They are not alone - see the "so that they may" section of the aim's and beliefs below.

Scripture Union Queensland http://www.suqld.org.au/home/index.php

"Welcome to SU QLD... We're the largest employer of school chaplains in Australia. What makes us tick is that we want to bring hope to a young generation. And we do this through our school chaplaincy service, camps, holiday programs and kids-at-risk programs. Please stick around to find out if we can help you or your family in any way.
Tim Mander - CEO, SU QLD"

http://www.suqld.org.au/about/index.php
"Aims & Beliefs

Working with the churches, Scripture Union aims:

a) to make God's Good News known to children, young
people and families

and

b) to encourage people of all ages to meet God daily through
the Bible and prayer

so that they may

come to personal faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,

grow in Christian maturity and

become both committed church members and servants of a world in need."

Dan S de Merengue

I have asked scientists and been given their answers, and to me they make sense.

What I was doing was giving creationists like yourself the opportunity to explain your side of the discussion. You have an opposing view your beliefs are not the same as the scientists, then here is your opportunity to logically and rationally explain what happened to these animals and possibly convert me to your beliefs.

yet instead you get angry with me and say they are rhetorical questions and I do not want to hear your answers.

If I did not want to hear your answers and the answers from any creationist I would not ask the question nor would I repeat it so many times.

I think unless you can come up with a good set of answers this time ( and face it you have had plenty of time to research this already ) that you have no answers, you and your theory cannot explain these things.

So please do the honest decent thing, answer the questions or admit that you have no answers and you cannot explain why these things happened other than some form of supernatural magic.

BTW I am an uneducated person who was beaten then thrown out of a church school for being "deliberately stupid" because I could not learn to read or write.
Sorry if my numbering of my questions offends you, I am alpha numeric dyslexic and severely disabled in that area.

Aren't you guys getting a bit carried away with this discussion? I mean, it's hardly constructive to be raking over a lot of historical "witch hunts" to find justification for bashing someone over the head. There's far too much "selective" recollection responsible for so many past and present conflicts, so we at least should try not to fall into that same trap. I also think the "bible" thing and the "evolution" thing have been "done" sufficiently, thanks all the same.

We live in a complex world, where distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, become somewhat blurred depending on what side of the fence you're living on, and we shouldn't forget that, while we live in our glass houses throwing stones.

In general, I see merit in there being some acceptable form of inter-faith and comparative religion studies being provided in our schools, together with discussion of ethics, integrity and honesty, and of the role these various value systems can play in social structure. Perhaps such study could form the basis of genuine "social studies", rather than the selective local Oz history served up in my day. History, in my opinion, should serve as both an explanation of past events and a mechanism for avoiding repetition of past foibles, as well as acting to displace prejudice and misconception by fully revealing and explaining context. To shed light, diminish barriers and dispel myth should be amongst the highest ideals we can aspire to for our education system - equally with inspiring creative thinking and preparation for a constructive career.

We in Oz can at least have the benefit of clarity, if we can negotiate the morass of real-time information available to us, and, if we can rise above our preconceptions and prejudices. Religion bashing is not going to get us to an effective medium for promoting social cohesion and understanding through our school system.

RObert has introduced some disturbing info regarding SU Qld - The most relevant posting I have seen in a while, and certainly deserves investigation and resolution.

Saltpetre, I don't think there is anything particulary new in what I posted. The point has been made repeatedly that most of the churches treat RE and chaplaincy as outreach activities, I doubt any have "cultural heritage" listed in their material unless it's recent backfill.

The idea that RE is not primary about attempt's to win kid's to Christ is spin, treated as a justifiable deception because the end is seen as more important than the mean's.

Likewise when you read of these organisations being focussed on bringing hope to people remember that's in the context of a belief system that holds the idea that without Christ there is no hope, their god loves you so much that if you don't repent and become a christian he will burn you in hell for eternity. Not much hope there except by converting.

I've been wondering if the politicans just don't comprehend the idea that an organisation might actually mean what they say on their websites. Maybe it never occurs to any of our "secular" pollies that religious organisations with a stated goal of trying to convert people might actually mean it. The religious ones know it but hope nobody notices.

R0bert

In discussing religion, I wonder if it's worthwhile going back to basics?

Eons past is it any wonder early man may have thought of a mystical being, super-human, or beyond-human entity as an explanation for the inexplicable? Why people get sick, what the sun is, if not something magical, and the moon, a dull form of the sun - a sleeping sun perhaps? Many questions, no way to find the answers. So, why not delve for an explanation - for the seasons, volcanoes, earthquakes? For the profusion of life on which man depended, those to fear, and those simply to be admired? A "God" would appear a logical explanation, would it not? Or many gods - for health, food, children, and protection from other tribes or marauding animals. So many perils. Where to seek "an edge"?

We are perhaps not so different today - seeking "an edge". Some of the basics are still the same - health, wealth, superiority. But so much has also changed - a multiplicity of "religious movements" generated from early beginnings, evolving and competing for followers, security, "fulfillment". Whereas many early "principles" were aimed at the betterment of followers or society, there has been some unavoidable divergence, as, after all, the understanding or explanation of the "mystical" is not subject to "finite" bounds. None can, by definition, have the "real" answer, but neither this, nor all of modern understanding or science, can deny the question - is there a God?, or, Would humanity be better or worse off if the existence of God was generally accepted?

Many today say no, there's no God, we don't need a God, we may or may not believe in the "big bang", we are in the here and now and that's all that matters. Fair enough. Some others sit on the fence. Also ok. For my money the hazard in mythical and religious belief today is the divergence from those early constructs for the betterment of mankind and society, and the emergence of "special case" scenarios which threaten to act to the contrary.

RObert,

Thanks for your latest posting bringing me up to date on this issue. I don't doubt what you are saying, and agree it is disturbing. It looks as though some, or many schools, may have simply sidestepped providing broad-based instruction in this area, possibly because their teaching staff have so much on their plate, and have then delegated this responsibility to outside agencies - in this case to special interest religious groups - without proper consideration of qualifications, content, or potential consequences. This is clearly not in the best interests of students, or of our multicultural society, and needs to be corrected.

A review of current arrangements is certainly required, as clearly indicated by the volume of interest displayed here in OLO. I certainly hope some of our educational and political policy makers are tuned in, and it looks as though some emails are called for to various Federal and State Ministers for Education, to ensure that they are made aware of the extent of dissatisfaction with current arrangements in this sensitive area.