Senate sends Jindal bill on evolution
| Capitol News Bureau |
| Louisiana Politics Blog
|
 |
The latest news on the Louisiana Legislature and the governor. The Advocate Capitol News Bureau delivers timely and unique insights into the political comings and goings around the state and in the capitol.
Print
Email
Save
Reprints
Tweet
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Opponents, mostly outside the State Capitol, contend the legislation would inject creationism and other religious themes into public schools.
However, the Senate voted 36-0 without debate to go along with the same version of the proposal that the House passed last week 94-3.
The measure, Senate Bill 733, now goes to Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is expected to sign it.
Backers said the bill is needed to give science teachers more freedom to hold discussions that challenge traditional theories, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“It provides assurances to both teachers and students that academic inquiries are welcome and appropriate in the science classroom,” said Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum.
Mills’ group touts itself as one that promotes traditional family values. It was called an influential mover behind the bill.
However, officials of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana and Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C., said the bill represents an intrusion of religion into public schools that may warrant a lawsuit.
“It is the ACLU’s position that we intend to do whatever is necessary to keep religion out of our science classrooms.” said Marjorie R. Esman, executive director of the group in New Orleans.
The legislation is called the Louisiana Science Education Act.
It would allow science teachers to use supplemental materials, in addition to state-issued textbooks, on issues like evolution, global warming and human cloning.
The aim of such materials, the bill says, is to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” including evolution.
“I just believe that it is important that supplemental scientific information be able to be brought into the school system,” state Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa and sponsor of the bill, said after the vote.
Nevers said that, despite the rapid pace of changes in science, textbooks are only updated every seven years.
Critics said DVDs and other supplemental materials with religious themes will be added to classrooms to try to undercut widely accepted scientific views.
The bill cleared its final legislative hurdle in less than five minutes.
Nevers noted that the key change made in the House would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to toss out science supplemental materials that it considers inappropriate.
Opponents contend the bill is a bid to allow the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Christian creationism is the view that life began 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible’s Book of Genesis.
Intelligent design advocates believe that the universe stems from an intelligent designer rather than chance.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a prepared statement that the bill “is clearly designed to smuggle religion into the science classroom, and that’s unwise and unconstitutional.” Joe Conn, a spokesman for the group, said attorneys will review the bill.
Lynn’s group calls itself a national watchdog organization to prevent government-backed religious teaching.
Barbara Forrest, of Holden, a member of the group’s board of trustees and a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, also criticized passage of the measure.
“I think what the Legislature has done is an embarrassment to the state in the eyes of the entire country,” Forrest said.
Nevers downplayed talk of legal action against his bill.
“I don’t think any lawsuits will be brought because of this act,” he said.
Mills predicted that the bill will survive any legal challenge.
In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1981 state law that required equal time on creationism when evolution was taught in public schools.
-
A Call for a New Reformation- "...Sir Isaac Newton, who charted the mathematically fixed physical laws of the universe, weighed into the debate. After Newton the Church found itself in a world in which the concepts of magic, miracle, and divine intervention as explanations of anything, could no longer be offered with intellectual integrity. Once more people were forced to enter into and to embrace a reality vastly different from the one employed in the traditional language of their faith tradition. Next came Charles Darwin who related human life to the world of biology more significantly than anyone had heretofore imagined. He also confronted the human consciousness with concepts diametrically opposed to the traditional Christian world view. The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation out of which human life was still evolving. Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries; we were evolving, and indeed are still evolving, into higher levels of consciousness. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative. So did the interpretation of the cross of Calvary as the moment of divine sacrifice when the ransom for sin was paid. Established Christianity clearly wobbled under the impact of Darwin's insights, but Christian leaders pretended that if Darwin could not be defeated, he could at least be ignored. It was a vain hope..." John S. Spong http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
-
I expect the ACLU will sue the hell out of us....hope so, anyway, it'll keep the AG out of mischief. Although, as a Raelian, I would like to have my beliefs brought into the classroom where it can etch into little minds (no, not the Legislature...school kids!) and garner new members....RAEL LIVES!
-
I rarely support the ACLU, but I sure will in this. I hope they sue. This is ridiculous legislation. Let science teachers teach SCIENCE. There is nothing scientific about creationism or intelligent design.
-
What's your problem, hb, hard-line left-wingers like you don't want other views taught in school? Darwin is not the only view out there. I'm sick of the anti-creationists crying bloody murder every time someone tries to introduce different views into classrooms. Evolution is NOT the only theory out there.
-
Well said Mr. Steinle. Now will you and your "proud Republicans" pay the legal fees the state will now incur for trying to inject your religious views onto the public school curriculum? I doubt it. Take a look at what happened when the right wing took control of Kansas and did this. A Kansas High School diploma was immediately unacceptable at major universities. Way to go Jindal ! I guess your debt to the preachers is now paid off.
-
ProudRepublican, why in the world do you make this a political wedge issue? Why would you want religion taught in science class? Why are you so proud right now to be a republican? Why do you think only "hard line left-wingers" oppose religion in science class? Why do you want the state to have to spend tax dollars defending this silly bill that will inevitably and rightly provoke a lawsuit? It's telling that in a time of high gas prices, faltering economy, and a costly quagmire in the desert, republicans and conservative dems are rallying behind religion, as usual.
-
There is nothing wrong with presenting different SCIENTIFIC views in the science classroom. But when it comes to evolution, there just aren't very many SCIENTIFIC viewpoints that oppose Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. The science teacher should, for example, mention Wallace and his version of evolution, which is nearly identical to Darwins, except Wallace believed that the process of evoltion was guided by God. And because God cannot be directly observed, he is not subject to scientific inquiry, hence Darwin's view is more concise than Wallace's view, because Darwin does not include God as a variable in the equation. But other than Wallace's view, there really aren't any valid SCIENTIFIC views that oppose Darwin's view. Creationism is certainly a different view, but it is not a SCIENTIFIC view. And Intelligent Design offers nothing more to the SCIENTIFIC world view than the added statement "...and maybe God is involved too", which is an unnecessary and inappropriate statement in the context of science. I think the root cause of all this ignorance about evolution in particular, is because our schools have failed to provide a quality science education in general. It is clear that many people in our state have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is even supposed to be about.
-
Some uneducated hick said "What's your problem, hb, hard-line left-wingers like you don't want other views taught in school? Darwin is not the only view out there. I'm sick of the anti-creationists crying bloody murder every time someone tries to introduce different views into classrooms. Evolution is NOT the only theory out there." Translation: "I want to force biology teachers to teach my childish religious belief in magical creation."
-
Not all Republicans are god-soaked anti-science morons. Until recently I was a Republican and I have always accepted modern science. I recently decided to stop voting for Republicans because they want to make America a theocracy. The Republican party has become infested with morons who want to stick their idiotic Christian religion everywhere, even in science education.
-
Evolution is a scientific fact. The creationists who want to stick their Magic Man into biology classrooms don't have any idea how massive and powerful the evidence for evolution is. The creationist hicks are too lazy to study science and too stupid to understand science. They aren't satisfied with abusing their own children with their stupidity, so they throw out the Establishment Clause and try to force biology teachers to abuse everyone else's children. Creationists who try to stick the Christian Sky Fairy into public schools are traitors. They should be put in prison.
-
I'd hate to be in certain people shoes when they get to heaven!!
-
Still waiting for the first banana to write that "evolution is just a theory - not fact"
-
Evolution is both a theory AND a fact. The uneducated have a tough time understanding that concept. Christians love to tout pseudo-science as evidence for intelligent design or creationism, but they should limit that to their churches. I don't want my kids to waste any time in science class learning about religious garbage.
-
David Steinle does not understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. Jesus, we should just pick a new word out already so I never have to hear the whole "But there it's just a theory and not the only one either" BS ever again. Here's some awesome cut-and-paste for you, David. What it boils down to is that "theory" is a verfiable explanation for some phenomenon. Please conduct some experiments and verify that we were originally little clay mudpie men. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the general theory of relativity.
-
"The aim of such materials, the bill says, is to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” including evolution." Critical analysis would require science teachers to vigorously denounce creationism as a theory for the beginning of life, and continue on debunking other Bible-based myths such as: Noah's ark, Joshua stopping the Sun, virgin births, and other fairy tales. Open-season on religion, I say. That's how this bill should be implemented
-
I used to think we had the best politicians money could buy. I no longer think so. I am sure intelligent politicians would cost more.
-
withersteen is right. The only thing you can legitimatly do with creationism (and ID) in the sceince classroom is to discuss why it does not qualify as science.
-
To both sides,it doesn't really matter.If the teachers of this state cannot get sudents to learn math,english,social studies,etc,what makes you think they will have any more sucess at teaching this,at least this is getting some of you to pay attention to whats' going on in the schools for the first time.And if you'll check the teachers handbook,teachers aren't allowed to force students to do anything.
-
So this new law supercedes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that was mentioned in the article? Is it even legal (consitutional) for the legislature to do this?
-
There is no debate in the scientific community regarding evolution. “Intelligent design” has no data, which has been collected, analyzed and reported that would withstand the rigors of scientific testing and the scientific method. That is why it has no scientific validity and is not taught in science classes. No mater how creationism is labeled – creation science, intelligent design or academic freedom – it is a faith based belief shared by some Christian fundamentalists and does not belong in our schools. It is worth noting that in all of the major court challenges to creationism, Christian scholars - biblical specialists, theologians and scientists - have been witnesses against creationism and the fundamentalist understanding of intelligent design. Now under the guise of “academic freedom” politicians and religious fundamentalists who were unable to pass muster in the scientific community or courts are trying to foist anti-evolution arguments upon us through ignorant legislation. We are told not to worry because this bill will not permit religious materials as supplemental teaching aides. If these materials are not of a religious nature then what are they and why is this legislation necessary: to present an opposing view no matter how frivolous? I suppose pedophiles have an argument – are we going to teach that too?
-
This kind of legislation is, of course, why we now pay our legislature the big bucks. Could our state be anymore backward? Not far lack of trying.
-
Another reason why I left Louisiana,it always seemed like the schools were being used for a political battlefield instead of what they are supposed to be,to prepare young minds for whatever comes next,to give them ideas,to teach them how to think so they might form their on opinions,somthing many aren't getting at home.If you'd take the time to sit down and talk to your child,you might realize he or she is smarter than you,and probably has their own opinion on the subject.Seems the only thing some are learning at home is how to hate.
-
Like red, I also left Louisiana. For me it was like a dysfunctional family - you love it with all your heart, too much in fact to watch what it does to itself because you know you can't stop it, and at some point there is no choice but to walk out the door. And now it is doing it again, adding to the enormous group of Louisiana diaspora. On the lighter side, we can take up Kansas' example and demand that pastafarianism (look it up on wikipedia) be taught in class. All hail the flying spaghetti monster!
-
Quoting " David Steinle, PROUD REPUBLICAN ": What's your problem, hb, hard-line left-wingers like you don't want other views taught in school? Darwin is not the only view out there. I'm sick of the anti-creationists crying bloody murder every time someone tries to introduce different views into classrooms. Evolution is NOT the only theory out there. You are correct, sir. However, it is the only theory that fits the data/observations. Is Evolution perfect? No, of course not. There is much yet to learn. Is it right? Absolutely and without a doubt, unless some new and extraordinary evidence can arise to the contrary.
-
It is funny how Darwinists mascaraed themselves behind a secular religion and call it "science." Their is a difference between good science and bad science, and honestly I was once a believer of Darwinism that is built on bad philosophy. Science is a search for causes that is built on good philosophy and not false philosophies. It's ridiculous how the people who are screaming for tolerance, are the onces who don't tolerate others. I digress. I am not here to argue, but what I will do is recommend an excellent book that well help many who have been blinded by the status quo of Darwinist mindset being the only science to explain anything and everything. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist By Norman L. Geisler Frank Turk And for those who automatically rule me out for thinking I am a religious nut, just read the book. Be tolerant Mr. Tolerant. All I ask is you read it and be open.
-
Again, where does this fear of evolution come from? Why are the rabid right so apoplectic over this scientific notion? They seem cool with cell theory, string theory, and germ theory? Of course, none of those make a mockery of their superstition (or religion, which is jsut a supersition that caught on). Evolution easily proves that there was no eden, adam, eve, snake etc. A quick overview of freshman hisroty, anthropology, or common sense indicates likewise. No fall of adam means no original sin, and no need for a saviour. Really, the whole thing is ludicrous. Really silly. I mean, just farcical. Why are we even here discussing this today? The one bright spot is the number of right-minded people here today agasint this foolishness. 20 years ago, at the height of the religious rights power, we would have been a distinct minority.
-
I know this comment won't go over well on here, but I felt I had to address this topic. The argument that creation is religion which should not be in public schools is a double standard. Evolution is a religion, believed by people who don't believe that there is a God. Evolution has never been proven as fact, as we have never observed anything evolve. If anything we observe the opposite...that everything is devolving to a worse state. True science is what we can observe in the present. People who believe in creation and people who believe in evolution have the same facts, they just interpret them differently using presuppositions that they already have. If there is no God then who decides what is right and what is wrong? If it is the individual who decides, then we would have a pure mess. One person would decide that it is right to murder another person, while another would say it is wrong. Some of the basic laws of our country came from God's Law, from which the founding fathers saw the wisdom of using. As far as separation of church and state...the law was meant to keep the government from establishing a state or federal religion, which England had at that time, not to keep it completely separate. (Praying out of schools, no ten commandments, no public manger scenes, etc....).
-
Scott wrote:"Evolution has never been proven as fact, as we have never observed anything evolve. If anything we observe the opposite...that everything is devolving to a worse state." Actually, we've seen evolution in action under the microscope: microscopic life forms like the flu virus and ecoli evolve much faster than larger life forms. The bird flu is a recent evolutionary strain. Also, there is no such thing as "devolving into a worse state". Evolution is not a ladder that we are at the top of and bacteria are at the bottom of. Evolution is just the act of changing over time.
-
I have a suggestion for everyone ranting about bringing religion (ie, not YOUR humanistic religion) into the classroom, etc etc: Why not read the new bill and see what it actually says?
-
Scott, religion is religion and science is science. We have witnessed organisms evolve both through the fossil record and in the laboratory. Just because you don't live long enough to see something happen, doesn't mean it isn't happening all around you, slowly. Bacteria have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics. We know this to be a fact. There is evidence of evolution all around us. If you don't want to see it that is your own problem. Leave religion out of the class room.
-
You aren't listening. How come you don't read the bill and see what it actually says?
-
It has been said that intelligent design isn’t just bad science, its bad theology. Why must other Christian faiths, Jews and other religions that do not subscribe to your origin myths have it forced upon their children in the public schools? I would rather have my children learn religions of the world or Native American origin myths in a religious studies class than listen to intelligent design but I won’t have that choice. Thanks to the legislature a segment of Christianity will be given unique access to our children in science classes. This legislation and ignorant statements like, “evolution is a religion” demonstrates that Louisiana is trying to unseat Arkansas as the stupidest state. With religious creationism being taught in science class, combating this ignorance will become increasingly unlikely. Our legacy will be the conversion of all Louisiana Christians and Jews into stupid rednecks.
