). So there is evidence that they did not reach that same conclusion, just as many of the the theistic evolutionists and athiests here did not reach that conclusion. I know you have a moral code - your posts reveal that. What puzzles me is why. I can't help that it puzzles me - it sincerely does. It's even more puzzling to me that those who have a moral code seem to have reached a general consensus on what that moral code is.

 

If we all evolve as individuals (and we do according to evolution, right?) then how did we all come up with the same general moral principles (give or take a few)? Doesn't anyone else find that puzzling? Even an evolutionist ought to find that interesting and worth searching out.

 

I may just be a simple minded person - I'll grant that's certainly a possibility. I was only trying to state an answer to the OP's question. See, I'm so simple minded it never occurred to me that it might be a rhetorical question. I really have been musing on this all day. Someone posted about it on facebook yesterday (the scandal) and it just made me wonder about where atheists get the idea of morals if they think we're just evolved over millions years, by chance (see, that's the biggie for me - if it's all chance then how can you be sure you evolved correctly and that your morals are the right ones?). It didn't (and, sorry, it still doesn't) make sense to me.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

and I don't want you or your bible defining it for me. And I don't want you 'defining' me at all. You don't know me. Yet, you judge why I make the decisions I do.

 

I thought we could have something in common, feeling sadness at the misguided actions of those students who are letting their passion for a game cloud their judgement.

Instead, I get told because I am not a christian I have no moral compass and the teachings of science bring about the abuse of children.

 

So, I guess that means we don't get to stand side by side in sadness over what has happened, because you have decided that I am a part of the problem.

 

Well, now that I know what you think of people who think differently than you, I guess I am ok with that.

 

Please tell me where I said that. I do not believe I did. I think it's obvious that if someone is appalled by the men involved in this scandal and these particular students' response to it, they certainly do have a moral compass. I think I've stated that many, many times in several different posts. I am simply amazed at how many people have missed my point entirely. What confuses me is how can someone who believes man is only a more evolved life form than animals can also say he has a moral code as well? I believe you have one. I just don't think that having a moral code - especially if you are going to hold others to your moral code, thereby making it some kind of universal moral code - is compatible with the theory of evolution.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

I didn't realise it was a response to the question as 1) I took the question as rhetorical and 2) her response seemed more like using the situation to create a soapbox...thus dividing people that are all equally appalled on the issues at Penn State.

 

Well, I can only say that you are wrong about why I said what I did. I did not intend to insult anyone, I did not see the opportunity to create a soapbox, I was not trying to divide people. I read the title to the post and actually have been thinking about those students all day after reading the headlines. I truly believe what's wrong with those students is exactly what I stated in my first post and was simply stating my perspective and opinion. I don't understand why that is seen as some kind of problem. Folks are certainly allowed to disagree - I have no problem with that. I certainly expected it. I realize there are many differing viewpoints on this board. Am I not entitled to mine?

 

As to insulting people. Well, the way I see it people can choose to be insulted or not. I have no control over that. I am not going to tiptoe around what I believe to be true to avoid offending people. I am not the type to be politically correct and worry about everyone's feelings. Many people read my post and completely misunderstood it and were insulted. I have tried in several posts to correct that misunderstanding. I'm not insulted or hurt that a lot of you here do not agree with me. That's to be expected on a public forum. Isn't that what the Greeks did in ancient times? Discuss ideas, put ideas out there to discuss and consider?

 

From my vantage point it seems that it's okay to have an opinion here as long as it's acceptable to everyone here. Sorry, I can't do that. I have my opinion. Take it or leave it. I imagine most of you will leave it. That's fine. But I do believe I'm entitled to it nonetheless. I suggest that if you find that you are insulted it is because you misread my post. If you truly think you got it and are still insulted please forgive me - it was completely unintentional.

 

I am only stating what I believe to be true according to my beliefs based on the Bible. I have no problem with others differing with me. But I do believe I have the right to state what I think is true.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

I read your posts several times and am still stunned by what you've written. Believing in evolution (with or without a belief in God) does not preclude having a moral code. You seem to assume that evolutionists don't or can't also believe in God.

 

I realize in your belief system this may be the prevalent belief. As a Christian who was married in the RCC, is raising my kids in the RCC, and is deeply immersed in RC teachings and beliefs (to say nothing of my own beliefs) I catagorically reject the thought that having a moral code depends on rejecting evolutionary theory (using the scientific meaning of the term). I believe to do so limits God.

