This is by far the best comedy website on the internet.

The Onion hasn't got anything on you guys!

consider that we have no way of knowing that reality wasn't created just a moment ago complete w memories, religion, history, arts n science.

intriging to contemplate.

The importance of the "6 days, 6000 years" rests on the fact that some people claim that the Bible is the unimpeachable word of God.
Some people do not believe in the supernatural.

I think that the earth is older than 6000 years because I took a geology class in high school.

What the (Ed. Note: obscenity deleted) is "creaturly"?

You write and reason like a stupid ten-year-old. No wonder you voted for Bush. Simple minds think alike.

I'll suggest another solution to the impasse - that as a nation committed to freedom of religion, we all believe whatever we want to believe, and that we respect the beliefs of others. If a person reaches out for help and guidance in matters of faith, another person of faith is right to offer that person to join them in their beliefs. No one, however, should go out of their way to disprove another's beliefs - unless those beliefs go against the laws of civil society. And no one should attempt to use the state to advance the interests of their religion.

That will of course require people of ALL beliefs (and non-beliefs) to swallow their pride and humble themselves. People will need to resist their natural urge to prove their superiority and correctness over others by endlessly debating that they are more enlightened, that they alone possess the truth, that their belief system is responsible for all of the good in the world, and on and on.

Not many are secure enough in their beliefs to do that however - and thus the indignation and quarrelling shall inevitably go on.

The primary problem scientists have with intelligent design is the effort to teach it in the science classroom. There are several books and articles on the issue which I would suggest you read. The issue is not - as you suggest - related to faith but rather what should be taught as science. There are very specific criterion for something to be a scientific criterion. Generally it is accepted that
(a) there has to be a way for the theory - at least in principle - to be disproved by experiment
(b) there has to significant scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design certainly does not pass the first requirement - and there has been no convincing evidence presented either for b.

Allowing intelligent design to be taught in the classroom would be like allowing any random bizarre theory to be taught in the classroom. There is for example, as much scientific evidence for intelligent design is there is for the following "alternative theory" of species:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

that is as scientifically valid as intelligent design. Would you argue that we teach this one too - i mean after all to be open to all ideas?

Oh Mark... I love how you put words in the mouths of a group of people when you obviously have no idea as to their motives, intentions, or thought processes.

Our culture is funny really... if I were to say that I believed in the gods of Olympus or unicorns or something likewise ridiculous, you would assume that I was crazy barring an ability to prove my beliefs. However, you tell me that you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and, all of the sudden, I'm crazy unless I can prove your beliefs wrong. It's an amusing bit of hypocrisy, if I do say so myself.

Also... how is Evolution "determinst" or "materialist"?

It also seems to me that the ID people are the ones who are creating such a fuss... If it's truly not important to have this debate, then why do they make such a big stink about it?

I've never understood why either side of the debate believes the Holy Bible's description is arguable. The Book of Genesis states, "to God, one day is as a 1,000 years". Why anyone would assume God keeps time with a Rolex is utterly mystifying.

Rana,

I didn't say that evolution is materialist/determinist - I said that Darwinism (which is distinct from Darwin's actual theory) is materialist/determinist. You see, the great debate isn't so much between belief in God and belief in evolution - but between belief in God and the absurd, un-scientific insistence by the Darwinists that could not have had a hand in creation.

As far as the theory of evolution goes, most Christians very easily go, "oh, neat theory - God could have done it that way. Not too important, however, because we can't prove it one way or the other...so lets move on to other things". The problem comes in when high school textbooks try to teach it as fact - and as materialist and determinist fact to the exclusion of the God at least 90% of the people believe in in one form or another. Hard as it may be to believe, the very concept of evolution does not make Christians shake in their boots and we're not at all trying to suppress it because it contradicts our religion - because it doesn't do any such thing.

The Darwinist religion (because that is what is is - a religion worshipping the false gods of Materialism and Determinis, but a religion none the less) isn't saying that it is the most correct but that it is absoultely correct and no deviation from the theory is permissible in the public square. The Christian religion is saying, "not so fast"; its our public square, too; there is massive doubt that a species can evolve out of another species; science isn't just what can be done in a lab (eg, evolution can't be done in a lab) but is also the human mind considering possibilities based upon the available evidence (such as the manifold evidences of design in the universe); and, finally, the basis of science is free inquiry and to say that ID can't be discussed as part of science is a negation of science.

What the linked article is about is the debate itself - and the worry that what is happening here is secularists re-started the war between science and religion which was prevalent in the 19th cenutry but faded away in the 20th century.

Jim,

"Creaturly" would be pertaining to the basic elements of being a creature - which is what you are.

As for thinking like a child, at least I can express myself without resort to vulgarity.

kblack,

That is just intellectual cowardice - if ID is really that irrational, then its arguments should be swiftly disposed of...but, here we are, after the most ferocious attacks on ID, and it still stands as an intellectually coherent world view...meanwhile, Darwinists still can't do something as simple as explain how irreducibly complex organs can evolve (and, yes, I know that the Darwinists say they have shown it, but my view is that their proof is laughably inadequate).

I'm sure there are many who have used the issue of skin color to refute the biblical account of Creation ... Can't be done--here's why:

Mankind after the flood and tower of Babel!

Jeremiah

Mark - ID IS quickly disposed of. There are only a few religious institutes who have scientists who argue for it. It is not intellectually dishonest - the reason that it sticks around is not because of its value as a scientific theory but rather because of the strength of the religious right which supports it. It has been torn to shreds as a scientific theory over and over again

Mark: if ID is really that irrational, then its arguments should be swiftly disposed of...

You would think, wouldn't you? And yet even though ID's central tenet is based all but totally on the logical fallacy that the absence of evidence should be considered evidence of absence, the controversy hasn't gone away. Go figure. It kinda makes you wonder if there might be another agenda besides logic involved, doesn't it?

You know, it's perfectly possible to have a strong faith in God and still think ID is ridiculous. Ask the pope.

secondly Mark - what you describe as a "flaw" in Darwinism is really not a flaw at all of course. The fact of the matter is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. That is something that is based on faith alone - and therefore it cannot be let into to science. Why? Its really simple actually. Suppose that you did let theistic arguments into science.
I could have an alternative theory to how Gravity works. Every time that you argue that my theory doesn't account for something - I can simply say that God just makes it look that way. The fundamental problem is that science is based on performing experiments - analyzing data, and coming up with theories that explain the data. Then once a theory has been hypothesized one goes out and lays out a series of experiments in which the theory has a definite prediction. You then do the experiments and see if nature agrees with your theory.
You simply cannot do this once you allow God into the equation. Why? A simple example - I could argue that the world is actually much younger than all our empirical evidence shows it to be. Question me - well thats the way God wants it to appear - after all he moves in mysterious ways. It simply does not allow itself to the same sets of tests that can be allowed for science to progress.