-
In case the mentally challanged did not read the Bill, ti clearly says: "shall not be construed to promote ANY RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE , promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion." So the commies in the ACLU want to sue? Bring it on, moonbats! I won't hold my breath, since the communists in the ACLU will not sue. They have no grounds to sue.
-
Matt, that is exactly what intelligent design is – religion. It is faith based and does not conform to the scientific method, which was aptly demonstrated in the Dover trail. Intelligent design creationism advocacy groups have distributed academic freedom boilerplate language to state legislature across the country (Louisiana included) in an effort to modify the way evolution is taught in science classes. Do you honestly believe that the teaching of intelligent is not their motive? If these creation advocates have science that contradicts evolution why haven’t they published their data and findings in peer reviewed literature like real scientists? I have yet to see alternative evidence published in Science or Nature; perhaps they can be found in the Journal of Uncorrelated Data? That is why they need this legislation because they could not advance their theories and belief on merit.
-
Way to go Mats -- at last someone who reads the text before sitting down to critique it! Shame on you moonbats, I'm in Scotland but I know more about it than you do. I also recognise logic when I hear it, and I wasn't hearing it, except from Mats, David Steinle, Nestor Romero and Scott. Cheers to you, brothers, too. .Now all the moonbats may enjoy their party in peace as far as I'm concerned, since I've had my faith in Louisiana humanity restored -- and in Scotland it's night time.
-
Creationists have absolutely no problem with "Operational Science", because the evidence drives "Operational Science". It does not matter if you are a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, or an Atheist, pure water still boils at 100°C at sea level. It's the inclusion of "Historical Science" of which evolution is a part, without distinction, as science, which has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. Both evolution and creation fall into the category of "Origins Science". Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations are devised to explain what happened in the past. "Operational science" involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, "Origins Science" deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work.
-
I'm astonished that a Scotsman would be reading this. Having lived there for 20 years myslef, some time ago, Im astonished that a Scotsman believes that drivel - regardless of the artful wording of the bill. It truly is a creationist trojan horse. My years in scotland (and also england) and following here in the US indicate the value of a solid secular education. Christians are relatively few in scotland, and tend to be the 'wierd' family on the block, rather than the norm. Sunday mornings were for playing with your pals, although there were a few unhappy kids dragged to church - stone faced, miserable presbytarians - real flinty folk. Christains are an almost extinct minority in the UK, thanks to a strain of skepticism in the national psyche. Hope it stays that way.
-
Facts about science. 1) Science as a practice presupposes certain metaphysical assumptions: a) A very simple kind of order in the universe, b) the taxonomy of persons is meaningful and people have the ability to think somewhat rationally c) the reliability of sense perception, d) the validity of the laws of logic as universals 2) A world view which does not provide one with certainty of these presuppositions, is not philosophically compatible with the practice of science. 3) Science involves making universal statements that fit the observed or believed particulars but go beyond observations, Hence is based on the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent. 4) If there are true scientific laws the govern a system, and we had perfect knowledge of the current state of the system, it does not logically follow that we have a perfect knowledge of the past history of the state of the system. Science does not tell us the past. It has shown itself to be useful in predicting the future, but not without error. Nor has it done well with complex systems like the human body, the stock market, etc... 5) The track record of the historical sciences is not very good, but the track record of laboratory science is much better. This is because laboratory science is repeatable allowing for alot more data to be collected relative to what is being postulated, addresses simpler questions, operates in more of a controlled environment, makes way few assumptions, seeks to predict the future rather than the past. 6) Atheism has embarrassing epistimological problems. If I believe there is no intelligent cause in the universe, that does not provide a basis for the belief in the metaphysical presuppositions necessary for science. For more see http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~zak/Walt.pdf
-
Religious right zealots,Godless liberal aetheist,man,you guys got too much time on your hands and too much penned up hate,yall need to go outside and get some fresh air.what is the problem with offering another line of thinking,no one is trying to brainwash anyone.Different is not evil,it's just another way of thinking,theory,fact,opinion or whatever.If you've raised a good kid,a smart kid,why not let him ask questions and form his own opinion,it might be different from yours,but thats part of growing up.Whenever this subject comes up you always get the same extremists,this my way,one way sort of thinking isn't good for either side,lighten up.
-
Just some thoughts here. 1. The second law of themodynamics (all things devolve) supercedes evolution and to base a "beginning of life" on the denial of a natural law would question reason. 2. Both Evolution and Creation must be "believed", faith required there. 3. Evolution has many forms, micro-evolution - the adjustment of organisms to its surroundings, i.e. bacteria becoming resistant, color changes in moths, etc. none of which a creationist will deny. However, macro-evolution - the changing of one species to another (a requirement of the evolution only persons) has no evidence of happening. 4. The biggest, yet most subtile difference between Evolution and Creation is an issue of Responsibility and control. A Creationist believes in a creator (check out the Declaration of Independence our forefathers were creationists) to whom they are responsible and will ultimately have to answer to. An Evolutionist is answerable to whom? - a group of people called a government who will ultimately decide who will or won't live based on a persons value to the community (they have already decided that all Americans have zero value with the possible exception of Native Americans!). Evolution btw is not a unanimous belief among those in the field of Science.
-
you all do realized that atheism is a religion right?
-
The ACLU complains about the separation of church and state. With all the promotion done by the evolutionists about their beliefs they also qualify quite well as a religion, so does nationalism, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, BPOE, Daughters of the American Revolution, etc., etc.. The list is endless. Anyone so devoutly linked with any type of organization or belief makes that organization or belief a religion whether they do it alone or with others. This is one definition of religion: A form of worship. It includes a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; these may be personal, or they may be advocated by an organization. Usually religion involves belief in God or in a number of gods; or it treats humans, objects, desires, or forces as objects of worship. An example of this is nationalism. What is its "god"? Its "god" is the STATE or GOVERNMENT. The "god" of the evolutionists is SCIENCE and so on. These rules apply across the board in what can be defined as a religion with considerable backing. As long as there is a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; these may be personal, or they may be advocated by an organization, they constitute some form of religion. Scientists promulgate their attitudes, beliefs and practices religiously, hiring such organizations as the ACLU to push their attitudes, beliefs and practices upon others using the law. All organizations that want to inculcate into the minds of the masses their way of thinking on a matter use these methods. It isn't new. It's propaganda administered by law. Some world governments have been quite successful with this process for a time, but of course , in the end they usually fail, .......miserably.
-
You all do realize that being an aetheist is much like being a religious person.
-
So the use of the Bible in teaching creationism will be fine...how about other religious texts from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism? Since they want other perspectives, I would think they would have no problem with this short list.
-
Or Scientology!
-
We all believe in somthing.I have found that many hard core Christians want you to hear about their religion,but don't want to hear about yours,same with elitist academia,there is no word but theres.Sorry guys,life is good,I love my wife,the kids and grandkids are doing great.So why don't some of you get over yourselves,and go spend some time with the family.
-
I want to know about the pay raise or bonus the Louisiana school system that we were to receive within 4 to 6 weeks .
-
Kevin, did you read what I typed? Even if you consider ID as a religion, the bill says that religion WILL NOT BE TAUGHT. Which part you don't understand?
-
The bible does not begin with assumptions. It was God who is Creator, period - the one Whom created the physical laws of the universe that Newton mapped out. Not sure where you got the idea of humans falling away in cosmic rebellion... sounds like you have never studied (anyone can read it) the Bible. It was the angels who rebelled with Satan as the chief adversary. It was Satan who deceived Adam and Eve. The creation was perfect until this cosmic rebellion which occurred between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. There is a time gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 in order of millions maybe billions of years (yes the earth is older than 6000 years). The earth was without form (Heb. tohu) and void (Heb. bohu). Gen 1:2 to Gen 1:31 is in fact a re-creation of the earth. Evolution is a theory that cannot be proven and Darwin even died doubting his own theory. The fact that it is peddled by the academic elite such as Dawkins, Hitchens et al. is because Darwinists/humanists/evolutionists/athiests all have one thing in common - their position releases them from any moral obligation to their fellow man. Romans 1:20 says For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: From the interworkings of a cell to the vast and limitless universe, God makes Himself evident, but people do not want to admit it. How can everything continue to function without "fixed physical laws of the universe." These are not mere chance, but the design of a brilliant mind. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God (Ps14:1)
-
thanks for clearing that up for us, broadsided!
-
Broadsided, Do you even know what a humanist believe? Their belief system does not "release(s) them from any moral obligation to their fellow man" their beliefs and morals are just not derived from mysticism. Humanism is a group of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities, particularly rationality. Wow, sounds like they have a moral obligation to their fellow man. The problem with some of the religious people who are posting here is that they seem to think that they are on the defensive. That, (their) god forbid, only science be taught in science class. That religion is being wrongfully kept out of public schools. I have no problem with people believing what they believe but to force my child to listen to mysticism in a science classroom is not going to happen in public schools. And Scot, I have read the bill in its many incarnations, and it is a backdoor attempt to insert creationism via intelligent design. It also states that: This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion” Wow, promote discrimination against a religious belief? So how is one to teach evolution (a SCIENTIC THEORY, much like gravity) in a science class without some religious nut saying that is discriminatory? Also, do you know who Gene Mills is? And his organization? Why would a religious organization run by a pastor be pushing this bill so hard if it weren’t to inject ID into the science classroom?
-
If you christians are so dead certain you know everything, why do you even send your kids to school? If god is so perfect and he created us all in his perfect image, why aren't we all born knowing everything? To the person who said atheism is a religion you obviously don't understand language. You might as well say red is green and 2+2=37. It makes just as much sense. Atheism is the absence of religion. Religion is simply ignorant belief in mythology. Intelligent design is simply code for Creationism. Plain and simple. It isn't an alternate theory, it's religion vaguely disguised as science. I think the legislature is doing everything in it's power to make this state look as ignorant and backward as it possibly can, doubling their pay, outlawing nooses, mandating the teaching of religion in science class. These people have lost their freaking minds.
-
To all of those who think this bill is a good idea - I have only one simple question - How can you be so blasted ignorant???
-
God, I hate this state
-
Science every day proves more of the Bible correct, it is just that you who worship at the altar of liberalism are so hypocritical and closedminded that all you do is lie and try to shout people down. You are not tolerant of other views even in the face of facts such as Darwinism is only a theory that cannot be proven but non-scientific and scientific people show ignorance as stating it as fact. For evolution to be true then apes/monkeys would have to had to dissapear to creat man yet they still exist. How do you explain that organs from pigs are closer to mans and are used more than from monkeys in transplants. Check out Dr. Kent Hovind's website t http://www.drdino.com to find out the real truth.
-
As an outside observer,yes I'm a yankee,I find most of these postings rather amusing.Most of you seem to enjoy rambling,either saying nothing or repeating the same thing over and over.And the hate,godless buffoons or religous fanatics,you seem more interested in standing on your soapbox proclaiming how right you are,and how wrong they are,whatever happened to WE,personal attacks,name calling,do any of you ever look back and see what you have written ?This is a forum for intellegent discussion,not a playpen for children who have to have their way.And until both sides can sit in a room and have a civil discussion on the the subject,you'llcontinue banging your head against the brick wall,so who's ignorant now ?
-
Like Creationism, Evolution is a theory,period. . Evolution is not a fact. What's the ACLU afraid of? Forty years of onslaught against the first and second amendment by the ACLU and the majority of Americans still believe in creationism. ROFLOL! We VILL not conform .LOL! HAHAHA!
-
There are many things that science cannot prove, yet it is still taught as theory. Scott, you are well spoken. How does one explain their knowledge of right and wrong? Just because you cannot see the oxygen you breathe does not mean it isn't there. We are so intricately made; there is no way we just "evolved" into our perfect human forms. Bobxxxx, your reference to God using the words Magic Man with capital letters is proof you believe in Him subconsciously. I wonder who you will call on upon your time to leave this earth? Why is there opposition to teaching all points of view? Is there fear that evolutionists cannot stand against creationists? Nonetheless, if God allows it, it will be so. As far as Republicans and Democrats, there are Christians in both parties. Let's see what they stand for!
-
Fred, Ignorant does not necessarily mean stupid. Ignorance is just the lack of knowledge (whether it is self-imposed by blinders or not). Some of these posters lack the knowledge to speak in terms of a scientific theory as opposed to a layman’s theory (like a guess). They are two very different things. Like Karen's post before mine. She says that creationism and evolution are both theories. That is showing her ignorance. Get it?
-
Why do posters like David Stienle seem intent on proving every negative stereotype about Louisiana? Ignorant, backwards-looking, proud of both, and intent on ignoring all evidence placed before them in order to further their personal crusades?
-
I disagree with the lack of Scientology in the classroom.
-
Broadsided wrote: "The bible does not begin with assumptions. It was God who is Creator, period - the one Whom created the physical laws of the universe that Newton mapped out."......you are so ignorant, you don't even realize that there are two widely accepted models of physics - Newtonian physics and Relativistic Physics. God didn't make both....or did "he" realize his mistake when the Newtonian physics "he" created didn't correspond to scientific observations in reproducible ways? Did "he" wish Einstein into being to develop the Relativistic model of physics - which closes Newton's loopholes?
-
[A couple quick notes for KHarrison: 1. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the Sun. 2. Religious belief systems require faith, as these systems are designed to explain things that cannot be seen or proven. Science is based on verifiable evidence, it requires no faith. 3. Macroevolution has been observed, it's called speciation. There are many transitional forms that prove this. 4. Many of our founding fathers believed in a creator, but that didn't make them creationists. They were deists.] Here's the real problem with this bill. We should be providing our students with the most accurate scientific information available. We need to be teaching them science, and not allowing them to choose what is or is not science. There is no observable, proven evidence for intelligent design, or creationism. It is not science, and there is no controversy about this in the scientific community.
-
Smail, I have presented those same arguments numerous times in post on this article and others concerning this "science" bill. You can present these people with facts but they will not open their eyes. They will continue to argue that the children should see "all sides" and that "evolutionists" (as if it were a religion and not science) are afraid of opposing viewpoints. Look back in history and see who was afraid of opposing viewpoints. It was the church, and it attacked scientist for making new discoveries and learning about the world we live in. Praise the lord, pass the ammunition.
-
There are people who believe the earth is flat. There are people who believe that man never walked on the moon. There are people who believe that the Jews control the world financial markets. There are people who believe that the Masons are in possesion of the Holy Grail and the Arc of the Covenant. Should all of these things be taught in a science classroom as well? Ther are all things that people believe, just like the bible. And, just like the bible, just because people believe them does not make them true. Why don't we teach students the moon is made of cheese? It would make as much sense ast teaching creationism as science. If we start teaching christian theology in science class we will also have to teach budhist creation myths and hindu and what about Norse and Greek mythology? Or, we can just stick to science and leave fiction and mythology to literature class where it belongs.