 

I think you are misunderstanding me - not sure. You said not believing in God does not preclude having a moral code. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I don't think I said that. What I was trying to say is that many people who say they do not believe in God actually do have a moral code. But when asked what they base that moral code on, they really have no way to do that. They betray that there must be some standard - an objective standard outside of all of mankind's mind - that is the basis for a moral code.

 

I think perhaps you (and others who are Christians but who believe in evolutionary theory) haven't quite thought it all the way through. Books have been written about this topic so I don't think I can adequately address it here, but I will just get the ball rolling with this idea.

 

If theistic evolution were true, then many, many living organisms had to die before man came on the scene. That means that death entered the universe and world long before Adam and Eve (or if you prefer, mankind in general, if you think of Adam and Eve metaphorically or symbolically). Theologically speaking that means that death was already a fact of life (sorry, no joke intended there) and that the whole idea of man sinning and falling from God's grace (literally or metaphorically) and thereby bringing suffering and death into the world is moot. If the fact that sin does not cause death is no longer tue than we do not need a Savior. If we do not need a Savior, then we do not need Christ and we do not need Christianity.

 

However, if God really did create man on the 6th day of creation and all of creation up to and including that point was good, even very good, according to scripture then there were no eons of years filled with death. Death was a consequence of Adam's and Eve's rebelliion against God's one simple command in the Garden of Eden and the first death happened after mankind was on earth - it was the death of Abel. If our sin causes suffering and death and separates us from a Holy God, then we do need a Savior. We need someone who can save us from the wages of sin - death.

 

I don't see how evolution and Christianity are compatible in any way just from examining that one aspect of the argument. There are many books out there that explain it much better than I can though and I encourage you to at least examine the topic. Don't take my word, or Ken Ham's or John Whitcomb's or any theistic evolutionists' word. Search the scriptures as the Bereans did to see whether or not these things be so.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

The greater societal good. Wishing to act in a way that, if passed around the world, you believe would make life more pleasant and rewarding. Call it all selfishness, I really don't care, but if you simply don't steal, rape, demonstrate roadrage, etc because you want the world to be a better place for YOU to live in, fine. It works for me and mine. I get to decide if something is actually good, rather than just getting from a book, whose teachings have deluded people over and over that not only are they right, but they are DIVINELY right. That scares me a lot more than sharing monkey-genes. :)

 

I'm sorry, but what you've said about non-creationists is an insult to many people. But as long as you are "right", perhaps that doesn't matter. Or perhaps it is part of why being "right" feels so great.

 

Define "greater societal good." Who decides what that is?

Define "a better place". Who decides what's better and what isn't?

 

Hitler thought the greater good was to put to death a lot of Jews, Gypsies, Christians, and others. He was wrong. He convinced a lot of people that he was right. I don't want just anyone defining the "greater good" for me.

 

What, particularly, did I say that was insulting to non-creationists?

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

Well, as I understand your mindset from your previous posts, I can totally see how you believe that.

 

But I don't see atheists (or anyone) as evil, having no morals, or without God.

 

Because when you DO see people like that, you are limiting God. You are saying that God can only be within good people, creationist believers, when, God saw the whole world and saw that it was good. Every person on this earth has the capacity to choose right from wrong, and to give and receive love. That, in and of itself, is God within them. Now, whether that person sees it as God within them is another matter, but that still doesn't limit who God is.

 

Sorry, I'll pick the big God over the little one, every day.

 

 

You seem to have missed my point too. I never said atheists are evil and have no morals. Actually, I said the opposite. I pointed out that most of the folks pointing the finger at these guys are evolutionists, are obviously outraged and appalled, but that if you take evolution at face value there is no reason to actually be appalled. I believe they are appalled. Please understand me. I believe they are appalled and have a moral standard. What I don't understand is why, based on the fact that man is just an organism that evolved over time and by chance can state without equivocation that some act by some other evolved being is right or wrong. What if their moral code differs from yours? Why can't it? Why is yours the right one and theirs is the wrong one?

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

Why do you think "evolutionists and atheists" don't have moral standards? Why do you think morality is limited to a specific religious interpretation of a book whose various meanings and interpretations have been debated for centuries (and continues to be debated by very educated, pious, religious people today)? Why does morality depend on believing in God? And, especially, how do you account for the *many* Christians who have no difficulty reconciling the scientific theory of evolution and their religious beliefs? I think you've overreached and done a grave disservice to many, many people.