I just don't understand why people can't accept this. If you want to believe in creationism thats fine - and you can teach in the home and church. But it has no business in the science classroom.

Would you agree to teaching my theory of the origin of species linked above in the classroom. After all - you do want to express all ideas. Why do you avoid this - or do you only want to selectively teach those "alternative theories" which happen to be based on the Christian bible?

what you describe as a "flaw" in Darwinism is really not a flaw at all of course.

kblack,

It is flawed, kblack...Why? There was something much greater before the existence of Charles Darwin, and Charles Darwin knows that fact at this very hour.

The fact of the matter is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

What do you call all of this beauty? What kind of science does a scientist possess that can stand up against Almighty God's Science of Creation. You see? He, Yes, HE is the science behind it ALL--HE is the evidence!!!

That is something that is based on faith alone - and therefore it cannot be let into to science. Why?

Yes, that would be the logical question--Why can't faith in the Creator of All things be let into science? The answer--It can--How? The evidence in which we are provided with had to have a beginning--So then you ask the question--Where did it come from? It's really quite simple actually--God. What then? No more need in asking the queston about where it came from, Only faith in knowing that He is a loving Creator, and continue to discover new things about His Creation. You see, that's the glory of it all, He wants you to use His Creation to prove Him, and place more of your love in Him, and learning His miraculous wonders.

That's the JOY of it all, my friend--is knowing and learning what a Mighty God we serve!!

Suppose that you did let theistic arguments into science.

And so what if we do??? No harm done, you just have a stronger point of view to prove your case in the end!!!

You then do the experiments and see if nature agrees with your theory.

And you know what? It always has, and always will agree with God's plan, Always!!!

Jeremiah

Jeremiah - if you wish to believe in creationism because of religious reasons I will respect that. But I will never accept attempts to bring it into science. Would you accept an argument based on science in an attempt to disprove your faith? I doubt it - so please understand what I am saying. Faith based arguments and beliefs are fine - but they have no place in science.

Would you accept an argument based on science in an attempt to disprove your faith?

kblack,

As much as you may want to refute it, that's the very exact thing that you are trying to do now--Is disprove God.

Yes, I don't mind if you bring the Darwinist theory into play to "try" and "disprove" my faith...But you know what? That's just it, you can't, kblack...and that's why I try to get you to understand the fundamental importance of allowing both sides of the debate to worked out in the class room. Either way, it's not going to hurt anyones mentor for hearing the truth....But Hey, if that's what you want to do? Fine, But as long as you continue to shut the truth out away from the children, then you will continue to mislead our youth down the path of destruction...Depriving them of the necessary food that will spare their Soul an eternity of torment!!!!

Jeremiah

Why those of you who possess a thinking brain continue to debate this subject with those who do not, I cannot fathom.

It is an exercise in futility, and in the end, you will be exasperated and exhausted. Leave Mark and his minions to wallow in their ignorance; sadly, there is nothing that can be done for them.

kblack,

Present your evidence that ID is false - if its been torn to shreds, this should be something you can do it a paragraph or two.

You won't be able to, of course, because a genuinely scientific outlook admits that it can't controvert ID due to lack of evidence for a non-designed universe. As I've said, Darwinism is a religion - it is a faith-based worldview which has a series of just-so stories to account for the universe being here absent a Creator; all of them laughably false, even on the basis of Darwinist assumptions (the funniest thing I've read in recent years has been the "punctuated equilibrium" nonsense to account for the "Cambrian Explosion"...talk about grasping at straws to support an irrational faith!).

CO,

I didn't know I had minions! Way cool...now I can plot to take over the world! Muhahahahaha!

Ricorun,

Huh? I assure you the Holy Father is absolutely certain there is an Intelligence which designed the universe. So am I.

Kblack,

Just noticed your second bit:

You're being too narrow minded in your thinking - to taken in by the materialist/determinist nonsense which has been making a hash out of reason for more than a century now. If I say, "God exists", then the existence of this God must be conformed to the world we know - it is only when I get into the nature of God (ie, that He is a Trinity) that I must rely on faith. The belief in God isn't an act of faith - it is a simple common-sense conclusion from the easily observable fact that you don't get something from nothing, ergo all that we see must have an ultimate, self-sustaining force; ie, God.

Mark - that is exactly the point I am making. ID - even in principle cannot be disproved. This is exactly what makes it unscientific. No matter what evidence one collects - nobody will ever be able to disprove ID. If you can't disprove ID - even in principle - then its not science. Thats not how science works.

I challenge - you - give me one test which can be done to disprove ID - even in principle.

Secondly - you may not understand how science works - but first you have to have actual evidence of a theory. Present any evidence for the theory!

Mark
" The belief in God isn't an act of faith - it is a simple common-sense conclusion from the easily observable fact that you don't get something from nothing, ergo all that we see must have an ultimate, self-sustaining force; ie, God."

Thats it? You can't get something from nothing so therefore god exists? I am sorry Mark - but
(a) thats a logic fallacy. Even if we were to accept that "you can't get something from nothing " whatever the hell that is suppose to mean. Going from there to the existence of a supernatural all powerful being is just a bit of a jump no?
(b) what exactly do you mean by "you can't get something from nothing" care to expand on that gem of trailer park philosophy?

(b) what exactly do you mean by "you can't get something from nothing" care to expand on that gem of trailer park philosophy?

kblack,

You O Great One, Scientist of all ages--Tell me, do YOU as a mere human being have the power to create the human organism from nothing?

If not? Then who has that power?

Jeremiah

look Mark and Jeremiah - your argument is a very very old one. You don't understand how something happens - so therefore it must be God. Sorry but that isn't a logical argument. I will fully admit that there are many things I cannot do or that I and human kind do not understand. That does not mean it logically follows that God must exist. It just means that we don't understand something. period

It just means that we don't understand something.

kblack,

I understand it well. However, I will concede that many do not understand it, and it is something that they are lacking in their life.