-
Let's wake up and push away the Cool Aid for a minute. How did it all start? Facts: Non-living materials cannot produce life. There are no missing links between the species that can be found in the fossil record. Mutations are mostly harmful. For example, mutated fruit flies are unable to fly or see. Mutations could perhaps cause small changes, but not complex structures. The DNA insures that an organism reproduces after its own specific blue-print. So much for Evolution. Museums the world over contain lots of fossilized organisms such as dinosaurs for example. To be fossilized they had to have been buried quickly during some great catastrophic event (some still had their dinner in their mouth, also fossilized). If they had just died, been buried they would have decomposed or be eaten by scavengers. Also to become rapidly fossilized there needed to be in the water that drowned them some cement-like chemicals. These came from clouds of ashes spewed from great volcanic eruptions concurrent with the great global flood. In some excavations, dinosaur legs have been found standing upright, stuck in a cement-like mud while raging waters dislocated their huge bodies that were found a distance away, also fossilized. No Katrina-like flood would ever fossilize anything because it would lack the cement-like ash. Also what about the marine fossils found near the top of all the summits of the great mountains of the world? Give the public school kids a break! Quit brainwashing them about a primordial soup that is still nothing but a stinking dead soup. And as far as the adults are concerned it is not too late to get informed. There is a great dinosaur book to read: The real history of the dinosaurs by Dr. Mace Baker.
-
The previous comments in favor of evolution/Darwinism is proof positive how far this nation has slided into the abyss of ignorance and fear of what might be and REAL truth. If you are curious, Christopher Columbus went on a search for the New World because he read about the earth being round, and hanging on nothing. Never mind that everyone else thought the world was flat. The man who discovered the currents in the oceans read in the BIble about the highways in the oceans. There is drilling for oil in certain places in the world because of clues written in Old Testament scripture. These are just a few examples of how scientific our Bible really is and for those who want to discover more insight, you can find a Bible in any bookstore for your curiosity. You just might learn something new! It isn't really a discussion of evolution vs The Bible. It's actually a discussion of GOOD science vs BAD science. Since DNA has been discovered, there is no way one can look at that marvel---zillions of little machines in every cell---and remain stupid in their evolution mindset, if they are very honest intellectually. So, go get curious.
-
The theory was stolen from Alford Wallace by Darwin. It really isn't Darwins theory .Will get interesting.
-
"It is the ACLU’s position that we intend to do whatever is necessary to keep religion out of our science classrooms.” You've got to be kidding me! The ACLU has push everything Christian out of the schools but turns blind eyes towards islamists in the classrooms. I have yet to see an ACLU lawsuit against the Houston school that had the no notice last minute muslim presentation. Where's the ACLU keeping THAT religion out of our schools??? Also, Darwin's theory of evolution is just that - a THEORY. It should not be taught as scientific fact until proven.
-
bwahaha!! More obfuscation. Listen, darwiniacs, the bill DOES NOT MANDATE THE TEACHING OF ANY RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. Which part don't you understand?
-
In order for evolution to be true, life had to spring from a lifeless rock. Just because scientists cannot understand the enormity of the Creator's work does not mean it is not true. Evolution, which is allegedly based on science, is still unproven. Also, true scientists are always questioning, so where is the questioning here. And, just teaching the possibility of creationism, is not the same as advocating a particular religion. Our founding fathers, who wrote the 1st Amendment had no problem with teaching religion in the schools. Since they wrote it, I would think they knew what they meant. The 1st Amendment DOES NOT prohibit the government from having religious affiliations, it was simply meant to prohibit the establishment of a state church like the Church of England. It also prohibits Congress from making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of one's religious beliefs. This means that if parents want to have religion in the schools, then that is permissible. READ THE CONSTITUTION, and show me where it says anything about a separation of church and state. One last point. If we try so hard to keep Christianity out of the school, why do we allow Islam in? Are we afraid of the religion of peace?
-
God isn't real and Jesus was never alive. There, I said it.
-
Mats, you're wrong. The purpose of the bill is to allow religious doctrine to be taught in schools. Otherwise, the bill would not exist. Intelligent design IS creationism which is based on religion, not science. Why is the legislature telling teachers what to teach in science class? Shouldn't scientists be doing that?
-
Hey, gmo, comment #2: The ACLU won't sue the the hell out of us, they will sue the BeJeesus out of us!
-
Will teachers in Louisiana be allowed to present evidence that "intelligent design" is nonsense?
-
@PROUD REPUBLICAN - I'm an atheist and a Republican. Please, for the sake of the party, don't publicly state you're a Republican when you're spewing your Creationist nonsense. The GOP has enough problems - the last thing we need is a YEC representing us. It's people like you that make me embarrassed to admit I'm a Republican. In general, the YEC/Creationist branch of the Republican party is like that crazy uncle that you keep locked up in the attic when you have company over. You love them, but.... Well, you know. ;-) If we are going to allow Creationism in a publicly funded school, what moral authority do we have to prevent other nonsense (oh, let's say, Melanin Theory or chi healing) from demanding a place? Viva la Science! - JK
-
LOL@Pablo
-
Gabrielle, your post is the prime example of the old saying, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I have not seen such flawed logic and abundance of ignorance since the last Democratic convention.
-
What is with the Kool Aid references? Not a wise tactic from the religious corner - do not forget that crept into the public consciousness thanks to Jim Jones and his religious cult of true believers. The image of hundred drinking poisoned Kool Aid and welcoming immediate death does not apply to the nonreligious. It stems only from the behavior of the truly faithful - your own christianity was called a cult in its infancy, and it predicated upon the grissly and perverse notion of an individual willingly ceding life. Do not bandy about the Kool Aid reference too lightly if you drink at that well yourself
-
Oh lord, if only these people would stop embararssing themselves. Gabrielle Kosinski suggest we read a work by Dr Mace Baker. This same Mace Baker recieved his PhD from Pacific International University (est 1980), a correspondence school that offers PhDs for cash payment of $3000 and has no campus or accreditation of any kind. You see many creationist PhDs with similar qualifications. And they wonder why they are not taken seriously? Meanwhile, Ozark Sunshine asks us to visit the website of Mr Ken Hovind, a big time bible thumpin creationist. This is the same Kent Hovind who is serving 10 years for tax evasion and renounced his citizenship to avoid paying taxes (didnt work). He has 3 degrees from unaccredited "universities" including a correspondence PhD. His dissertation is only 100 pages and the school (more likely someones garage) will not release it (universities usually put them in the library for all to see). In short, they are shysters and it is illustrative of the quality of the creationist argument that these are the experts to whom they turn. what is curious is that such righteous christians should so willingly employ the deceptive tactics of these snake oil salesman - is honesty no longer valued in these circles?
-
One last thing - the bogus 'degrees' these people have are not even in the sciences - a factor common amongs the various Drs in the creationist side. Calling yourself Dr sounds authoritative, until you realise they are Drs of theology, home economics, and advanced astrology. If you are going to buy a PhD, at least buy one in the sciences. Which other creationist 'experts' will they offer up next on this page?
-
Ok, let's try it this way. I think we can all agree that we should only be teaching science in science classes. Yes? So would one of the many creationism/ID backers here please post the documented, verified, scientific evidence for creationism and/or intelligent design.
-
Newton spent the last 3 decades of his life studying scripture. He has a few works of biblical exegesis mainly focusing on Daniel and Revelation and the return of Christ. Explaining the acceleration due to gravity with no clue about the mechanism itself does not deny the Creator, nor does the flawed theory of evolution that dramatically reinvents itself with every contradictory discovery, for example in 1987 when all women were traced to one through the mitochondrial DNA by genetic engineers. Nor is it supported by the fossil evidence as admitted by Richard Leaky in the "origin of human kind".
-
Evolution is a theory only. There is room for other theories... USA: the demographic winter is coming. Aging workforce. geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash P.S. Also new website prowomanprolife(dot)org
-
To anyone who believes that this legislation is anything other than a means to get religion into the public school system, please read the following exerpt fro the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy": (source : http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html ) "GOALS Governing Goals To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. Five Year Goals To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. "
-
The aim of this is not to promote critical thinking. It is to try and attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory and wrap religion with a BS theory called "intelligent design." It is absolutely futile and will never have a lasting effect on scientific theory. And by the way, GOD is the biggest theory ever. Why don't you critical thinkers prove that one. Produce your ficticious imaginary friend.
-
Richard Leakey, in Origin of Human Kind, does not dispute the fact of human evolution. He is an anthropologist, not a biologist. His thesis is that evolution can be better traced studying human behavior, as revealed by artifacts left behind, rather than strictly sticking to fossil evidence. His thesis leads one to subscribe more to a 'bushy' human family tree, rather than the more linear version we are used to. However, in no way does he challenge the fact of human evolution from lower forms. To suggest so is disengenuous. Addiotionally, his book was written 10 years ago, before the determination that Neanderthal man may not have been an ancestor, and before the discovery in 2002 of an almost complete skull from 7 million years ago resembling a chimp in size and some elements of structure, but with facial and teeth structure more human. As for Newton, he certainly was devout. He was also very interested in the occult, and believed himself to be one of a few personaly selected to interpret the bible. Modern conserevative christians would want little to do with his unorthodox opinions on their faith.
-
By the way, I support the teaching of religion in school and the reading of the bible. It should be taught in literature and law classes. If you Christians ever bothered to actually read the entire bible (dare to dream), you'd probably concur that it is a flawed human document. But you'd rather take sanctuary in a meaningless title that you can not substantiate like "Christianity or Intelligent Design".
-
As for mitochondrial DNA or Mitochondrial Eve, as she has been dubbed, she is simply the earliest known ancestor of whose dna we all share in some portion. It is a misrepresentation to believe via that that she is the first woman (besides that fact that she emanated from Tanzania/Kenya, rather than the Euphrates area). If you were to trace your own family tree, you might make it back several hundred uears, but would not presume that your great-great-great-great grandfather from the 1700s was the first human. No legitimate scientist, including those that made the determination, believe that she was alone at this time and all are sure she lived in some sort of community. Indeed, at some point we will no doubt find her ancestor -perhaps it is Lucy herself, currently on display at the Houston Museum of Nat History. I urge a visit.
-
To those who say that we have seen evolution under the microscope, and things like bacteria has become resistant to antibiotics, those things are not evolving new information, they are losing information. My statement about everything devolving....devolving was not a good word to use, more like we are losing information and not gaining new. As far as the fossil record, please show me a fossil that is caught in the stage of evolution..there must be one somewhere. Atheism is a religion, if you don't believe that there is a God, then you have a belief system. Atheists that I have heard of and from, believe that each individual decides what is right and wrong, to which I said before, we would have an awful mess. I don't want to repeat myself, so if you want to know what I said go up to my previous post. To the person who posted Kent Hovinds website...I would not endorse someone who is a bad testimony of the Christian faith, and his arguments for Creation are shaky. That is something for the evolutionists to come down upon. I don't blame them for being critical of Christians when so many are not ready to defend their faith with good arguments or have bad testimonies. I would suggest Answers In Genesis to anyone who has an open mind and to read their arguments for creation. www.answersingenesis.com. To the one who said there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, please look up the meaning of the word day used in the bible, it means a literal 24 hour day. I do not mean this post to be a personal attack on anyone, I just want to present what I believe to be the truth.
-
Remember, gravity is just a theory also: "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory" "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power." Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
-
withersteen: you do realize that the sarcasm will be lost on many of these posters....?
-
Sarcasm? I thought that was a real article; I found it on the Internets. There is a link there to CNN, for cryin' out loud!
-
You may want to listen to what one of the smartest people of the last century says about religion in a letter written to philosopher Eric Gutkind in January 1954, a year before Einstein's death. In it, the Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." The bible is a book of fables used to teach lessons and show people the right way to live. Nothing more, nothing less. And it does not explain anything aout how or why we are on this giant rock..
-
what?
-
evolution requires more faith than does creationism. In the theory of evolution, life supposedly originated in the ocean. amino acids were randomly "splashed" onto hot metamorphic rock. The proteins responsible for life are incredibly complex. They are oftentimes hundreds and even thousands of amino acids long, and their three dimensional structures are imperative. A single error in the amino acid sequence is capable of malfunctioning the entire protein, making it useless for life's functions. Obviously, A LOT of faith is required for one to believe that these random assortments of amino acids were able to interact with other polypeptides in the immense expanse of the ocean, forming a random, yet perfect protein. The chances of such actions occuring grow more unlikely by the minutes, as multitudes of proteins are required for life's functions, meaning hundreds of thousands of these random and perfect proteins would have to be assembled. Evolution is obviously based on a faulty explanation. Any rational person can see that the chances of such events occurring are practically impossible. Meanwhile, the Bible has been proven accurate by science on EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT of nonbelievers to discredit its words. You scientists claim that evidence is the lifeblood of science, so why is this faulty theory still taught in schools? Creationism requires faith for one aspect - the belief that an intelligent, caring being (aka God) had an outside hand in the origen of life. Which belief is more rational? Just look at the evidence. Science points to creationism.
-
To "Oor Willie[sic]" if you're still around -- Thanks for the wee disquisition on Scottish life and culture! Much appreciated, (though if you lived here for 20 years I would think you'd know it was "Oor WULLIE") Yes , I think we do have a strain of scepticism. (Don't forget this is the land of Knox and the Covenanters, where swimming against the easy cultural tide is a way of life) It's the reason why I don't buy all the Darwinist folly that was pushed at me during that wonderful secular education. Greetings once more to Scott, Mats and co -- hands across the Atlantic! Hold fast you guys -- America really is our last, best hope. God bless you all!
-
To clarify any misunderstandings among ACLU supporters - the bill only allows teachers to provide opportunities for students to DISCUSS scientific theories; it does not force students to be taught and tested on creationism. For all of you evolution supporters, if you are so adamant that your theory is foolproof and evidence supported, then what do you have to fear? Why do you oppose the opportunity for students do discuss different aspects of science. Secondly, for all of you who are always complaining about the quality of Louisiana's education system - why do YOU dissent the opportunity for students to discuss better reasoning and critical thinking skills? Last time I checked, students learn more when they have access to more material in the classroom. Secular scientists are always claiming that science is based on facts, not faith. Yet, evolution is based on a foundation that is supported ONLY by faith. Meanwhile, creationism is based on a scientifically verified collection of documents (The Bible). Still, evolution is taught as science. How hypocritical. As for me and every other Christian, I choose to support the only rational explanation for the origen of life - Creationism.
-
I Kings 7:23-26 "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it." Pi is equal to 3, according to the word of the Lord. Since the Bible is inerrant: Teach the Controversy!
-
Bravo Trackfanatic, well put! And you are so right!