 

Go back and read it again. I never said E's and A's don't have moral standards. My point was that they do, but that evolutionary thinking does not support a moral standard so there is a disconnect between believing in evolution and also having a moral code.

 

ETA: Just reading the last part of your post. For those Christians who have no trouble reconciling the theory of evolution and Christianity I can just say they haven't read their Bibles very carefully - perhaps they are just trying to keep the peace or not appear "uneducated" to unbelievers they know. I really couldn't say. The Bible clearly teaches that God created the world and everything in it - if they missed that they can find it out by going back and rereading Genesis, the gospels, and several of the Epistles where it is stated clearly.

 

If man is just evolved from lower life forms how can he even trust his "reason"? Why depend on the mind of man to get it right? Are these the same men who lose their car keys and can't remember what they had for dinner last night. I think basing a moral code on the tenable, fallible mind of evolved man is unreasonable.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

No, they do not require a higher authority to have morals. Man, as a being with reason (which developed through evolution), can choose to overcome his animal instincts and govern himself according to moral principles which originate from his thinking.

Kant's Categorical Imperativ ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law") for example can be the basis for a very strict moral code, originating from man's reasoning, requiring no higher being.

 

What moral principles? If each individual has his own moral principles how can we judge them? Aren't we each allowed to decide for ourselves what is moral then? Isn't that what these guys did? Kant's ideas may not be my idea. If I follow Kant's ideas, then he becomes "god" - the determiner of good and evil. I'm still not seeing it. Sorry.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

Really??? You want to get into each and every person's belief system, here and now? Not seeing where this is appropriate for this thread :confused:

 

Well, not really. OP asked what's wrong with the Penn State students. That was my take on it. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me. This is a public forum and that was my answer to the OP's question. If anyone cares to chime in, feel free. Isn't that what a forum is all about? Hearing what others have to say. Good grief.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

:iagree: I was shocked to read it, TBH.

I did not say that only Christians have any morality. Go back and read it again.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

I know you must be kidding, given the child brides of a certain LDS sect.

 

Not getting your point. Care to elaborate?

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

…now the atheists are just in denial? :001_huh:

 

If not, then why do you believe this behavior is appalling? What do you base that sense of right and wrong on?

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

This is beyond offensive and insulting, to both young people and non-Christians.

 

How do you explain all the good Bible-believing Christians standing behind Herman Cain after four women have come forth to say that he forced advances, some physical, on them? I guess it's just their belief in evolution, huh?

 

This is about the fact that some individuals will ALWAYS put loyalty to the team--whether it be a sports team, a political party, a religious institution, or whatever--first. And, there's been such a quick judgment about this that it's not surprising that some students at the school would not immediately join in. It has NOTHING to do with age, with evolution, or with religious belief/atheism. I think it's incredibly sad and kind of scary that you think it does.

 

I cannot speak for "all the good Bible-believing Christians' to whom you refer. I do not know any of them. I do know that many Christians claim to also believe in evolution. It's called theistic evolution and it is a false teaching. That's really an apple and oranges comparison anyway. One could make the argument that these woman are just out to ruin Cain politically. Were there eye witnesses to their claims? I have not been reading about it because I wouldn't have voted for him anyway. If there are eyewitnesses then those Bible-believing Christians are wrong. I just don't know enough about that situation to really speak on it.

 

Again, I never said atheists and evolutionists have no moral code. I believe they do. But the idea of man evolving from lower life forms does not support a moral code. I am proposing that atheists and evolutionists are betraying their true belief in a higher authority.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

Umm there's no either or.

 

I believe in evolution and am totally appalled, and disgusted at the way they're acting.

 

I bet there are a lot of atheists who are disgusted at the way they're acting.

 

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

[What is wrong with Penn state students???]

Umm . . . we have a whole generation growing up on Two & Half Men type shows/movies (BTW, doesn't the 1/2 mean there's a child present :glare:), and immoral jokes/scandals/illicit sex are just another thing to either laugh about or shrug off.

 

I'm not surprised at the rioting at all. Sad, yes. Surprised? Not at all.

 

:iagree: Sad, but not at all surprised. This is the natural outcome of individuals who have been taught from infancy that they are nothing but animals, evolved from lower life forms. The logical conclusion of that teaching is that there is no such thing as good or evil - only what is useful, pragmatic and what is not. They probably wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, Sandusky was just expressing his animal instincts.