Jeremiah

kblack,

ID would be proven false if you could ever demonstrate the exact mechanism by which one species turns into a completely different species. As soon as you can explain how a one-celled creature three billion years ago turned into me and a whale, then you'll have me cornered. And, yes, I know you will never be able to do that - but per your own view, it is at least possible to disprove ID, and thus it survives the test of science; if that was all there was to science (ie, experimentation).

Fortunately, there is more to science than that - science has been broken into bits and pieces in our modern world - the world of the specialist rather than the generalist. A narrow minded world of immensely strong bigotries. I still adhere to science as it was, and as it should be - the expansion of human knowledge by use of reason.

As for my trailer park views - well, what I'm asking you to do is something that hardly anyone outside of religious believers does anymore: Think. Do actually use your reason rather than allow your mind to be the mere parking lot for the ideas of others. You know full well that every effect you see has a cause - and if you will just think about it, you'll eventually back up these causes to the un-caused Fact. That is God - because we are here, He must exist; there is no other explanation for the existence of matter. Remember, just getting to that point is still a million miles away from Trinity, Jesus, salvation and all the rest of the things which make up my Christianity...or any of the things which would make up Islam, or Hinduism. All you've got is a Cause - the start of all things.

You are free to believe anything you want at that point, but to not believe in God is an irrational rejection of what is right in front of your nose. Remember, even before an experiment can be done, the hypothesis must have a basis in logic and observed fact - to say "no God" is to be illogical and outside of observed fact.

Now, as to why I believe and Intelligence designed AND GUIDES the universe: that is math. The chances of a random modification of DNA proving useful are astronomically small (and please note that I've let you off 10,000 Darwinist hooks just by assuming DNA has come into existence without God willing it so) - to happen even once is a miracle, to happen the millions of times necessary to turn a one-celled creature into me AND a whale is just not something a rational mind will think possible - its so stupid as to be laughable. You couldn't put such nonsense in a fairy tale because it defies reason to believe such a thing could happen.

Of course, this conclusion is only possible if you THINK about it - if you just meekly accept what people have told you and don't raise any serious questions, then the just-so stories of the Darwinists SEEM to make sense...provided you don't know the first thing about the amazing complexity evident even in a jellyfish, let alone in a human being.

sorry - the trailer park comment was not needed.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe and all life in it was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

kblack,

Don't sweat it - I know you meant no harm.

Mark - you are right in one thing. The chances of genetic modification at random are very small. What you are missing of course is that you have to include the probability not that a very specific random mutation occurred - but rather you have to
(a) include the fact that you get billions and billions and billions of chances because of the huge number of dna molecules that exist in the world.
(b) include the fact that dna are replicating constantly
(c) include the fact that it is not merely a specific modification - but a modification very much like the one that occurred.

Mathematically if you include all these it becomes not so improbable. In fact - if you pick up any text on genetics and evolution - you can find such calculations in explicit detail
So no.

Secondly -as to your "if you think propaganda". The simple fact of the matter is that science acts in exactly that way. Constantly a entirely skeptical field is always trying to poke holes in theories, find experiments that don't conform to them, and then find new and better theories. Thats how real science works. It is precisely this quality that continues the success of science.
If you think science is a failure - I suggest you think about that while you type on a computer that uses quantum mechanics to operate, a GPS that has to use corrections from general relativity, and medicine developed in the last 100 years that saves millions of lives that would have been lost from diseases that were deadly just 100 years ago.

Far from it Mark - science is alive and every day you reap from the fruits of its labors. Far from what you describe - it is specifically the ability of science to self-correct , to constantly question the status quo, and to find faults and discover new things. Just look at the 20th century - progress in medicine, biology, understanding of genes, quantum mechanics, computers, the airplane, the space shuttle, etc, etc . All things impossible without science.
Care to reconsider that position?

I think the problem isn't teaching creationism in a theology class. The problem is teaching the theory of evolution in science class. It is a theory it belongs in theology class with creationism or a comparitive religions class. It tries to explain where we come from just like any other religion. To teach evolution to a young mind that has been brought up with religous beliefs is like telling them everything your parents taught you is a lie. This causes rebellion in the student, confusion, anger. Why do that to people? My theory is the Extremists on The left seems to have a hate for Christianity and want to rid the Earth of it the way the Soviets or Chinese attempted to do. Ten Commandments taken out of public buildings, mangers removed from city hall, the list goes on and on. but as people realize they are only mortal and they get cancer or realize they will soon die like everyone else maybe, then they too will look to religion and feel bad that they tried to force feed a religion of evolution on young impresionable minds as the truth. As they now look for hope that there more than just this life.

kblack,

Well, that is just not correct - the chances of it happening even once are nearly zero. Remember, what has to happen is something that is usable; if it isn't usable, then it provides no survival advantage and thus is not likely to be transmitted to the next generation. And I know there is the absurd concept that useless things can accumulate and then become useful at a later time, but that is just a Darwinist attempt to square the circle.

Also, the people who expound the Darwinist view are the people least like to seek to poke holes in the Darwinist worldview...in fact, they spend most of their time and energy preventing any such questioning. I know that there are plenty of smart men and women working on improving the air conditioning in my home and that at some future date I'll be able to cool my house in summer for 1/10th the energy it costs me today...but that is not what is at issue here. We're not discussing whether or not the practical application of laboratory science is useful and/or ongoing - we're discussing whether or not there is a fundamental conflict between God and evolution - there isn't, and the Darwinist attempts to make it so are a species of intellectual fascism.

Mark: I assure you the Holy Father is absolutely certain there is an Intelligence which designed the universe. So am I.

That statement is itself a tautology. But it is also beside the point. The point is that Intelligent Design is not in itself a separate theory from Darwinian evolutionary theory, but a set of postulates that piggy-backs on it. The issue of whether or not there is a fundamental order to the universe is not in question. Similarly, whether or not that fundamental order is the work of a Creator is a moot point, because it is not at issue. What IS at issue is only whether said Creator (or another actor working on His/Her behalf) sticks His or Her finger into that fundamental order in such a way as to tweak the fundamental order in ways that cannot be otherwise explained by the mechanisms of that order (i.e., natural selection: random mutation shaped by environmental conditions).