-
Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." The bible is a good reference for teaching morality, but not explaining the origins of humanity. It is just a book. As is the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc.. It would be the same as using a story from J.K. rowling to explain how we got here. Just because people have followed the book for thousands of years does not make it true. What is wrong with saying, "i just do't know"...
-
Scot, mate. You are right, it was Oor Wullie, not willie. You see, apropos this discussion, when I was a child, I read Oor Wullie. Now, as an adult, I put away childish things.
-
I'm afraid you have to allow for the uses of common speech. If I was offering you coffee I wouldn't proffer nought point 534 pints. Besides that it was a vessel, with thickness and possibly lack of exact symmetry: not a mathematical figure. Can't you find something less nerdy to complain about?
-
That last was to withersteen. Hi, Wullie!
-
Trackfantastic argues: "Meanwhile, the Bible has been proven accurate by science on EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT of nonbelievers to discredit its words." Althought not related to the topic at hand, I would love to know which biblical version of Judas' death and burial is accurate - the one in Matthew or Acts? Let us know as soon as you can - I will check back throughout the day. After you answer tha one, I have about 1500 more!
-
TrackFanatic: When will you and the other posters realize that evolution doesn't require faith. What is faith? According to your holy book, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So, your faith is theoretical "evidence" in what you believe. Evolution, and science set out verifiable evidence for their claims. In the scientific world, faith, or "because I think so" is not valid as evidence. I don't have to "believe" in evolution, it's a proven fact.
-
I would like to take the opportunity to remind readers that, despite the input of Scot, he really does constitute an astonishigly small minority of scots (or angles). Christianity in the Uk is and has been a spent force - churches are little more than museums. To meet an outspoken christian unafraid of being declared a loon is rare. To meet an outright fundamentalist (extremist, literalist, choose your term) is akin to photographing nessie himself. Hang in there, Scot - you are, or may soon become, one of a kind.
-
In a time of ignorance and lawlessness, elders created religion as a way to mollify the masses. If an answer wasn't obvious, it must be the work of God. If you are a good person you will have faith in the teachings of God. I can just see it, guy comes down from the mountain and says he spoke to God, "Oh, by the way, god gave me this list of rules for you guys to follow. They are pretty simple, don't steal, don't lie, don't kill anyone, don't sleep with anyone's wife but your own, don't be jealous, obey your parents, oh and he also said, don't worship anyone but him, don't use his name for evil and go to church on Sunday." Isn't it funny how except for the part about honoring God these are pretty much simple rules for living in a polite society. The last part about having no other Gods and going to church are just to bolster the authority from which the other rules are derived. To put a finer point on it, religion is a scam. It was used as a subtle form of intimidation to keep the idiots in line. If you can convince the Jerry Springer/Wrestling fans of the world that a big scary guy in the sky will strike them with a lightning bolt for commiting adultry then maybe we can keep these morons in line. Our guy comes back down from the mountain a few days later and says, "I talked to the big guy again. He said make sure you give God 10% of everything you earn, you know, because he has to keep the lights on and put food on the table. God's way up there in heaven so you can just give me the 10% and I'll make sure he gets it." Sounds like a pretty good plan to me.
-
That said, it is noce to have another perspective - even one so baffling. The scots have long employed a nice turn of phrase evident in scots good natured epistles. By the way, if in need of a cracking good read, go to your local library and borrow "How The Scots Invented The Modern World" by Arthur Hermsn - eye opening stuff!
-
withersteen: read the article. You got it from the Onion.
-
Replying to TrackFanatic's earlier question: "For all of you evolution supporters, if you are so adamant that your theory is foolproof and evidence supported, then what do you have to fear? Why do you oppose the opportunity for students do discuss different aspects of science." I don't oppose the opportunity for students to discuss different aspects of science. SB 733 would kick the doors open for all sorts of ludicrous beliefs to be put in front of students as science. ID/Creationism/Buddha/Flying Spaghetti Monster/insert creation myth here/ is not science. It does not belong in a science classroom. My question for you is, why do you support lowering the quality of education in this state? Oh, and do tell, how is the Bible a "scientifically verified collection of documents"?
-
Thanks William, I sense that i disagree with you to the hilt, but still and all I think you and I could enjoy a blether if ever opportunity served! You are indeed right about the general spiritual state of the UK -- Darwin worked his magic here first don't forget, hence we also have escalating societal problems, family breakup, knife-crime, teenage pregnancy, drunkenness, you name it. However it's a truism over here that where Louisiana (well, America) leads, we follow, and I get hope from the growing understanding among you that evolution is a spent force. God bless you too, Wullie, and don't you ever rule out the possibility that He lives!
-
PS I think you'll find Nessie is a lady
-
Alas, I never even ruled the possibility in, unless of course you are referring to Rab C Nesbitt. But your point is well taken. Take care.
-
I guess it is pointless to argue why creationism should not be discussed in science classrooms with people who just don't understand the fundamental nature of science. Those who are saying things like "evolution is just a THEORY, not a FACT" and "There is no EVIDENCE or PROOF of evolution" have no understanding of the scientific use of the words "Theory", "Fact", "Evidence", or "Proof". If you don't understand the meaning of the words, of course you are going to sound like an idiot to people who do.
-
Science does not require faith, it requires understanding. But sadly, creationists don't understand science, so they are forced to have faith in scientific statements like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" rather than truly understanding how we know (and have known for centuries) that this is true. For them, they BELIEVE the Earth revolves around the Sun because they were taught so as children, not because they actually UNDERSTAND the evidence for it. Scientists don't BELEIVE the Earth revolves around the Sun because an authority figure told them so, they KNOW it because they UNDERSTAND the evidence for it. If one creationist here can PROVE that the Earth revolves around the Sun, I'll be surprised.
-
Smail, Kyle, JDog, please read this article, it might help give you an understanding of where the debate on both sides start (with presuppositions). http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp. Honest question, if we are to believe that evolution is proven science then why don't we see proof, that's what you guys are all about right? Greetings to you also Scot, and even though you may be one of the few in Scotland who still hold true, I encourage you to keep standing! May God bless you as well!
-
by this logic we should teach greek, roman, sumarian, chinese, indian, mayyan, and all other cultures creacreation myths. Mythology is for primatives, like the muslims, jews, and chistians of a thousand years ago, not for people who aren't scared of the monster in the closet. Creationism is Mythology. Period. Really. W
-
Why are the evolutionists so afraid of allowing a critical look at evolution? None of the bills I have seen are requiring the teaching of intellegent design or the elimination of evolution. They only want evolution to be open to critical evaluation. Isn't that what science, or education is suposed to be about? Where would science be if the ACLU were around when Pasteur was trying to disprove the theory of spontanious generation? They would have sued everyone and bullied schools into not teaching Pasteur's experiments or they will lose accredidation or colleges would refuse to accept students who learned about Pasteur in their Universities. I teach science and I don't recall bullying, intimidation, name calling, and lawsuits by the ACLU as part of the scientific process. It all makes me wonder what everyone is so aftaid we will find if we are allowed to think for ourselves and follow evidence were evidence leads? As passionate as the evolution people are here I wonder who they are actually trying to convince? Let's educate, not indoctrinate our students.
-
Scott, and KBB, the evidence and proof of evolution is all around us. You just refuse to aknowledge it. Do a little reading on the subject and you will discover that there is a mountain of proof that evolution is real and it is happening all around you. KBB, why not teach an alternative to the germ theory of disease? Why don't we teach that disease is carried by the myasma? It was once believed that Malaria was caused by swamp gas. The reason we don't wish to teach anything in science other than evolution is the same reason we don't teach anyting other than the earth is round, well, kind of egg shaped really, but you get the point, we don't teach the earth is flat or a cube or a pyramid, it's a sphere. For the same reason we teach evolution because it's a fact. The bible is fiction, literature, mythology, GOD DOES NOT exist. If I had a foot race with God, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, who would win?
-
This much is clear to anyone with any background in modern thinking. We can look at the fossil record and trace many of our genetic traits back to ancient species. In fact, scientific reasoning can explain nearly every stage of life from the Big Bang to the present day. I say "nearly" because the period that scientists claim lasted from roughly 205 to 250 million years ago, commonly known as the Triassic period, was quite obviously the work of the Lord God Almighty. Don't get me wrong: I'm not one of those religious nut cases who denies that evolution is real. Of course evolution is real, just not during the "Triassic period." This so-called Triassic period saw the formation of scleractinian corals and a slight changeover from warm-blooded therapsids to cold-blooded archosauromorphs. Clearly, such breathtakingly subtle modifications could only have been achieved by an active intelligence. http://tinyurl.com/2s8os8
-
JDog states, "If one creationist here can PROVE that the Earth revolves around the Sun, I'll be surprised." the Earth is titled on its axis, giving the northern and southern hemispheres opposite seasons at any given time. IF earth did not revolve around the sun, then these hemispheres would be "stuck," so to speak in their respective seasons, meaning the northern hemisphere would constantly be in summer, while the southern hemisphere would constantly be in winter. Because the Earth revolves around the sun, the different hemispheres are able to experience different seasons. While the Northern hemisphere may experience more direct sunlight for half of the year due to the tilted axis on which earth rotates, it will experience less direct sunlight for the other half of the year after it reaches one half of a revolution around the sun. The opposite is true for the southern hemisphere. JDog, please explain what you mean by your statement. I am a Christian/Creationist/Science Geek. Science has revealed our progress as a human race. It is a demonstration of our intelligent aspirations to understand nature. UNDERSTANDING evidence is one skill, but BELIEVING something that is only theoretical is something that oftentimes requires irrational faith.
-
Kyle states, "Scott, and KBB, the evidence and proof of evolution is all around us. You just refuse to aknowledge it. " Oh really? I do believe you are referring to microevolution, which involves the genetic adaptations AMONG a species, not BETWEEN a species. Of course, humans have genetically created plants that contain abnormal amounts of dna, and they "claim" that these plants are a new "species" based on the fact that they can mate to produce viable and fertile offspring, etc. Yet they fail to acknowledge that the GENUS (part of binomial nomenclature) is the exact same. Finches are still...finches...but we have a large selection of VARIETY of finches - microevolution. As far as evidence is concerned, we have none of it that supports macroevolution...nothing our fossil record supposedly has "large gaps" of slow transitions between species. there are no fossils that reveal these supposed transitions...so what evidence are you exactly referring to?
-
JDog, as far as I'm concerned YOU and all secular scientists are the ones who "believe" instead of understand... explain to me how atoms are held together...you say that protons and neutrons are in a dense nucleus, which is surrounded by an electrostatic electron cloud...one question for you - the basic law of electricity states that like charges repel and opposite charges attract...so what exactly keeps the protons together? naturally, they should scatter apart from each other in all directions, yet this is not the case...but you still BELIEVE they do, even though YOU don't UNDERSTAND why...and you attempt to rationalize this argument by explaining the concept of gluons...unfortunately for you, there is absolutely NO scientific evidence that proves this, just as there is none that supports evolution... so what requires more faith - Christianity or Evolution? The obvious answer is reinforced in my prior post.
-
sorry for the miconsception, trackfanatic926 IS trackfanatic
-
Smail, you claim that evolution has been proven - give me your evidence please...
-
Kyle, did you read the article I linked to? I am trying to get people to see that a creationist and evolutionist have the same facts, but they start from totally different presuppositions. I believe that science backs up the bible. I am not the best in explaining scientific things, but if you would visit the website, they give scientific answers to back up the bible. If you choose not to, that is your decision, but don't be afraid to see both sides. I have read and heard arguments from both sides, and I believe in creation. www.icr.org www.answersingenesis.com.
-
Jed leland: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml Here are loads of examples in which case the Bible has been verified by science... and to answer you quesiton about the death of judas - a slight difference in two men's perspective of one event is in no way an ailment against the Bible's validity. Reading between the lines and looking for an attack of somesort will get you nowhere... A great example - do you believe that Kennedy was shot by Oswald alone, or was it part of a conspiracy? various people will interpret things differently and record them in their writings... INTERPRETATION will result in VARIATION, FACT will not. This explains the tons of different religions we have that are based on the same book, the Bible. People interpret things differently, as did the two disciples. what are your 1500 more supposed arguments?
-
Kyle, you do what every evolutionist does on these sites. Show me where I said we would teach something else. I said "WE SHOULD TEACH EVOLUTION" but teach it critically. Let the theory see the light of actual scrutiny. If I were as confident in a theory as you seem to be I would say "critique all you want. I welcome a critical analysis and I'm confident in the outcome." Instead you sound like a kid who says "my dad is tougher than your dad." Then when the other kid says "OK, lets see them fight" then your dad is out of the country, or at work, or the ACLU will sue to prevent your dad from fighting. If evolution is a fact, then real, honest, scientific inquiry will reveal that. But if your not sure it will stand up to being critiqued, then it seems like you are spending a lot of time trying to convince YOURSELF, of something that you really must not be that confident in. Remember, we should educate, not indoctrinate or intimidate!!
-
Everything about the Triassic period points to divine involvement. Let me ask you this: Could some kind of random genetic chance make the population of shelled cephalopods grow significantly? No, of course not. So the only logical explanation is that there was an infinite and all-knowing cephalopod creator who modified their mollusk foot into a muscular hydrostat that eventually, on the sixth day, became a tentacle.In the beginning, there were a few billion years of speciation and gene drift. And then nothing. And then, God made the lungfish and the trilobites, the ichthyosaurs and ammonoids with more complex suture patterns. He also made a couple new ferns. And the Lord saw that these slight modifications were good, and allowed evolution to resume as normal in the Jurassic period and on up to the present day. http://tinyurl.com/2s8os8
-
Oh, and the people involved with these websites have degrees in areas of science from places like UCLA, U of Cal-Berkley, Ohio State U, U of Washington, U of Cal, Duke, Indiana, Illinois, etc. They are not uneducated people.
-
Rule 1, as soon as a person brings religion into any argument that person loses the argument. I have no problem with scrutinizing and refining the theory of evolution. What I have problem with is TEACHING RELIGION AS SCIENCE!
-
Reconcile this..Genesis 2:15, God tells man not to eat of the forbidden tree. 2:18, God creates woman. 3:1-2, The serpent asks Eve about what God said. 3:3, "but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree..."----How did Eve know what God said since she was not created when God spoke to Adam. She speaks as if she were there....And please don't tell me that she was just because Adam's rib was used....
-
What if science backs up the bible? Even if you were to read up on the evidence of creation, I don't believe you would understand, because you already have a presupposition that there is no God and you won't have anything to do with Christianity no matter what is presented. I'm not going to argue back and forth, so I will leave it at this...