 

When a society believes that they are just a bit more evolved than apes, good is defined simply as what serves self or perhaps the greater good (as defined by the majority); evil is whatever impedes either of those. There is no longer any objective standard for right and wrong - each man does what is right in his own eyes. The surprising thing to me is that so many who claim to believe that humans are evolved from pond scum care at all - that they consider any of these men to be behaving badly. Why? What do they base that thinking on? That they hurt someone else? No doubt, Sandusky believed he was doing these boys a favor.

 

There is a serious disconnect here. Either there is a standard for morality - an objective, absolute authoritative standard that we can all rely on and live by, or there isn't. If there isn't, then who is any of us to judge another's behavior? What do we base that judgment on?

 

Of course, I believe the Bible is that authoritative standard. It condemns this behavior as wicked. But those who reject the Bible and say they believe that man is just a little further along the evolutionary spectrum than other animals betray their true belief that man is accountable to an absolute standard of right and wrong. Yet, they do not explain what evolutionary adaptation is responsible for this standard. Indeed, they cannot.

[What made you smile today?]

Today I smiled when the neighbors asked again whether my kids read books or not.

 

I didn't answer. I just smiled.

 

Excellent composure and response. :)

 

Dh is about to take me out tonight. Dinner at a nice place and a movie (probably Puss 'n Boots..I think). It was a surprise. He leaves for his new job the end of November. The children and I will remain until February. We've never been apart more than a week. Though he'll visit when he can (Ohio - Florida) it can't be too often. I'll miss him. Little outings such as this are even more special.

 

:grouphug: Sorry you have to be apart.:grouphug:

 

This thread made me smile. A lot.

 

I have an incredibly bad headache, so I haven't smiled much today.

[S/O Did you believe the world is over populated?]

There is also quite a lot of immigration, especially from Eastern European countries. These people are mostly young and seem to have high fertility rates. In some areas of the country maternity services have been stretched beyond their limits due to increased demand from this group in particular. I don't know if this is taken into account by the reports you quote. It is also true that some only stay here for a few years (they can earn more money here than at home), and then return to their home countries, I know of a number of Poles who now feel that the standard of living/quality of life is better in Poland than the UK and have gone back home.

 

Anyway, thank you Kathleen, you are giving me some cause for optimism :001_smile:. It still feels a bit out of control though, and I do worry about my boys when everywhere seems so overcrowded and competitive.

 

Best wishes

 

I don't know if those figures take immigration into account either. That's something to think about. I think the thing to be most concerned about is how the younger, dwindling population is going to support the aging population since it will be their taxes that must cover those expenses. We're already beginning to see that in the US with those paying into Social Security beginning to decrease and those receiving benefits on the increase. In a more socialized country such as the UK, it will probably be an even bigger problem. Not to take away any of that optimism, though.:D

[S/O Did you believe the world is over populated?]

Sounds heavenly!

 

Where we are is one of the less densely populated areas of England, but we only have to travel about an hour down the road and the number of people is quite overwhelming, it can feel a bit scary.

 

I think many of us are speaking purely subjectively. Those who look out their windows and see nothing and nobody for miles. Those of us, like Cammie, and to a lesser degree myself, who are very aware of the milling hoards of people. It's very common here to hear people comment on "Where have all these people come from?" The population of the UK is still growing, as far as I know.

 

As far as big families/small families go, well I have four children, and would have more if I hadn't suddenly got so ancient, but I am concerned about overpopulation. That might sound irrational, but then our decision about family size was purely emotional :tongue_smilie:. I do have friends, however, who have made the decision to remain childless because they feel their are too many people in the world.

 

ETA: Oh, and I know fairly wealthy people, with small families, who make an art of frugality. DH reckons that's why they're wealthy!

 

Yes, the population of the UK is still growing but the Total Fertility Rate is below replacement rate at about 1.6. (2.1 is needed to just replace the current population.) The UN projects the population will continue to grow until about 2040 and then it will begin to decrease thereafter. The population will continue to age, though, which will mean less fecundity overall and then the UK will begin to have more problems associated with a decreasing, ageing population than they do now with their current population - just a different set of problems.

 

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

 

ETA: Apparently the link doesn't take you to the actual UK chart, but you can probably figure that out by looking at the links on the sidebar.