Said in another way, ID is a set of postulates that feed on the holes in the fossil record and nothing more. ID offers no evidence (except evidence of a lack of evidence) and, more importantly, makes no predictions AT ALL. Rather, to be a proponent of ID one has to buy into the proposition that a violation of the central postulate of natural selection is itself a random act. In other words (at the present time anyway -- things may change), it requires an assumption of a kind of super-randomness based on no good evidence at all. And THAT combination is an obvious violation of the principle of parsimony.

Like I said, things may change. But right now, given the (lack of) evidence, I have to say that ID is not only bad for science, it's bad for religion -- because by pushing it under its present circumstances makes believers look like a bunch of fools.

You might not have a problem with that, but I do.

If you make the ages old argument for the existence of God, I will make the response that has never been answered.

If something cannot come from nothing, from whence came God?

Mark - present your calculations then. The fact of the matter is that you are just completely wrong. Go look up the matter and stop speaking about something that you really have no personal knowledge of:
(1)http://www.bscb.cornell.edu/~bustamante/node4.html

(2)http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/gs562/2007/

- for example. The fact of the matter is that you are just plain wrong as exemplified by the above links and references there in. It does contain some calculus - i suppose you don't believe in that either though...

bravo Rico. That about says it all.

The fact of the matter Mark is that if you read the notes that I point you to - you will discover how to actually do such calculations and there are also many numerical studies which indicate that indeed it is quite viable.

What IS at issue is only whether said Creator (or another actor working on His/Her behalf) sticks His or Her finger into that fundamental order in such a way as to tweak the fundamental order in ways that cannot be otherwise explained by the mechanisms of that order (i.e., natural selection: random mutation shaped by environmental conditions).

Ricorun,

None what-so-ever, Ricorun!!

There is only ONE Master Creator and Operator, and He rules Supreme!!

What is at issue is when questions arise that conform to the proposition of doubtful thinking ... Ok, when one is in doubt...Who or what causes doubt?

You see, the only one that can cause doubt and/or disbelief is Satan himself. Satan alters the frame of mind/thinking through choice. God gave Satan the power to tempt you in the beginning, thus...giving you the choice of whether to follow Him or to follow Satan.

Essentially, what He is saying, is that 'If you believe Me, you will inheret the Kingdom and Riches of Heaven.' All doubt should be set aside.

So, Ricorun, who do you think might have put that question in your mind--I>What IS at issue is only whether said Creator (or another actor working on His/Her behalf) sticks His or Her finger into that fundamental order??

Any idea? I know!!

Let me clue you in on something--God is ID, He is the Supreme, The Intelligent Designer of ALL things!!! He is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last--Everlasting to Everlasting!!!

because by pushing it under its present circumstances makes believers look like a bunch of fools.

Let me tell you something--Anyone who would believe in Darwins Big Bogus Theory makes them look like the King of Fools!!!

The fossil record is absolute PROOF that there WAS a great Flood in the beginning, as massive quantities of earth was eroded down mountains and the animals in the valleys had nowhere to go, so they drowned and were buried under millions of tons of earth!!!

There's one thing for sure, you may run from God your whole life, but you'll never hide from Him, and you will stand before Him and give an account. You see, God's existence is not contingent upon the fact that He exists, but I'm sure that you will probably wish that you had!!!!

Jeremiah

God's existence is not contingent upon the fact that He exists

I meant--God's existence is not contingent upon your belief in the fact that He exists!!

Sorry 'bout that!!

Jeremiah

Considering the Bible was written in terms that were understandable in those times, allowing for variances as it was passed down verbally, and realizing that "day" can be a relative term...

One could say that Genesis might be making reference to the "big bang" (as scientist of today call it). The Bible also does not say God created all life at the same time, but rather in stages; from plants, to sea life, to birds, to animals -- to humans -- somewhat like the [modern day] Theory of Evolution! And now scientists have even concluded there was an "Eve", although they (understandably) argue that it may not "necessarily" the Biblical "Eve".

How did those who wrote the Bible know those things? Things that only now science has determined? A lucky guess? They were told? By whom?

AAR

Forty seven years ago the President of the United States, a man named John Fitzgerald Kennedy, announced that before the decade's end man would be on the moon. In 1969 the United States of America did it. Today we have a President who thinks God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith, that chastity vows made at Purity Balls will never break but condoms always will, that Jesus turned the water into a nonalcoholic wine, and that the sun revolves around the Earth. Consequently we can't seem to get something rebuilt on Ground Zero, New Orleans is still in ruins, and the War in Iraq is still going on 4 1/2 years after the announcement of Mission Accomplished. Meanwhile billions and billions of dollars have gone into the pockets of our President's fatcat friends.

This used to be a nation of science. What the hell happened?

kblack,

You link to a whole book and say, "read this, it proves you wrong"? Nice try, but you're the one saying that ID has been blown to bits...something that allegedly patently false can be proven false in less than book-length form. Have at it - go read that book you linked to and then write up a ten paragraph report demonstrating how that shows that ID is impossible. You do that, and I'll post it on the blog for review and comment.

As for me, I'm no mathematician - but dear, old Dad is; particularly, he is a statistician, among other things. He has worked it out, and the chances of a useful genetic mutation happening only once is nearly zero.

Jay,

You have any evidence to back up your assertions about the President?

Listen to what this person has to say--

"Right and wrong are judgments about truths that are immaterial. If morals emerge from particles in motion, they are not morals at all: they are temporary, arbitrary trends of collectives of objects. If you base an argument on something arbitrary, you can prove anything – including the idea that materialism is false. Christian theists, by contrast, can prove something is right or wrong, because their presuppositions include the notion of eternal truths and laws of logic.
Evolutionism is not a science. It is a world view. It is a silly world view that refutes itself, because it cannot generate intangibles like morals and truths by appeals to particles in motion. Any one of the appeals to “science” that the evolutionist uses to defend its brand of morality, rationality or ideology is a two-edged sword. Using the same arguments, a skilled debater can turn the tables and tie the Darwinist in intellectual knots.
For instance, moral relativism is a capitulation to the idea that anything goes. But if anything goes, then calling anything immoral in any context is bad if the majority likes it – such as creationism. Furthermore, attacking moral relativism itself can be good if the majority so desires – which refutes the idea that morals are relative. Q.E.D.
You can’t get moral blood out of a materialist turnip. The same goes for truths, laws of logic, and consciousness.
Once you understand this, and watch how the radical Darwinists intrude into every area of scholarship, including fundamental issues far beyond biology, you see why the radical Darwinists are a threat: a threat to rationality, to morality, to education, and to civilization itself. Their own words condemn them."