-
Trackfanatic - two markedly different renditions of teh same event, recounted by different people, with specific instances in each one - tough to reconcile. That would not be an issue at all, were it not for people insisting the infallibility of the document. The JFK analogy is self defeating. The fact that so many different and competing theories exist only serves to weaken any that might claim validity. Much the same in this case. I agree, one should read between the lines, but at what point do two events become one? Obviously one must be wrong - if so infallibility goes out the window. As for another, more apt example, which creation sequence is true - theoe in Gen 1 or Gen 2. On a more global scale - why only christian mythology and origin stories? There are countless others we could teach - and chritian mythology borrows from many of them. Dont send me to some URL now, your opinion is what counts. Can an infallible text contain error?
-
For those unfamiliar with my example, Matthew has Judas recieving his gold, filled with guilt, and hanging himself. The hebrews then use that gold to purchase a filed in which he is buried - thus it becomes the Field of Blood (figuratively - bought with blood money). Acts says that Judas himself bought the field and strode into it, at which point he was disemboweled thus causing his death, and for that reason it was called teh Field of Blood (literally covered in the stuff). Hardly minor details. Again, in an error-free, infallible document purporting to be true in all things historical, how can this be? As for other examples, Jesus father, Joseph, is given two different fathers in two different geneologies.
-
The australian founder of answersingenesis.com believes the world to be only 600 years old, men frolicked with dinosaurs, and genesis is inerrant. EVen the more sophisticated ID proponents have long abandoned that farce. Oh, and he has a bachelors degree in science. Thats right, this scholar has maybe 32 hours of college credit, alongside freshman english lit, phys ed, and music appreciation. Another less-than-impressive citation to go along with Dr Mace.
-
Trackfanatic wrote: "IF earth did not revolve around the sun, then these hemispheres would be "stuck," so to speak in their respective seasons, meaning the northern hemisphere would constantly be in summer, while the southern hemisphere would constantly be in winter. "..............Oh my gawd.....the stupid is so thick, you can cut it with a knife. If the earth were not tilted, the two hemispheres would experience equal, temperate climes all year long, and the poles would still be frozen. There's no accounting for the fantasy tales these creationist boosters will come up with, is there?
-
and just exactly what are your credentials, jed?
-
and Former Republican, that's not even the issue he was talking about, he had to give evidence that the earth revolved around the sun... not that it was tilted... which it is
-
I'm sure you just had a typo (600), but it is 6,000 years that is believed by creationists. Just because you have a ton of degrees after your name doesn't necessarily make you any better of a scientist. And I still hold that evolution is still yet to be proven as fact, and until someone can actually show me the the proof before my very eyes then I will not accept it as fact. As was mentioned before it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Evolution (something comes from nothing) or Creation (God created everything).
-
My degree is in history. Would you come to me for medical treatment? or would you visit a physician? I can help you with 1066, or Augustus, or even (yes) biblical history, to a degree, but I would not then disregard seasoned, credentialed, degreed, educated folk the world over, in every nation and accredited university, who are of an accord on this subject, differing only on the details of mechanics. ANd were I to do so, I would not cite websites run by people with no more (and in some cases less) expertise than myself, but who like to call themselves Dr 9for a $3000 cash fee). This is the calibre of 'expert' proposed by three different posters here today.
-
well then, how's this one? http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
-
Oneflewover - not sure where you are going with that url - a very liberal religious group they are. Here is a quick quote I just pulled from that very site: "Almost all scientists believe that evolution is a fact -- that species evolved over a long period of time. Only about 5% of all scientists argue for the creation of all present-day species (and of all the species seen only in fossils) in one week, about 4000 to 8000 BCE. This small minority of scientists are almost entirely Evangelical Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, literally interpreted. Among those scientists who specialize in biology or geology, the percentage of believers in creation of a young earth drops to less than 1%. Many dozens of "proofs" that evolution never happened have been put forth by creation scientists. These indicators have been well circulated among scientists; all have been easily refuted by them. If such a proof existed, it would be the discovery of the century! It would disprove the entire structure of evolution -- of the earth itself, of its life forms and of the rest of the universe. This structure has been laboriously pieced together over more than a century. Any scientist who was able to disprove evolution would be a shoo-in for the next Nobel Prize, and would receive world-wide fame. It seems obvious that very few scientists could resist such fame and economic rewards; he or she would publish an article immediately and wait by the phone for the Nobel Prize committee to call. But, although tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists are familiar with these "proofs" by creation scientists, no scientist has ever come forward and published a proof in a peer-reviewed journal." Hardly supportive of creationism
-
TrackFanatic. Should have checked this earlier, you've given me lots to respond to. What holds the nuclei of atoms together? It's the strong nuclear force. They taught me that in my Physics class at the Christian high school I attended. As for proven evidence of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You'll find transitional fossils and all the other good stuff you're looking for. Thumbing through the clarifyingchristianity link you posted is like reading a Nostradamus book. Lots of claims with very flimsy reasoning behind them. Sticking to the astronomy section, as that's my cup o' tea: >>there are a lot of stars out there. And there's a lot of sand on the Earth. What does that prove? They were being used as examples of incredible amounts, not a literal comparison. >>The next one really had me rolling. "All stars look alike to the naked eye" with an asterisked note that we can identify some slight differences in color and size, but people 2000 years ago wouldn't have been able to identify. Bull. The star Antares got its name because of its red color, and that was 5-7000 years ago. The ancient Arabs, Egyptians, Greeks and Indians were incredibly aware of the goings on in the night sky and identified different colors and sizes of stars, comets, planets and many other celestial bodies. >>How does saying the sun is in the daytime sky and the stars and Moon are in the nighttime sky "describe the precision of movement in the universe"? >>And Job 26:7 describing the Earth as suspended in space? What about Job 38:4-6 that describes the Earth as having a foundation and footings? Or Job 26:11 claiming that the heavens being constructed on pillars? Those appear to directly contradict that site's original claim. >>I'm sure with a little bit of research I could punch holes in all the other claims on that site, but I'm tired and going to bed.
-
If Earth's species were meant to change over successive generations through physical modifications resulting from the adaptation to environmental challenges, then God would have given them the genetic predisposition to select mates and reproduce based on their favorable heritable traits and their ability to thrive under changing conditions so that these advantageous qualities would be passed down and eventually encoded into the DNA of each generation of offspring. It's just not natural.
-
FormerRepublican, you just embarrassed yourself by trying to fault what i said. I was giving evidence for the fact that earth revolves around the sun, not the fact that it rotates on its axis. yes, if earth were not tilted, then seasons would be the same. However, if it were tilted on its axis but did NOT revolve around the sun, then the hemispheres would be stuck in opposite seasons. Before you claim that creationist are "stupid" and ignorant, make sure you even understand what we are saying.
-
The Talking Snake Theory: Creation Science & History For Christian Children. The Talking Snake Theory is a fact-based historical Creation Science book for Christian youngsters. Readers journey back 6,000 years ago in time to the actual date when God created the first two humans from a pile of dirt and a spare rib. It is a time and place that, despite the first hand accounts from eyewitnesses in the Bible, most ignorant secular scholars and scientists refuse to believe existed. For True Christians®, Jews, and Muslims, our entire belief systems hinge on a few words from a talking snake who appeared around this same time. By using fun characters and cartoons based on factual accounts from the Holy Bible book of Genesis (one of the few history books that all three major religions in the world agree on), youngsters are taken on an educational journey they will remember for the rest of their lives. Children will learn the truth about how snakes used to have legs until one of them opened up his mouth and gave Eve (the first woman) some bad dieting advice. After God kicks Adam and Eve (the first humans) out of his Garden for listening to a talking snake, readers will follow the first family as they begin to populate the Earth. The author uses an imaginary character named "Becky," who is Cain's daughter by his mother, Eve, to explain how it was possible for Adam and Cain to find another woman to help them make more babies. After Becky agrees to be her dad's wife, they have more children together so that Adam can make babies with his grandchildren instead of his daughters, and so on. PERFECT SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL. http://tinyurl.com/8pf7r
-
Admirable effort, Fratboy Al. Alas, as I have found to me detriment on other posts elsewhere, irony is simply lost on the very conservative and very devout. Something to do with a lack of selfawareness, I suspect.
-
Scott says "Oh, and the people involved with these websites have degrees in areas of science from places like UCLA, U of Cal-Berkley, Ohio State U, U of Washington, U of Cal, Duke, Indiana, Illinois, etc. They are not uneducated people." Would you have some names and quals? The three mentioned thus far in other p osts hav ebeen a bit hopeless. Qualification does matter - it indicates years of immersive study and peer review - very important in scientific circles. Otherwise, they might as well be essentially hobbyists. Again, if sick, one would not visit a part-time non-licensed physician, but an MD. As important as where the degrees are from is the nature - they should be geologists, biologists etc. I have no doubt there are some from the uni's you cited - I am just curious as to who exactly they are (or at least some of them). Enjoying the give-and-take. Glad we can all remain civil on the subject. A few folk over on the political sites get very personal and unpleasant.
-
We have all gathered here to preserve our hallowed culture and heritage from intrusion, inclusion and dilution of our old-time religion. We aim to pull evil up by the root before it chokes out the flower of our culture and heritage. And our women, let's not forget those ladies, y'all, looking to us for protection. from Democrats and ACLU and from all those smart-alik folks say we come descended from monkeys. - That's not my culture and heritage
-
i have to say that i must not have reviewed the site very well, i was merely looking for a site that presented all views in an unbiased fashion and met your requirement of having credentials. im going to bring someone into the discussion who is way better at this stuff than i am, i'll see if he can find the time to get on
-
Sounds good. And having credentials isnt my requirement personally. It is the standard by which such experts are judged universally. That and peer reviewed work in standard scholarly journals.
-
Point 1: The Louisiana law, SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has national implications. So far, this legislation has failed in every other state where it was proposed, except in Michigan, where it remains in committee. By passing SB 733, Louisiana has set a dangerous precedent that will benefit the Discovery Institute by helping them to advance their strategy to get intelligent design creationism into public schools. Louisiana is only the beginning. Other states will now be encouraged to pass such legislation, and the Discovery Institute has already said that they will continue their push to get such legislation passed. Point 2: Since Gov. Jindal's support for teaching ID clearly helped to get this bill passed in the first place, his decision to veto it will stick if he lets the legislature know that he wants it to stick. Point 3: Simply allowing the bill to become law without his signature, which is one of the governor's options, does not absolve him of the responsibility for protecting the public school science classes of Louisiana. He must veto the bill to show that he is serious about improving Louisiana by improving education. Anything less than a veto means that the governor is giving a green light to creationists to undermine the education of Louisiana children.
-
what happened to the battle? where's everyone's arguments?
-
The secular Triassicists would have you believe that these changes were just the result of millions of years of nature favoring certain genes over others in order to adapt, the same way evolution worked prior to the Triassic. Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. Think about it: I'm supposed to believe that the same process that we know slowly changed us from simple bacteria into highly advanced reptiles over the course of the Paleozoic era is also responsible for turning us into highly advanced reptiles with different body lengths? Do these people ever pause to think how ridiculous they sound as they advance these theories?
-
Well, from my point of view, it is (as Stephen Colbert said) like boxing a glacier. However, I have enjoyed the to-and-fro thus far.
-
We need to grasp the broom of reform and sweep this state clean! Creationists... y'all are just dumber than a bag of hammers.
-
Jed, I have to say, you are correct in the fact that there are seemingly different stories told in different books of the Bible. The key word is seemingly. If you noticed in the genealogy, there appeared to be several "errors" as you would say, not just the one about Joseph's father. Take this into account - families of that time oftentimes consisted of several wives and "concubines"...whenever the father died, it was the responsibility of his brothers to marry the widow and continue the family line. It is also noteworthy to mention that Joseph fails to appear throughout Jesus's adult life (his ministry, his death, his resurrection), it is assumed by most historians that he probably died early in Jesus's life. The disciples traced the lineages through the recorded censuses. It is logical to assume that BOTH men were father's of Joseph. Without Joseph alive to settle the dispute, both men simple traced the lineage through one of the two fathers - the biological father and the "step-dad" (most likely an uncle, since Joseph's grandparent is recorded as the same person in both books). What appears to be an "error" is simply a passage that reveals a deeper understanding of Joseph's life.
-
As a True Christian™, I must take a moment to reject the secular heresy of so-called "evolution." My idea of natural selection is picking up a pair of Gucci slingbacks at Barneys to complement my new Hermes silk suit. Sure, the idea that we are après-apes is intriguing (and, in regard to some men, a transformation somewhat overstated), but can tedious biological permutations really hold a candle to a tawdry tale of naked people who lie, murder and commit incest? I am, of course, talking about the delightful Adam and Eve clan our Lord somewhat ineptly created as His first stab at making humans. With such ribald shenanigans in our very own Bible, it is quite clear that if Charles Darwin was looking for cheap sensationalism, he needn't have veered away from Creationism.
-
fratboy, consider this point as well. bacteria have a considerably LESS amount of DNA than do animals and humans. It is altogether irrational and impossible to believe that the ADDITION of DNA resulted in such positive mutations and adaptations. Today, DNA duplications in humans result in horrible complications, like huntington's disease for one. Here is a link to a scientific journal that explains other of these diseases - all HARMFUL, not beneficial http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040305073541.htm all evidence points against darwinian evolution another thing, if mutations occurred slowly, over long periods of time, then how did fish move onto land - it would have had to been a SUDDEN change in order to avoid drowning, from gills to lungs, not gradual like darwin proclaimed. Darwin only noted microevolution in his studies, which no creationist will argue because there is EVIDENCE. the problem arises when he crazily went on to theorize that changes occur between species. heck, he even doubted himself on his deathbed...and yet we still teach it as FACT in schools...quite uneducational
-
Trackfanatic - that is a valid theory - but also a lot of inference - exactly the kind of non-eyewitness extrapolation that supposedly nullifies evolution. It is also possible that an error was made. It matters not to me - evey history text includes inference, speculation etc. That is the nature of the discipline. The only reason it is of any import in this discussion is because we are dealing with a philosophy based entirely on a book, and a book that claims complete infallibility. No errors, mistakes or contradictions. Our Judas example easily makes hay of that - as does the problem of Gen 1 and Gen 2 having 2 different sequences of creation. Much must be inferred with a series of such books written by goodness knows who and translated many times. I think your analysis of Joseph is probably spot on.
-
My last post refers to Trackfanatics Joseph paragraph
-
"heck, he even doubted himself on his deathbed:" - now here is one I cant let go. As far as fish moving to land, look to amphibians for species able to live in both, or Hippos, who spend much time underwater, where they move gracefully, and not cooincidentally, are the closest land cousins to whales. As far as the deathbed rumor, the so called "Lady Hope" story, that was debunked about 100 years ago. Her id is still in question, but she claimed to have visited Darwin during his last hours. He was sitting up reading from Hebrews, and alone to her recanted his work, and claimed Jesus. She left. Darwins wife returns (who spent her life hoping to save her husband who drifted slowly to atheism) and he never mentioned it again, to her or his children, who remained by his bedside throughout this period and never saw a lady hope. Thus, for one brief moment in the company of an evangelist, Darwin recanted. Then forgot all about it and went back to being gravely ill. His children fought after his death to debunk the story, and few believe the urban legend today. Lady Hope herself has never been fully positively IDd. Simply put, the eveidence is her story (denied by Darwins godly wife and children, who say she never even showed) versus a lifetime of written work by Darwin, including:"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." In short, its baloney.