Note to Jay G. (Above) - What precisely has happened is man has led our children to reject the moral laws of God in the classroom of Liberal brainwashing!!

Jeremiah

Ricorun,

What is more foolish - thinking that God guides, or thinking that matter would randomly assemble into life and then randomly covert itself into Ricorun and a gazelle?

Darwin posultated his theory and asserted, correctly, that unless the fossil record eventually showed a series of graduated steps between one species and another, then it wouldn't be valid. To day, 150 years on, there is zero evidence in the fossil record for Darwin's slow, gradual changes. And yet things have changed in the world since it started - given everything we know, the only possibility which sufficiently explains it all is that there is a Creator, and he takes an interest in his creation.

And, as an aside, I suggest you read C.S. Lewis' "Miracles"...if you haven't, then it should open your eyes a bit on the prospects of an intervention from outside.

Amused Observe,

There is no "whence" for God - you're thinking about it the wrong way: God isn't in our universe in the sense of being bound by it. As he put it, "I Am Who Am" - he is the Fact of all facts. He wasn't here before the universe, no more than an author is in the book prior to writing it - "eternity" doesn't mean a lot of years...think of it in terms of "always".

Intelligent Design is a scientific fact!

There are organisms alive today which were not created through natural evolution, but rather by humans -- through "Intelligent Design"!

From the moment in time that humans began manipulating, modifying, and changing DNA, Intelligent Design became an undeniable fact... and it will remain an undeniable fact throughout the rest of history!

The numbers of those organisms -- plant, animals, and combinations -- will continue to increase as humans continue to "meddle" with DNA. Many of those organisms -- created through Intelligent Design -- already exist in the wild today, and their numbers will continue to grow in the future.

Those organisms will evolve both "naturally" and through changes incorporated through subsequent "Intelligent Design"... possibly mixing with their wild relatives... creating new variations and species... and over time, making it impossible to distinguish between those which evolved naturally and those which owe at least a portion of their existence to "Intelligent Design."

Questions that remain to be answered include:

Who else was or may have been involved in the "Intelligent Design" of life on Earth prior to that of humans? When and how many times did that occur?

What was created through "Intelligent Design", and what was created through subsequent "evolution"?

Who created the first life on Earth?

AAR

Jay Gaultieri,

What ... happened?

We (America) lost our faith... yielding to materialism and self indulgence!

AAR

Mark: What is more foolish - thinking that God guides, or thinking that matter would randomly assemble into life and then randomly covert itself into Ricorun and a gazelle?

I'll tell you what is foolish: to assume that the material world is not organized according to fundamental laws, whether we understand them or not. Whether one believes that God is behind those laws or not is a completely different question. And that, to me, very much directly addresses the notion of free will. However, even those who subscribe to a more materialistic view cannot deny the intrinsic order. And thus, anyone who constructs a moral framework upon the notion that "anything goes" is suspect even on those grounds. Obviously, not everything DOES go.

On the other hand, to postulate that God has to come down and tweak His own plan by inserting something that doesn't conform to that plan every once in a while strikes me as a direct attack on the notion of His prescience. And that's why I say Intelligent Design makes no sense on either scientific or theological grounds.

The fossil record is absolute PROOF that there WAS a great Flood in the beginning, as massive quantities of earth was eroded down mountains and the animals in the valleys had nowhere to go, so they drowned and were buried under millions of tons of earth!!!

Jeremiah, I love how you claim this as absolute proof, yet, you offer no proof or evidence to back up your claim. And earlier, you ragged on many individuals for believing in the Theory of Evolution, calling them "the King of Fools!!!"

So who is the bigger fool?

Jonathan,

You need proof? I've got it--
Archaelogical fact finding: Proof of the Great Flood!

Just hang on and I'll get some more!!

Jeremiah

Meanwhile billions and billions of dollars have gone into the pockets of our President's fatcat friends.

Mission accomplished, Jay--you pimple on a hog's arse. I was gonna sit by and watch Dr. kblockhead make a fool of herself, and along you came with the talking points. What happened, JayGay, did your hangover finally wear off?

OT, but if you want to enjoy real left-wing hatred, go visit the hatriots over at americablog.com. They are as whacked-out as a group can get; trolls such as Jay and kblockhead are mere pikers in their presence...

AAR: From the moment in time that humans began manipulating, modifying, and changing DNA, Intelligent Design became an undeniable fact... and it will remain an undeniable fact throughout the rest of history!

Also throughout the rest of history will the geological record be consistent with that fact. In other words, other kinds of artifacts consistent with the notion of intelligence must be found within the same geological strata where you suspect an instance of intelligent design took place in order to properly infer that intelligent design was a possibility. It's not just about bones -- all other independent lines of evidence have to coincide.

"What precisely has happened is man has led our children to reject the moral laws of God in the classroom of Liberal brainwashing!!"

Jeremiah brilliantly illustrates the problem with the Christian Right: if some practice, teaching, or lifestyle contradicts their beliefs and/or world view, then it is considered immoral or wrong, and it needs to be silenced.

To this minority of close-minded, religious fanatics, only one view is expressed, all others are unacceptable.

Jonathan,

Take note to the words sedimentary rock!

Jeremiah

Mark
(1) go read the book. I'm sorry - your lack of an attention span is no response. Somethings require more than 5 seconds of spin
(2) Present the calculations or not. There is no "someone told me X" . Not very impressive.

Again Mark - just plain wrong

Translation:

"Atheists are afraid of Faith disproving their beliefs, but the faithful are in no way afraid of science disproving our own, as long as we ignore all aspects of the past and how we got here that contradict our own personal dogma. Why all those atheists don't seek self-awareness and insights on America's destiny from Christian fundamentalists like me just makes no sense."

Ricorun,

RE: "Also throughout the rest of history will the geological record be consistent with that fact..."

Yes... Just as it would have in the past when a new capability, ability, or organism had been added to the geological strata and "fossil record" -- either by Intelligent Design and/or natural evolution!

AAR

Ricorun,

You're assuming that Whoever else was involved with Intelligent Design would have originated on Earth, would have lived on Earth, or would have left artifacts from their visit! Any artifacts, if they did exist, could be even more scarce than that proverbial needle in a haystack. If there were any physical evidence left, it could be at the bottom of the ocean, buried under a yet to be excavated mountain, or destroyed in a subduction zone!

What kind of "evidence" would a superior intelligence have left if they chose not to live here?

What kind of "evidence" would God leave?

AAR

Mark,

You don't even know what the argument is. The principle of sufficient reason as established by Leibniz argues that all things must have causes which provide sufficient reason for their existence. Ergo, he reasoned that all things must have a cause, which is God. By Leibniz's own reasoning, God must have a cause. Your claim to the contrary, that God exists outside of the universe, misses the point. If it is possible for some "eternal substance" such as God to exist, it is equally possible that the universe has existed for eternity, completely uncaused.

I loved Eric's suggestion on where Evolutionism should really be taught, and I tend to agree.

I remember a test question given in a college class I was in about 20 odd years ago. The test had one question, and only one answer would be accepted as right by the instructor:
"How was the universe created?" If you did not answer "the big bang" you failed. There were about 4 Muslims and 3 or 4 Mennonites in the class, guess what they said? (God or Allah depending) And guess what their scores were - until the Muslims protested. The Mennonites just let it go - they knew they were right, and they did not believe in causing a fight. The amazing thing is this class was being taught at a Lutheran College - and the Dean came down on the professor when he heard about it - not the students. That is the part that would be unlikely to happen today.

other kinds of artifacts consistent with the notion of intelligence must be found

Well, Ricorun...There's one artifact that He left us with, along with the many archaelogical and geological, that I am sure of, which has stood many hardships, toils, and snares...through the test of time...The Bible, (God's Holy Word) and witness to that fact, was His precious Son Jesus Christ, and through 12 ordinary fishermen, He turned this world upside down, and it has never been the same since, and will never be the same until He comes again in all His Glory to Judge the living and the dead!!!

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,

I would say "look in a mirror" to see an example of His most recent artifacts!

AAR

AAR,

I agree!

It is a sad fact though, that our children are being brainswashed in our public schools to the point that they don't even realize that they are so blessed with the fortune of their own existence, and don't even know the power behind their existence!!

Life is so precious, the design of human life and all that is, and all that ever will be on this wonderful and diverse ecosystem born of God!!

Jeremiah

AAR: You're assuming that Whoever else was involved with Intelligent Design would have originated on Earth, would have lived on Earth, or would have left artifacts from their visit! Any artifacts, if they did exist, could be even more scarce than that proverbial needle in a haystack. If there were any physical evidence left, it could be at the bottom of the ocean, buried under a yet to be excavated mountain, or destroyed in a subduction zone!

Be that as it may, that's what the principle of parsimony requires. There is a saying in science: extraordinary claims (e.g., those that are not consistent with the principle of parsimony) require extraordinary evidence (e.g., the kind of needle in a haystack you mentioned). Again, the problem with ID is not that it MIGHT be true -- lots of things MIGHT be true -- the problem is that 1: it is woefully lacking in evidence (in fact, it RELIES on lack of evidence) and 2: it makes no predictions AT ALL. Like I said, if and when it could do either, then it might be worth consideration. Until then it's just like all the other crack-pot theories. And until then, isn't it better to assume God's unlimited prescience than not to?

lots of things MIGHT be true--Ricorun.

That's right, because there's only ONE absolute!

And until then, isn't it better to assume God's unlimited prescience than not to?

There's no assuming God and this, His Creation. You either do or you don't!

Jeremiah

ID provides that absolute in order that studensts may understand.

Jeremiah

AO,

The uncaused Cause is God - the universe, per our science, is something which was caused, so there must be something outside the universe which created it.

Ricorun,

That does not change the fact that Intelligent Design (as I and some others define it) is now a fact and will remain a fact for the rest of history. That does not change the fact that from this time forward, we can no longer say that all life on earth is a product of natural evolution. We can now teach the concept of Intelligent Design in science class.

Teach the concept in the science class, and from there students can read other books, speculate, and decide for themselves if Intelligent Design may have been a factor in the past, and if it might explain some of those "holes" in the Theory of Evolution" which scientists conveniently "say" are ALL filled with other naturally evolved, but as of now, unidentified organisms! And those bones do not explain the complexity of the life that left them!

Do you believe a science class should teach about the possibility that other life, including intelligent life might exist in the universe? And that some of that life may be billions of years more advanced than ours? And that some of that intelligent life may have visited Earth? Or since those are only theories, they shouldn't be taught in a science class?

Do you believe the account of Ezekiel's wheel? If so, who or what was it? Many believe that was an actual, detailed account of a visit by a higher intelligence. Can we mention that in a science class, even though it comes from the Bible -- which is also viewed as an historical document?

AAR

Ricorun,

When I say teach the concept in the science class, that includes the fact that thousands, millions, or billions of years from now, a person observing or studying the descendants of those organisms, the new organisms that evolve from them, and any fossilized remains would be indistinguishable from those which would otherwise have occurred through natural evolution alone... just as it would be impossible to determine if today's fossilized remains or living plants and animals are products of previous Intelligent Design, natural evolution, or a combination of both!

What part of that isn't appropriate for a science class? And won't stand up in a court? ! ! !

AAR

Nothing in our science establishes that the universe had to have a cause, and it certainly wouldn't conclude that that cause had to be an eternal deity. If it is possible for anything to exist uncaused, it is equally plausible that the universe has existed for all eternity. But we've already established that you know zip about science.

Amused Observer,

Interesting, if science "knows it all" then how come we have never been able to weigh the earth? How much does the earth way, would you say?

How could we weigh the earth?

How long will it take before we reach that goal?

How many grains of sand are there in the world? Reckon we'll ever know?

How many gallons of water are there in the ocean?

How many seeds of grass are there in a field of mature wheat?

How many carbon atoms are there in the earth in total?

You see--We'll never know all the answers to these questions and many more...but there is One who presides over them, and He knows them everyone to the very last one!!!

Jeremiah

Ricorun,

Cleaning it up a little...

It is appropriate to teach in a science class:

-- The concept of Intelligent Design as performed and validated by humans.

-- That from this time forward, Intelligent Design is now a fact, and will remain a fact for the rest of history.

-- That from this time forward, we can no longer say that all life on earth is solely a product of natural evolution.

-- That thousands, millions, or billions of years from now, a person observing or studying the descendants of those organisms created through Intelligent Design, any new organisms that evolve from them, and any fossilized remains would be indistinguishable from those which would otherwise have occurred through natural evolution alone.

-- That it would be impossible to determine if today's fossilized remains or living plants and animals are products of previous Intelligent Design, natural evolution, or a combination of both!