-
Jed, the same goes for Judas. notice that Matthew references a verse in which Jeremy predicted why the field was named what it was. As you already said, Matthew claims that Judas hanged himself in the field. Paul, on the other hand, claims that he was found to be disembowled in the field. Why do you insist on claiming this as contradictory? Neither book provides the entire story of his death, burial, etc. Judas became a hated icon in the Jewish community. After he hanged himself, it is by no surprise that his body was defiled and disrespected. Also, while the chief priests bought the field with this "blood money," the people, a separate entity, named the field for its more obvious characteristics (the physical blood that covered it)...Hence, different groups of people named the field for different reasons. The commoners were involved with the disembowelment, so they named the field for its physical properties, while the chief priests bought the land and recognized Judas's death as hanging, so they named the field for other qualities. Once again, it is important to analyze scripture and interpret two SEEMINGLY contradictory statements as one event told from two separate viewpoints.
-
Jed, I've read the book of Genesis on over twenty different occasions, and I studied it once again after you mentioned a contradiction in the first two chapters...I am yet to find an instance in which the Creation is supposedly recorded in two different sequences...
-
Jed, your explanation still fails to recognize that the change from gills to lung would have to be SUDDEN and instantaneous, not gradual and slow...and i fail to see counterargument for the mutations argument...
-
Lets see - Gen 1 says the order is light - waters - earth - vegetation - stars - fish/birds - land animals - man. Gen 2 (verse 19 or so) says man was created but was alone, and then all the animals were created. A distinct inversion. There is no qualifier or other info. We are back to inferrence should we wish to explain an obvious discrepancy. The easy answer is that two this element of genesis is based on two older competing myths, both of which were combined for this - many instructive books have been written by biblical historians on that very point and two identifiably differing middle eastern creation myths older than this have been identified and match the competing tales in genesis. While we are on the subject, if Moses wrote the penateuch, how does he come to describe his own death in the past tense? 1498 to go.
-
"Once again, it is important to analyze scripture and interpret two SEEMINGLY contradictory statements as one event told from two separate viewpoints" - and in that you have made my point for me. There is no absolute historical truth - we must infer based on analysis of given evidence and knowlege of contributing factors. Exactly the method by which evolutionary theory has taken precedence. Biblical literalism does not allow or condone such inference. You are reading these chapters with much more sophistication that fundamentalism allows - either it is enerrant "as written" or not.
-
As far as the Judas example goes, you could tie your self in knots reconciling the two. Here is how it reads "literally" In Matthew, Judas threw away the money to the priests before dying, then he went to hang himself. After that, the priests bought a field. In Acts, Judas used the money himself to buy a field. In Matthew, Judas threw away the money before dying, and then a field was bought. In Acts, the field was bought before Judas died.In Matthew, he died by hanging himself, whilst in Acts he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out.
-
" Trackfanatic and I are getting a wrokout today. He says :"Jed, your explanation still fails to recognize that the change from gills to lung would have to be SUDDEN and instantaneous, not gradual and slow". Actually, there is even a breed of fish - the Lungfish - that fits this very argument. I will let Brain Wisenden make the case : ...the anabantoids (e.g. gouramis, betta fish) live in warm swamps in Asia. They have a labyrinth of vascularized tubes in their head for holding air bubbles. Many will drown if denied access to the surface. Other fishes have an enlarged region of the esophagus specialized for holding an air bubble. The fish swim to the surface, gulp a bubble and swallow it. The esophageal pocket is well vascularized for extracting atmospheric oxygen. Lungfishes are specialized examples of this ability." If you have been to a still swamp or bayou, you may have seen many fish come to the surface and gulp. They are not jsut feeding. The evidence for evolution is all around.
-
Trackfanatic - With regards to gills and lungs, it's not an either/or scenario. Lungfish have usable gills and a usable lung (swim bladder). The apple snail also has both a lung and a gill. As for mutations, most mutations are neutral. Whether they are beneficial or not depends on the environment. A mutation that helps an organism in one situation may harm it in another.
-
For a half-dozen million years, life advanced from prokaryotes to primitive fish to mammal-like reptiles via natural selection, and we're supposed to believe that that just continued happening? I don't think so. Isn't it much more likely that a formless, invisible deity intervened, temporarily stopped the course of evolution, and shaped each and every trilobite over a period of six days? Of course it is, at least to any objective observer. So, if you follow my reasoning to its logical end, the only sound conclusion is that, at some point, God paused evolution and stepped in, made a few modifications, and boom! Pterosaurs. There is simply no way evolution alone could be responsible for the giant leap between archosaurs and other, different archosaurs with better developed hip joints and slightly differently shaped teeth.
-
Everything about the Triassic period points to divine involvement. Let me ask you this: Could some kind of random genetic chance make the population of shelled cephalopods grow significantly? No, of course not. So the only logical explanation is that there was an infinite and all-knowing cephalopod creator who modified their mollusk foot into a muscular hydrostat that eventually, on the sixth day, became a tentacle. So, when I tell you that after the Paleozoic era, Ceratodon lungfish became relatively common, it naturally follows that someone created that lungfish by hand and then took out one of its lungfish ribs and combined it with the dust of the Earth to create a female lungfish.
-
Everyone who supports a solid educational system should email Governor Jindal urging him to veto this bill. If you need examples on drafting such an email, see the following two sites: http://lasciencecoalition.org/ http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com You can email the governor here: http://www.gov.la.gov/index.cfm?md=form&tmp=email_governor
-
Everyone who supports a solid educational system should email Governor Jindal urging him to veto this bill. If you need examples on drafting such an email, see the following two sites: http://lasciencecoalition.org/ http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com You can email the governor here: http://www.gov.la.gov/index.cfm?md=form&tmp=email_governor
-
when the Bible says that man, "was alone," it means that he was without a companion. If you keep reading, the animals are brought before Adam to BE NAMED. Then, God made Eve to fill the void in Adam's life. The context is about companionship for the entire part of that passage. The word "alone" also means "lonely," not just the figurative meaning.
-
ahh, i was hoping you would bring up the lungfish argument. You fail to recognize that "gulping" air is only a supplementary forms of breathing, not a replacement system. The lungfish would not survive purely on land, it can "flop in the mud" for only breath periods of time. How does this explain the transition of animals onto land? As you know, the force of gravity is felt at a much greater intensity on land than in water. In order to survive on land, an organism would have to possess sole-functioning lungs in order to get the most effective amounts of oxygen necessary, for land-living requires much higher metabolic rates (it faces much fiercer obstacles, starting with gravity), and higher metabolic rates corresponds with greater lung efficiency and higher breathing rates. So, my question for you is this - how did fish jump from supplementary lungs to solely operating, efficient lungs? Of course, such drastic change would have to be sudden, not gradual and slow...
-
Well, I posted an ironclad, watertight response. Why do they take so long?
-
Mats, the section you quoted has been appropriately labeled the fig leaf clause. The Discovery Institute provided LA with this legislation, and is now gleefully anticipating that their creationist textbooks will be included under the guise of “academic freedom”. The biggest stumbling block to Intelligent Design is the absence of a workable theory or testable hypothesis – a fact that has been recognized by Discovery Institute own advocates. Obviously not appropriate for science class. If you are willing to concede that only “scientific” peer reviewed literature (not intelligent design or other dogma) will be presented as alternatives to evolution I will accept that. Problem is, no one has yet to produce or publish such contravening arguments within the scientific community. Currently, only creationist-religion based opposition is offered while the introspective analysis afforded by the scientific method has continued to reinforce evolutionary theory. If these counter arguments are not of a religious nature where will they be coming from? PS. Even chimpanzees read Nietzsche they just don’t understand it. Entertaining while it lasted.
-
why aren't the comments going through? is there a limit at 180 or something?
-
i was riding home from work today, and I got to thinking, no human has the same skull shape, body shape, etc. In fact, people have jaw surgeries all the time to complete orthodontic treatment. My point is this - we rarely find intact, complete skeletons. Rather, scientists excavate large areas and piece together random bones they find, assuming that they all were once part of the same organism. The Heidelberg man - constructed from a jaw bone that closely resembed that of modern humans...Nebraska man - skeleton contstructed from ONE TOOTH - later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig...Piltdown man - constructed from jawbone - later found to be that of modern ape...neaderthal man - same features as modern humans - skeleton was most like from a modern man with arthritis...new guinea man - dates back to...oh, the year 1970...yet its' still in the lineage of humans before cro-magnon man...cro-magnon man - same size brain, same body build as us, identical features all over the place...know why? because he WAS us... for those of you who are interested, this is a great book to read - "The Collapse of Evolution" by Scott Huse
-
I have worked with a number of Louisiana High School biology teachers, in a university setting to advance their training in laboratory skills and techniques. Inmy experience, a significant number of the teachers do not believe in evolution and hence do not support it, and some of them have reported that they have been specifically instructed by their superintendents not to teach the subject. SB 733 is not intended to promote change, it is intended to cover tracks.
-
jeeez... Evolution isn't something you "believe in" . The fact that this has spun out to 180+ comments indicates that critical thinking in schools has long since been abandoned.....
-
Kevin I would like to know how you could provide peer edited articles when doing so would be a career ending proposition. Just look at Dr. Richard Sternberg. He allowed an article written by Steven Meyer, which had been peer edited, be published in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and was systematically harassed and bullied until he was forced to leave. So it is very convenient to say that there is no peer edited work supporting ID when those saying it will not allow a peer edited journal be published, no matter how good the article. As a side note, if there is no evidence for intelligent design, then why did the famous evolutionist Anthony Flew change his mind based on "the scientific evidence?"
-
seriously, we've discussed our beliefs long enough, let's get back on topic and see how much support this bill has among constituents. just give SINGLE WORDS ANSWERS - yes or no - should jindal sign the bill???
-
kbb - regarding Nathony Flew - he was not a famous evolutionist, he was, and is a philosopher, not a scientist. He has no scientific training. He was an atheist who embraced deism (not christianity) and indeed his qoute from 2004 "While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings" - thus dismissing the entirety of scripture. Deism asserts the god as watch winder - setting the mechanisms of nature in play initially and having no further input. Many of our founding fathers embraced this, and believed miracles, talking snakes, arcs, saviors on crosses etc was ludicrious - Jefferson even rewrote the new testament himself - check your library. Flew is a famous evolutionist in the same way Castro is famous for his beard - it is entirely beside the point. Wonder if this post will make it - last nights didnt!
-
NO, jindal should not veto the bill.
-
sorry, i thought the question was whether or not he should veto it... YES he should sign it
-
If we wish to embrace primitivism - then yes. Were saner heads to prevail - no. Its astonishing that such a question is even raised post-1850
-
Flew may not have been a scientist, but he was a proponent of evolution and he said he changed his mind based on the scientific evidence. The big problem is that evolutionists say there is no evidence for intelligent design. The fact is it's the same evidence that is there for evolution. An evolutionists believes that the 4,639,221 nitrogen base pairs that make up the DNA in a bacteria put themselves together in the exact order that would code for the production, modification, and 3 dimensional folding of the more than 50 proteins that could be required to decode that DNA and turn it into the miriad of proteins, enzymes, lipids, and carbohydrates necessary for it to to perform its life functions. Now, where those 50 proteins necessary to decode the 4,639,221 nitrogen bases came from in the first place, we just don't know. An intellignet design person looks at that same evidence (that you say doesn't exist) and realizes that a four letter alphabet, more sophisticated than the best computer program out there, that codes for the production of all living things, and the 3 dimensional machinery needed to translate and trancribe, and build it, looks more like a design than an accident. I highly doubt that you could look at a computer and say the parts, which are made out of material found on earth, put itself together.
-
He should sign it. We have to educate not indoctrinate our students.
-
kbb - I se your argument - but it is once again an appeal to lack of imagination - "I cant see it happening, therefore god did it". Geven the billions of trillions of molecules present over billions of years, the mathemitician would argue that it is not o nly possible, but indeed probable - we are talking about numbers almost beyond imagination. 10 to the power of thousands. As regards the computer analogy - that sounds an awful lot like the longdebunked tornado in a junkyard creating a jumbo jet story. However, let us give it the benefit f the doubt. It does propose problems of its own. From a design perspective, no computer is the work of one man solely (other create the copper, plastic etc). Are we to infer from that many gods? Our hindu friends would so I presume you would readily accept their creation story taught in a Louisiana curriculum. Additionally, as we are talking of origins today, the ultimate question arises - who created the creator - how far back must we go? Evolution itself doesnt really deal with origins in the scope of natural selection, but that is the logical end point. How would a school teaching ID avoid that religious reference? Finally, were evolution proved wrong, how to explain all those pesky fossils - including many intermediate homonid fossils. Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html and click on example 3 for a terrific photographic sequence illustrating an obvious linear evolutionary step from early form of primate to human. Whay to creationists insist such evidence does not exist? No partial teeth or debunked Nebraska men here.
-
BATON ROUGE, LA—In response to a June 7 referendum, Louisiana lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution, the highly controversial process responsible for the development and diversity of species and the continued survival of all life...."If Louisianians want to ban evolution, that is their right, but they must understand that we rely on a certain flexibility in the natural order of things to be able to deliver healthy food products to millions of Americans," said Carl Casale, a vice president with the agricultural giant Monsanto. "We're not talking about playing God here. We are talking about succeeding in the competitive veggie-burger market." http://tinyurl.com/ycym22
-
I think a mathematician did calculate the likelihood of putting a DNA and all its required protein and enzymatic machines needed to decode it together. 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle complained in Nature magazine: The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it.... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence (1981b, 294:148, emp. added). Dean Kenyon realized the problem after he wrote the book "Biochemical Predistination" He thought that he had proved evolution but finally realized that the 3 demintional folding of the enzymes were coded in DNA as well. He eventually went with the evidence and changed his mind and is now a proponent of Intelligent Design. By the way, Where did the sugars ribose and deoxiribose come from? Glucose and other sugars are made through a biochemical pathway. The only thing I have found is that they are synthesized biochemically as well. No life, no sugars which are the backround of life. Where did all the other biochemical molecules come from that started life?