What part of that isn't appropriate for a science class? And won't stand up in a court? ! ! !

AAR

Mark-

Just so you know... both Macro and Micro evolution have been observed inside and outside of the lab within the last 200 years, and how is "Darwinism" deterministic?

AAR-

You are conflating genetic engineering with the idea that there was an intelligent designer that created people and modern species as we know them. Argue that an intelligent designer made man...

Rana,

Genetic engineering IS Intelligent Design!

Perhaps you need to change YOUR definition!!!

Intelligent Design is not limited to the creation of life. It includes changes, modifications, and enhancements made to existing organisms -- by God, an Intelligent Being, or intelligent beings -- to change, or to add new abilities, cpabilities, and features, or to create entirely new or different organisms from existing ones.

There is no reason to believe that God, an Intelligent Being, or intelligent beings, would start from scratch each and every time they wanted to create a new organism or change, modify, or enhance an existing one. The logical approach would be to modify, change, enhance, add to, and build upon existing blocks of DNA.

Just as we build on existing technology and computer programs to create different, larger, or more powerful computers, the same would be true with Intelligent Design... and would explain why the DNA for related plants and animals is similar, and to a large extent, the same! The more closely realated organisms are, the more DNA they would have in common... or putting it another way, the more DNA organisms have in common, the more closely we identify and relate them by Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.

AAR

It would be interesting to know if any studies have been done to determine from which ideological sphere the proponents of ID come.

For instance, do individuals with a conservative bend outnumber liberal thinkers in supporting this idea; or is it split down the middle?

Also, discounting born-again Christians, are there individuals from other faiths who subscribe to the idea of Intelligent Design?

Canadian,

Yet another subtle demeaning stab at Christians and Conservatives using your well tuned propaganda techniques!

You even omit "thinkers" from your reference to conservatives, but include it when talking about liberals!

Yours is nothing more than an another in your never ending propaganda postings, adding nothing of value to the topic! But then what else could we expect from Liberals who believe in "The Flying Spaghetti Monster"?

How much money did MoveOn.Org or other Left-Wing fringe group pay for that worthless comment? Or do you get paid a flat fee based on volume?

It would be interesting to know if any studies have been done to determine the damage Liberals have done to the United States along with the best way to eliminate Liberalism!

AAR

Argue that an intelligent designer made man

Rana,

The bible says--'From the dust you came, to the dust you shall return.'

Perhaps the more profound arguement would be--Argue that flesh remains in its natural and "un-changing" form after death ... it "never" deteriorates...

Jeremiah

jeremiah :

"Interesting, if science "knows it all" then how come we have never been able to weigh the earth? How much does the earth way, would you say?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass

5.9736 × 10^24 kg
(10^24 is one with 24 zeroes afterwards)

"How could we weigh the earth?"

Determine what earth is made of (which can be done by studying the way seismic waves propagate through it, and it has been done, even if it was colicated), calculate its volume (rather easy since it is more or less a sphere), then multiply the volume by the material's density (weight per cubic meter)

"How long will it take before we reach that goal?"

already done

"How many grains of sand are there in the world? Reckon we'll ever know?"

you can get a pretty good ballpark estimation by adding the surfaces of all deserts, multiplying by a few meters (I do not have the exact figure, But I am sure there are geological surveys), doing the same with the coastlines, and dividing by 10 ^15 (again, one with 15 zeroes afterwards) which is the typical size of a grain of sand.

So we can know, there is just no point to making the calculations

"How many gallons of water are there in the ocean?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Hydrosphere

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×10^18 metric tons. A ton is 1000 liters, 1 000 litres = 264,172051 gallons

so your answer would be around 3,56 x 10^20 gallons

"How many seeds of grass are there in a field of mature wheat?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production_statistics

There, you have the number of tons of wheat made each year in each country. Divide by the cultivated surface of said country, then by the weight of finished product on one blade of grass.

"How many carbon atoms are there in the earth in total?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Occurrence

Total carbon weight in/on earth : 1276 x 10^18 kg

Standard atomic weight of carbon 12.0107 g·mol−1

which makes 106.2386 x 10^18 moles of carbon in/on earh

One mole of carbon is 6.022×10^278 carbon atoms.

There are therefore 639,7688 * 10^296 carbon atoms in/on the world.

"You see--We'll never know all the answers to these questions and many more...but there is One who presides over them, and He knows them everyone to the very last one!!!"

Well, if you don't go looking for the answers, you sure won't get them. It took me all of one hour to answer your questions. Of course, it took a great many scientists more time to do it so I could get the numbers, but this is hardly the point, is it?

The point is that by saying "we don't know, only god knows, Goddidit", you stunt the growth of the human spirit. The questions you and your predecessors thought unsolvable are being solved, one by one. You don't like the answers? Fine. We'll be the ones with the patents.

If you don't want to look ridiculous, stop believing the world is this or that way because your holy book says so. You want to pass on moral precepts? By all means, be my guest. If you want to go into the face of evidence and to keep others from finding out how the PHYSICAL world works, then we've got a problem.

Jere--

The Earth weighs 5.9736x10^24 kg.

It is called science man. Or more simply "math". Were you trying to be funny with your last post? The globe also contains about 1.386x10^9 km^3 or water.

Also, one can derive a close approximation of the number of seeds and/or carbon atoms in any given object using...wait for it...SCIENCE!

So what was your point again?

Anyway, the whole "ID" debate in the US is merely a proxy for a Christian version of creationism. Any physicist will tell you that there is a zero point in knowledge where the set and realm of our understanding reaches its limit. Whether chance or a divine immortal began the process which would eventually lead to our existence is moot.

What ID should not try to do is mask the Evangelical agenda in theological studies trying to pass for science.

How much money did MoveOn.Org or other Left-Wing fringe group pay for that worthless comment?

Posted by AAR at October 1, 2007 09:25 AM

MoveOn.Org and other Left-Wing fringe groups will actually pay me for all of my worthless comments?

Holy Cow!! How do I get them to issue a check, tout de suite? They owe me mucho bucks.

It's a classic bit of midirection drivel. Mark runs the ususal garbage about failing to disprove God is supposed to mean that it must be considered true until disproven. And never mind that there is no need to defend your belief in an invisible man in the sky who watches over you all day every day, because The Book says it is so, because it is we non-believers who don't want to have our faith challenged.

It's the usual stuff from the usual suspects.