-
Another question to ponder - why do fewer than 1% of scientisis working in biology and geology accept creationism? Why is is that the only ones that do are overwhelmingly evangelical christian? We have already seen on this page the unwillingness of ID folk to admit the existence of intermediate species, even though the evidence is profound and plentiful - witness the website detailing hominid skulls - a tiny fraction of simiral avialable evidence. one cannot simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence if it disagrees with theology. From another angle, evolution demolished long ago the science of bibilical origins (save for a tiny fringe of believers) but anthropolgy and history long ago debunked biblical history as literally written. countless books, notable amongst them The Golden Bough, have detailed the many earlier religious traditions that evolved (ironcally) into christian doctrine that became creationism. THere have been previous gardens, snakes, ribs, boats, floods etc in many belief systems predating the jewish experience. While we discuss experts who have 'seen the light' you could do a lot worse that read John Shelby Spongs Rescuing the bible from Fundamentalism. He was the former Episcopal archbishop of N jersey - a church bigwig. he did the unthinkable, and questioned doctrine. He remains a man of faith, but not blind faith. I believe the first post in this entire page is a qoute of his. He realised the lunacy of literalism, and how it robs scripture of any power, rendering it a sequence of silly stories waiting to be debunked. We all learned a valuable lesson from the tortoise and the hare, but did that really occur? And if not, does it devalue the lesson?
-
Hmm. My response to Dean Kenyon was not posted.
-
Sure, the idea that we come from apes is intriguing, but can it really hold a candle to four people who lie, murder and commit incest? Not when you throw in a tricky God! He punishes Adam and Eve for disobeying him after making it impossible for them to know that disobeying was wrong until after they had done so (because it was only after eating the fruit could Eve know the difference between right and wrong!). With logic like this, the Lord's story has more seamy plot twists than a Tori Spelling Movie of the Week! When it comes to sheer drama, the dry, obtuse hypothesis of Evolution doesn't stand a chance, as the Louisiana Legislature clearly recognized. And let's face it: it is never easy keeping school children's attention!
-
That 1% of scientists encompases well over 600 phD's from around the globe. One reason the number is not higher may be the overwhealming attacks which go against any scientist who takes a position against darwin. The fact is that there are some very bright, and brave scientists who do take a position against it. I'm sure that 99% or more of the scientists in Pasteur's time believed in spontanious generation, but that didn't make them right. Once people are allowed to do the research and post the results of that research, without having it yanked from websites, and possibly getting fired, I'm sure the number of scientists will increase. I did look at the site you posted. I can assure you that if you were to look at the skulls of students I have had in my classes throughout the years, you would think you had found the entire intermediate line. In short, there exists a great deal of variation in the human, or any, population. I am sure you could find scientists who believe that these are just naturally occuring variations in human and ape skulls.
-
KBB, those variations you speak of are all part of evolution. Variance is how it works. If God created everyone perfectly and in his image, why are we all different? What kind of spooky voodoo answer to you have for that?
-
For Tucker: to=do in my previous post.
-
Kyle, "Spooky voodoo?" The spooky voodoo would be if God created everyone to be exacly the same. How boring would that be? God created the world with genetic variation. He then told them to reproduce after their "kind." Again evolutionists look at DNA and say the similarities in DNA are evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. Intelligent Design people look at it as evidence of a common creator who equiped all life with the ability to break down the building blocks of all other living things and use them to build thier bodies under the influence of the common language of DNA. Doesn't the world seem a little too perfect to be an accident. Plants recycle dead organisms, carbon dioxide, and water to produce their bodies and give off oxygen as a waste. We eat plants, or those who eat plants, and use oxygen and their bodies to make energy and build our bodies. We then give off carbon dioxide and water as waste. You couldn't come up with a more perfect system if you tried. Nothing is wasted and everything is recycled. The Bible even backs this up by saying that "from the ground we came, and to the ground we will return." And that was written thousands of years before we knew that we are made from the elements of the earth.
-
Fratboy, When did lawmakers pass legislation outlawing evolution? Have you even read the legislation? This is exactly how evolutionists work to prevent any critical evaluation of evolution. The law says it is to "foster and create and environment within public elementary and secondary schools, that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Where do you get outlawing of evolution out of that. Probably the same place liberals have gotten the "seperation of church and state" out of the constitution. Show me were the law says it is outlawing evolution. And before you bring up the separation of church and state, quote the words "seperation of church and state" from the constitution. Neither exist. It is just a long used scare tactic that needs to be exposed to the light of day.
-
KBB writes: "Doesn't the world seem a little too perfect to be an accident. " The ancient greeks thought so too, until they discovered they discovered irrational numbers. Not even math fits our idea of "perfect". The greeks too had a crisis of faith when they discovered that the universe (as they understood it) was not "perfect". And that's what the problem is here today: evolution creates a crisis of faith for creationists because it challenges the inerrency and authority of the Bible, therefore creating doubt of eternal salvation. Creationists know only one way to deal with their fear of death: to deny its permenance in hopes of a hevenly afterlife. In their minds, evolution robs them of this death-denial, and they can't tolorate the thought that when it's over it's over.
-
It appears the Discovery Institute has finally found legislators willing to follow orders more obediently than their counterparts in states like Kansas and Pennsylvania. The Discovery Institute identifies their biggest enemies as Christian biology teachers, on the basis that they actually live the belief that science and religion are not inherently opposed. The ID movement, as described by the head of the Kansas State Board of Education, demands that religion and science are incompatible. Now, most mainstream American religions (eg, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and even the Mormons) state that science and religion are compatible, so it's surprising to see Louisiana adopting such an anti-Christian stance. Of course, we've seen the success of radical political movements taking over the schools in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, so it shouldn't be too surprising that authoritarian forces in this country will emulate the practice and try creating American madrassas to indoctrinate the young and prepare them for religious warfare.
-
Evolutionists speculate that life evolved on earth, so many also speculate that life also evolved on other planets. This of course requires that such planets exist, even though this would not in itself guarantee that life could evolve or even exist on them. Paul Kalas, of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, is one evolutionist who believes that other planets will be found. But he asks whether many claims are the result of ‘planet mania.’ This is ‘a bias among astronomers in which every cavity and blob, even a wiggle, in circumstellar dust disks [disks surrounding a star] is taken as evidence for extrasolar planets.’ Secular physicist say they have an alleged photograph of a planet which was 450 light years away. Dr Kalas points out that this could really be a photo of a distant star. Now they say they have found water on Mars. This is a good lesson that scientists have biases, and that we should not trust the frequent pro-evolution media pronouncements. And even if other planets exist, earth is the one where man was created, where he fell and brought the whole creation into bondage, and where God Himself took on human nature (Jesus Christ).
-
As a True Christian™, I must take a moment to reject the secular heresy of so-called "evolution." My idea of natural selection is picking up a pair of Gucci slingbacks at Barneys to complement my new Hermes silk suit. Sure, the idea that we are après-apes is intriguing (and, in regard to some men, a transformation somewhat overstated), but can tedious biological permutations really hold a candle to a tawdry tale of naked people who lie, murder and commit incest? I am, of course, talking about the delightful Adam and Eve clan our Lord somewhat ineptly created as His first stab at making humans. With such ribald shenanigans in our very own Bible, it is quite clear that if Charles Darwin was looking for cheap sensationalism, he needn't have veered away from Creationism.
-
KBB, the world is FAR from perfect. The reason we breathe oxygen is because that is what's in the atmosphere. The reason plants breath carbon dioxide is because that is what is in the atmosphere. Mammals and plants evolved to exploit niches. Oh and yes, I believe life on eart IS an accident. I believe the entire universe is an accident.
-
Jed, my friend who would argue better than me declined because he said that trackfanatic (another of my friends) was saying pretty much what ever he would say, so he wont be joining, i say it's a loss to the discussion, because im glad that this can be a civil DISCUSSION, rather than an internet "brawl" that being said, i started thinking about what you were saying about infalability I am catholic and we belive that the pope is infalable... in church doctrine, not in life, if a pope (god forbid) were to get caught up in a sex scandal, he would be at fault, but if the pope were to say that good catholics should pray for the safety of those in the sex industry and that they may refute their profession and find Jesus, every good catholic in the world would begin praying now for the connection we do not claim that the bible is infalable in fact though, i do believe that it is, not to the extent of the earth being 6000 years old, but i believe that all the stories took place as they are portrayed, but i digress, the bible's infalability refers to the spiritual guidance and the guidelines of worshiping God that it provides, the bible gives ten infalable commandments, it has countless infalable ethic codes, it has dosens of infalable parables(sorry, i dont have time to check the spelling on that, im pretty sure it's wrong) with morals that are also considered infalable the fact that it's wordings have been changed after x number of translations does not take away from the teachings that the book gets across
-
ok, i didnt put commas in some places where they belong because this thing doesnt include the "enter" button's line breaks, but if clarification is needed then just ask
-
My point is this - we rarely find intact, complete skeletons. Rather, scientists excavate large areas and piece together random bones they find, assuming that they all were once part of the same organism. The Heidelberg man - constructed from a jaw bone that closely resembed that of modern humans...Nebraska man - skeleton contstructed from ONE TOOTH - later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig...Piltdown man - constructed from jawbone - later found to be that of modern ape...neaderthal man - same features as modern humans - skeleton was most like from a modern man with arthritis...new guinea man - dates back to...oh, the year 1970...yet its' still in the lineage of humans before cro-magnon man...cro-magnon man - same size brain, same body build as us, identical features all over the place...know why? because he WAS us... for those of you who are interested, this is a great book to read - "The Collapse of Evolution" by Scott Huse
-
evolution requires more faith than does creationism. In the theory of evolution, life supposedly originated in the ocean. amino acids were randomly "splashed" onto hot metamorphic rock. The proteins responsible for life are incredibly complex. They are oftentimes hundreds and even thousands of amino acids long, and their three dimensional structures are imperative. A single error in the amino acid sequence is capable of malfunctioning the entire protein, making it useless for life's functions. Obviously, A LOT of faith is required for one to believe that these random assortments of amino acids were able to interact with other polypeptides in the immense expanse of the ocean, forming a random, yet perfect protein. The chances of such actions occuring grow more unlikely by the minutes, as multitudes of proteins are required for life's functions, meaning hundreds of thousands of these random and perfect proteins would have to be assembled. Evolution is obviously based on a faulty explanation. Any rational person can see that the chances of such events occurring are practically impossible. To sum it all up - evolutionist believe in the divine power of chance and randomness, whereby Christians and creationists look to God as the ultimate creator who made everything with a purpose.
-
Sure, scientist claim to have proved that abiogenesis could have occurred in earth's "early conditions" but the question arises, if Miller and Urey had to manipulate there experiement into such precise and controlled conditions, then how on earth do scientists believe that things even MORE complicated than a few SIMPLE amino acids (what miller and urey produced)?? [see my previous post and the one KBB submitted for a discussion of how complex life's proteins are - they aren't just a few simple amino acids!] These scientists only revealed to the world that an external force is necessary for such a complex system to occur - it couldn't and can't just happen randomly...
-
Kyle, you believe that Earth's precise location in the solar system (one inch closer to the sun - planet is too hot to support life...one inch further from the sun - planet is too cold to support life) is just an ACCIDENT? you believe that water - the most important substance on earth, just so "happens" to possess chemically and biologically perfect properties (cohesion, adhesion, expansion upon freezing, hydrogen bonds)? you believe that our atmosphere, which is crucial to supporting life on earth, and its complex components just "appeared" at the right time? you believe that proteins randomly "formed" in the ocean, then interacted to create life? [please see one of my prior posts] you believe that DNA just simple appeared in the ocean, and its duplications (see my next post) and rarely positive mutations allowed such a diverse order of life to become into existence? im sorry, but this world is too complex to claim that it was just "by chance" and "an accident".
-
here you go, Kyle (one of my prior posts, but i resubmitted it to explain the post i just submitted): bacteria have a considerably LESS amount of DNA than do animals and humans. It is altogether irrational and impossible to believe that the ADDITION of DNA resulted in such positive mutations and adaptations. Today, DNA duplications in humans result in horrible complications, like huntington's disease for one. Here is a link to a scientific journal that explains other of these diseases - all HARMFUL, not beneficial http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040305073541.htm so if this is the case, then how did bacteria, who possess 1,000 times less DNA than do humans, evolve and produce such functional DNA - when all evidence reveals that gene duplication is extremeful damaging to the organism? Evidence also shows us that mutations are rarely ever beneficial. Yet mutations are still the basic foundation of evolution's apologetics. How contradictive.
-
Kyle, How would the living things decide which niche to exploit? Did plants just decide there was carbon dioxide. I could see how it happened "so I think I'll evolve the machinery to take sunlight and use it to split water and use the energy to charge electrons to pump hydrogen ions accross my chloroplastic membrane. That will allow the concentration of H+ ions to diffuse accross the membrane through an enzyme I just happen to have that puts together ATP molecules that I'm not sure where they came from. Then some other non living material said, "hey there is a lot of oxygen from those plants, I think I'll evolve the machinery to take in the oxygen the plants make and eat the glucose they make and split it to form energy. I could throw together some NAD+ to harvest the electrons that are given off and use those to make some more energy. And while I'm at it, I'll use the molecules that are left over and harvest energy from those and give the carbon dioxide back to the plants. That will make them happy. Then I can take all the energy I harvested and use it to make energy by passing it down over some proteins that just happened to put themselves together, and that will build up H+ on one side of a membrane I just happen to have. I don't know how I got so lucky to have that. And then I can use the buildup of H+ ions to diffuse through this enzyme made of amino acids that is folded in an exact way to make ATP. You're right. That does sound like an accident. I think I'm convinced!!
-
bravo KBB! perfect description of the processes, too. commensalism is present all around nature - organisms just don't "arise" to benefit from each other - they were CREATED with the purpose to do so
-
Trackfanatic, if your grasp of biology is as slippery as your grasp of astronomy you have just lost your argument. I quote your earlier post " Kyle, you believe that Earth's precise location in the solar system (one inch closer to the sun - planet is too hot to support life...one inch further from the sun - planet is too cold to support life) is just an ACCIDENT?" The earth's minimum distance from the sun is 91 million miles and it's maximum distance is 94.5 million miles. When the natural variance is 3.5 million MILES, I don't think an inch or two here or there would really make all that much difference. Yes, I believe that EVERYTHING that happens in nature is simply an accident. What you believers in mythology (what you call religion) fail to grasp is the large numbers involved. We are talking about billions of years trillions of generations and who knows how many individual organisms. If 1 in a million mutations or even 1 in a billion mutations give an organism a competitive advantage then that mutation will result in evolution. That's how it works. Just because your little book of stories says that some bearded man in the sky (a man no sane person has ever seen) created everything in 6 days, doesn't mean it's true. I read alot of comic books when I was a kid (much more interesting than your book) and I still don't believe men from Krypton can fly and catch bullets in their teeth. It's time to grow up people. Religion is a scam and you only profess your own ignorance and lack of intellect by trying to teach it in science class. I am so superior to all you "believers" it isn't even funny. I actually feel sorry for you. MORONS!
-
Kyle - ahh, yet again we find an instance in where evolutionists resort to classifying creationists as "stupid" "ignorant" and "morons". i must admit, it does make me laugh - whenever you have no defense, you use the fallacy known as "name-calling" and "ad hominem" to try to discredit our arguments. Unfotunately, everyone sees YOU as ignorant, child-like debater. I am just in high school, so I admit that I don't know the "super advanced" information about everything, but I know biology extremely well, so you've reached a dead in there....why don't you TRY to refute what i said instead of saying that my knowledge is "shaky"? as far as astronomy is concerned - the idea that earth is in the PERFECT location in the universe is kown as the Goldilocks Theory (you should look it up). If earth were any closer to the sun, the atmosphere would evaporate and disappear - which would only add to the heat felt by the earth. The oceans would boil and eventually all water would disappear. As you know, water is the most essential factor necessary for supporting life. If earth were any further, the water vapor in the atmosphere would freeze, creating an "ice" shell around earth, and this would only amplify the effects. The ocean water would eventually freeze solid, killing off all marine organisms. So, I ask you again, do you believe that all of this was just an "accident"? did you even read what i wrote about mutations and dna duplication? don't bring back an argument that was already discredited.
-
Kyle, please don't even respond, you are much to "superior" for that, and besides, we are trying to have a civil discussion, but you and other people similar to you are acting childish and very uncivilized.
-
Why isn’t everyone beautiful, smart and healthy? Or, in a less-polite formulation, why haven’t ugly, stupid, unhealthy people been bred out of the population—ugly people because no one will have them as mates, meaning they don’t get the chance to pass their ugliness to the next generation; stupid people because they’re outgunned in the race to financial success (that is, acquiring resources needed to survive and reproduce); unhealthy people because they die before they get a chance to reproduce? Evolutionary theory predicts that the unfeeling hand of natural selection would lead to a culling of disadvantageous traits—or, as biologists more delicately phrase it, “depletion of genetic variation in natural populations as a result of the effects of selection.” But look around, and you’ll see that that has not happened—not in people, and not in wild animals where homely and infirm offspring are born all the time... http://tinyurl.com/29edpb
-
Fratboy, the point you are making totally supports evolution. Everyone gets 1/2 a set of DNA from mom and the other 1/2 from dad. These new and unique combinations create new and unique people. It is this constant variation that creates all the new and unique people we have. That is how evolution works.
-
Trackfanatic, you are commiting the biological equivalent of arguing for a flat earth. That is why scientists and other logical people get so frustrated with creationists. If you are still in high school I guess I should cut you a little slack. You are still under the heavy influence of your parents who probably make you go to church every Sunday where you are further indoctrinated and brain-washed. I have a few friends who were raised that way. They eventually recovered, so there is hope for you. Once you get out of the house and experience some different points of view, you will probably come to realize how childish and archaic religion is, especially organized religion which is nothing but a money making endeavor. While I have no problem at all with making money, I think I have to draw the line at exploiting ignorance to make a buck, which is exactly what religious leaders do.
-
Don't get me wrong: I'm not one of those religious nut cases who denies that evolution is real. Of course evolution is real, just not during the "Triassic period." This so-called Triassic period saw the formation of scleractinian corals and a slight changeover from warm-blooded therapsids to cold-blooded archosauromorphs. Clearly, such breathtakingly subtle modifications could only have been achieved by an active intelligence.
-
Being in high school has nothing to do with it - everyone makes their own decisions in life and chooses their own ideas to believe in. I respect your opinion about the church as a "money scandal," but I feel in no way that this is accurate. But opinions are opinions, so whatever. I still notice, however, that you are attacking the church and its believers in your defense instead of reinforcing your beliefs with science. As you quoted earlier, "as soon as someone brings religion into the argument, they automatcially lose" Also, please explain what you meant with your "flat earth" analogy. That doesn't seem fitting at all with what I wrote earlier...
-
Just swinging by briefly, I was on this a few days ago. Trackfanatick, don't let Kyle (or any of them) wind you up. Don't you see how he's trying to get under your skin now, saying unpleasant but would-be clever things about your parents --a sure sign of a weak position, wouldn't you say? You've really argued well, and in fact, won the debate, -- it's just that you're never going to convince him, because he wouldn't be convinced even if one came back from the dead. Well done, brother!
-
Scot, how did he win? He's arguing against the facts. Science is not on his side. He refuses to see reality and is blinded by a stupid mythology. It is your side that will never be convinced, but I'm not too worried about that. That just means I will never have to compete with you people in the job market.
-
trackfanatic, Kyle only compares IDists to morons because he cited evidence as to why your fairy tales don't correspond with the verifiable, scientifically proven evidence. Only a moron would look at a natural variance of 3.5 million miles in orbit and then swear that "an inch" would make the difference between sustaining life on earth or not. You IDists have no trouble believing in operations science - the kind that creates a car for you to drive, air conditioning for you home, and weapons to defend your right to believe in what ever silly fantasies you want - but when it comes to notional science - explaining how things came to be and how they may advance our knowledge, you will attack anything that doesn't agree with your flawed and ridiculous book of stories.
-
thanks scot. actually, he's not doing anything by attacking the opponent, only making himself look like an idiot. it's true, he will never see the truth in life because he already has it set in his mind that evolution is the "only way" it could have happened, even though logic and evidence points against this theory. kyle, btw, you do realize that these mutations you are referring to have to occur in gametes, not somatic cells, in order to be passed on to the next generation? This little fact just makes your position all the more unlikely, for gametes are only a tiny fraction of all the cells in the body...
-
Being in high school has nothing to do with it - everyone makes their own decisions in life and chooses their own ideas to believe in. I respect your opinion about the church as a "money scandal," but I feel in no way that this is accurate. But opinions are opinions, so whatever. I still notice, however, that you are attacking the church and its believers in your defense instead of reinforcing your beliefs with science. As you quoted earlier, "as soon as someone brings religion into the argument, they automatcially lose" Also, please explain what you meant with your "flat earth" analogy. That doesn't seem fitting at all with what I wrote earlier...
-
We know, for instance, there was once a tree tall enough to see “to the end of the Earth” (Daniel 4:10-11), the devil took Jesus to a mountain tall enough to see “all the kingdoms of the world” (Matthew 4:5-8; Luke 4:5) and, come Judgment Day, there will be “four angels standing on the four corners of the earth” (Relevation 7:1). None of this would be possible if the Earth were round. As for that crazy China argument, that is based on the now universally-rejected-by-Christians fantasy that the Earth is round when God repeatedly told us the Earth is flat. We therefore know the drill will extend to the bottom reaches of the Earth, where it will capture immeasurable energy from Hell."
-
trackfanatic, I brought up the flat earth argument because it is the same as arguing against evolution. The earth is round and not flat and evolution is reality, not christian mythology, i.e. creationism/ID.
-
Jed, here is a link to the list of scientists with their colleges and degrees listed. Yes, it is nice to have a good discussion instead of slinging mud everywhere. Kyle, on the other hand, has to slam people about not being able to compete with him on the job market, and he is so superior? Sounds desperate to me.
-
No, I'm not desperate, I'm just so frustrated that so many ignorant people exist in this world. Religion is one of my biggest annoyances. If you look around, it is religion that causes so many of our problems around the world and through history. I hate religion almost as much as I hate ignorance, but they are pretty much the same thing.
-
coming from a psychological standpoint, it sounds like Kyle is just resentful that he couldnt find fulfillment in religion, it can only fill you if you let it kyle, stop the hatred, allow your eyes to be opened
-
wow... that sounded just a tiny bit on the evengelical side haha, o well, it was mostly just for the psychology part
-
oneflower, it isn't that I'm not a fulfilled person. I have a great life. I don't need some ancient mythology and a bunch of people singing in unison to find happiness in life. The thing that angers me is these religious idiots are ruining our country. They have basically hijacked the republican party and through their myopic obsession with abortion have basically neutered the once Grand Old Party. These people need to learn to keep mythology in church and allow science to worry about teaching science. Anyone who looks objectively at any religion with even a modicum of intelligence will see that it is complete non-sense. I simply can't reconcile beliefe in fairy tales and intelligence. I'm sorry, I'm just not able to do it. Therefore, anyone who believes in religion is a moron.
-
sounds like kyle didn't get out much as a kid...also sounds like you've never been "bankrupt"...my God is real and He loved me (a moron) enough to send His ONLY Son to suffer for my sins so i ould enjoy eternal life with Him...I don't look at people like you and hope you go to Hell...rather I hope that you find a relationship with God...and your heart does not remain hardened
-
Seeing as how our country was founded upon Christian principles and laws given in the scriptures, it would benefit our country to get back to the Constitution instead of trying to corrupt its meaning like many politicians and leaders in this country are doing. If holding human life in high regard is crazy, then I am crazy. Abortion is a big thing with Christians because they value life above all things. I admit, there are many so called "religious" people out there that do real harm. They are not true followers of Jesus Christ. I respect your decision to not have anything to do with Christianity, why can't you respect someone who chooses it?
-
Amen, Scott!
-
For those of you that don't like religion, I agree with Scott, that this country was founded on Christian principles. If you don't like that, why don't you leave? Our country is different and always has been. Why don't you just move to a country more to your taste instead of trying to change ours? Evolution is not what made this country great. Our founders believed that all men are CREATED equal, that our CREATOR has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. They held that governments don't and can't give rights, but their duty is to secure to the people their CREATOR-endowed rights. You see, when you remove the CREATOR from the picture, governments have no clear function. Just what are they supposed to do? That’s why we have so many laws that are straying from the original intent of the CONSTITUTION, which was written to not to restrain the people, but to restrain the government. May I ask, why, in this country, do we have to have a bill that “allows” teachers to present material to their students? Why must we have a bill that “allows” anything? Aren’t we allowed to do whatever is not forbidden? And, if this is something forbidden, why not just repeal the old law instead of making a new one?
-
Kevin wrote "if these creation advocates have science that contradicts evolution why haven't they published their data and findings in peer reviewed literature like real scientists?" Have you ever read what happens to "real scientists" when they break rank and allow id'ers or creationsists to publish? They lose tenure and very prestigious jobs. If you want to read a creationist who was able to convince a very prominent British atheist, Anthony Flew, to give Darwin a second look, read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
-
I see the creationists have no more grasp of history than they do of science. The U.S. government was not founded upon Christianity. As noted explicitly in the Treaty of Tripoli ratified in 1797, Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-
May I ask, Ediacaran, what did I say that was inaccurate? I did not say that our government was founded upon Christianity. I said it was founded upon Christian principles. I know you've probably read a lot of what people today say about our founders, but when's the last time you actually picked up and read the original writings of our founders? Of George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, etc.? John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite…. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Pinciples of Christianity…” I could fill pages and pages of quotes from our founders that exhibit this fact. And I do not have a grasp on history? I do not know what you can mean. I did say that evolution was not what made this country great (who can debate that?), and then I expounded on three sentences from the Declaration of Independence. Those sentences are, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” So, I ask, what did I say that was wrong? Please go back and read my previous post again.
-
May I ask, Ediacaran, what did I say that was inaccurate? I did not say that our government was founded upon Christianity. I said that it was founded upon Christian principles. I know you've probably read a lot of what people today say about our founders, but when's the last time you picked up and read the original writings of our founders? Of George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, etc.? John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite.... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity..." I could fill pages and pages of quotes from our founders that exhibit this fact. And I do not have a grasp on history? I do not know what you can mean. I did say that evolution was not what made this country great (who can debate that?), and then I expounded on three sentences from the Declaration of Independence. Those sentences are, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." So, I ask, what did I say wrong? Please go back and read my previous post again.
-
May I ask, Ediacaran, what did I say that was inaccurate? I did not say that our government was founded upon Christianity. I said that it was founded upon Christian principles. I know you've probably read a lot of what people today say about our founders, but when's the last time you actually read the original writings of our founders? Of George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, etc.? John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite.... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Pinciples of Christianity..." I could fill pages and pages of quotes from our founders that exhibit this fact.
-
And I do not have a grasp on history? I do not know what you can mean. I did say that evolution was not what made this country great (who can debate that?), and then I expounded on three sentences from the Declaration of Independence. Those sentences are, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." So, I ask, what did I say wrong? Please go back and read my previous post again.
-
And I do not have a grasp on history? I do not know what you can mean. I did say that evolution was not what made this country great (who can debate that?), and then I expounded on three sentences from the Declaration of Independence.
-
Those sentences are, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” So, I ask, what did I say wrong? Please go back and read my previous post again.
-
Those sentences are, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” So, I ask, what did I say wrong? Please go back and read my first post again.
-
For example, the very first official act of the very first Continental Congress was to open with Scripture reading and prayer. John Adams, who was present that day, wrote to his wife, “After this [the reading the 35th Psalm], Mr. Duche [the clergyman], unexpected to everybody, struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess I never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. Episcopalian as he is, Dr. Cooper himself [Dr. Samuel Cooper, well known as a zealous patriot and pastor of the church in Brattle Square, Boston] never prayed with such fervor, such earnestness and pathos, and in language so elegant and sublime – for America, for the Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially the town of Boston. It had an excellent effect upon everybody here…”
-
The prayer was as follows, “Our Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.”
-
To go back to the scientific side of this issue, I want to respond to Jed Leland's question: "Additionally, as we are talking of origins today, the ultimate question arises - who created the creator - how far back must we go?" The universe is made up of three things, and three things only: matter, space, and time. Now, the universe is not part matter, part space, and part time, but all matter, all space, and all time. Now, where did these three things come from, and which one came first? I see my question just as pertinent as Jed Leland’s. How, indeed, did everything get here? Do you realize that people cannot make anything? They can break down, re-assemble, etc. existing matter, but they certainly cannot make matter. In fact, doesn't the law of the conservation of mass and energy state that the amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant? It can be converted from one form to another, but the amount remains the same. They can be neither created nor destroyed. So where did they come from?
-
Whatever answer you come up with, all it will show is what you believe, not what actually happened. How can you possibly re-create a pre-matter, pre-space, pre-time state of which we know nothing and run tests to see how they came to be? Or perhaps your belief is that they are all eternal, that they have always existed; but, regardless, it is a belief. My belief can be summed up as follows: "In the beginning [time], God created the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]" (Genesis 1:1). Now here's the answer to the first question, "Who created the Creator?" God didn't just create matter and space, but He also created time! God was here before the beginning of time. In the same way that He is not limited to matter or space, He is not limited by time, because all three are His Creation. This is my belief, though a difficult one to understand. In the same way that our finite minds cannot comprehend the vastness of space and the number of the stars, we cannot comprehend such a God, who not only created them, but also calls them by name (Isaiah 40:26). As for this bill that has progressed through the Senate and House, I do support it. Just because evidence doesn't support Darwinism, doesn't make it any less evidence - and I mean evidence, not different kinds of beliefs (like all of the above). Teachers should certainly be able to present such evidence to their students. Such evidence would clearly be allowed in a court of law, and when any evidence is suppressed and judgment made without its benefit, that judgment is in jeopardy of being wrong.
Click "Report Abuse" to notify our moderators that a comment may contain objectionable content.
Your comment appears to contain objectionable content and must be reviewed by a site moderator. If your comment is deemed objectionable, it will not appear on the site.
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