For a thought experiment, how does ID (a more subtly packaged Creationism) hold together coherently when it depends entirely on a God being whose existence you cannot prove. Try to grasp that, Mark. When you construct a theory, but preface it on the existence of a deity, coherence goes out the window.

Officious Pedant,

IF there were no God, there would be no coherence-Why? There had to be some powerful 'thought' process to to begin life, there was no magic puff of smoke that magically poofed everything into existence--It was, and always will be the mind and hand of the Almighty.

Remember this, Mr. Coherent--Every thought that man has ever thought of, stemmed from thoughts before them--Which leads to this - You learned new things from somebody else before you - if they had not been there to teach you, you probably wouldn't know how to read or write at this very moment, it was their thought process that helped your's along. Just as the First man and First woman were created ... they weren't alone, there was somebody there with them to help them along.

He also placed us, the only living things with a Soul/Spirit--The Spirit is easily swayed ...Why? Because God gave man choice, and thus, temptation entered the world...and down through the ages, it has given way to much change, which would set the stage to come; for those who would gratefully accept Him, and those who would choose to foolishly reject Him...Given the possibilites of choice, there had to be somebody sent who would make faith more reasonable to man--and not only that, but to cover his transgressions so that there would be absolute free access and escape from his ultimate fate--thus, direct communication to Him...Through sending Jesus Christ His One and Only Son!!

Through communication with the Father--we have Wisdom and direction--without Him, we are as a leaf upon the wind, a tug boat in a raging sea, we have no power over temptation and the consequeces thereof!!

To reject the message, and reproof for it, you stand the great risk of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit--Just as many done before the Flood, and as they are doing now--But Woe unto Thee, my friend, for God says that His Spirit will not always contend with man, that to continually reject Him you will be turned over to the reprobate mind, a very dangerous situation indeed!!

Kow Jesus, and you will have wisdom and peace that passeth all understanding!!

Jeremiah

french S.

How may individual seeds of wheat was that for a one hundred acre field? Sure you didn't drop any?

How many gallons, pints, milileters, cc's, ounces was there in the ocean, how many gallons have flowed through the Mississippi River over the last two-hundred years?

How many grains of sand was that? Was there an exact number by individual count including what is submerged in the ocean?

I need numbers to the exact, to the T.

Jeremiah

Anillo,

I don't need approximations, I need the exact last number of grains!!!

If I have to wait on science I will most likely be gone on, so no need in me waiting when I already have the answer--Science in the crux of it, is the common denominator known as DOUBT!

With all there is in the world, I have no doubts!!!

Thanks for trying!!

Jeremiah

umm Jeremiah - out of morbid curiosity what would knowing the exact number of grains of sands prove.

If you are trying to say that there are things in this world that science does not have an answer for you I would agree wholeheartedly. But thats exactly the point - categorize, experiment, theorize, and do the best we can to understand the world around us. Nobody ever claimed that science could answer everything we want it to - but we are making huge progress. Think about it for a second while you type on a COMPUTER - A device that requires quantum mechanics (semiconductors work on quantum mechanical principles)- connected to the INTERNET - also invented by scientists. Certainly none of these came through prayer.
Anyway - you miss the point.

Off Pedant,

You cannot consider the possible existence of God or Intelligent Beings far more advanced than humans...

Yet you have no problem religiously embracing, accepting, and believing in the "Big Bang Theory" which says our entire Universe suddenly "sprang into existence" from an infinitely small "singularity" -- far smaller that the period at the end of this sentence. One moment neither space, nor time, nor anything else existed and the next -- "poof" we have the Universe -- complete with space, time, and all that exists within it!

You have no trouble believing the entire Universe and everything in it "sprang" into existence in an almost immeasurably small instant in time... from that infinitely small "singularity"? ...You have no trouble visualizing the Earth fitting into a space far smaller than a period? ...No problem visualizing the sun, the solar system, and our entire Milky Way galaxy with its 200,000,000,000 plus stars fitting inside that period? ...No problem visualizing at least 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (many much larger than our sun) and everything within the entire universe inside that period? Of course not. No problem! A scientist theorized and told you that was what happened! Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. Other possibilities exist, but you ignore those, and you have no problem believing it!

You have no problem believing the entire universe just suddenly appeared from nothing and nowhere, but you have a problem even considering the possible existence of God who might have created it!

You have no problem believing that life spontaneously sprang into existence from some primordial soup of dirt, water, and energy, but you have a problem even considering the possible existence of God who might have created that life!

You have no problem believing that you evolved through random chance and natural selection from a bacteria, but you have a problem even considering the possible existence of God who might have created you in His image!

You have no problem believing you evolved from microscopic amoeba, which spontaneously sprang into existence, but you would never even consider the computer on your desk could have sprang into existence and evolved from nothing.

What will the super intelligent, self replicating descendents of those computers think a million year from now? Will they too believe they evolved from dirt and water which spontaneously created the first silicon chips, or will they believe there was a creator in their distant past from which they evolved?

AAR

AAR: re October 1, 2007 11:42 PM...

Dammit you're right -- it IS the spaghetti monster!

kblack77,

Consider the human brain, the human brain in itself is proof alone that there is a power greater than itself!!

Jeremiah

kblack77,

The point I am trying to get you to understand is this--If I were to use science as would you, an Atheist, to try and use it as means to find God's proof, then what are the possibilities of me finding the answer before I die? It's too late after death to find Him, because you will be standing for Him--So, essentially, the long term effects of teaching and brainwashing students to believe evolution, is that they go their entire lives not knowing or rejecting God, and in turn losing many precious souls!!

Now, on the other hand, if I use science, TRUE science, to learn about God and how He Created everything, and use the blessings of science to uplift the Creator then He will bless you even further in the discovery and testing of Creation, the Lord even says--'Test everything.' And He'll never return void my friend, there's something that you will learn every time, and your Spirit will grow in His guidance!!

So, which is better?

I don't know about you, but I'll take the latter!!

Ricorun,

Continue to make jokes my friend!!

Jeremiah

Off. Pend,

AAR answered it pretty well - but I'll ask you to consider this:

About 2,000 years ago a man walked the earth, claimed he was the Son of God and preached his message mostly to a bunch of low-rent peasants of limited education. Within a very short time of this man's execution, these same nobodies were proclaiming that the executed man had risen from the dead and so convincing were they in this proclamation THAT THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WAS ALTERED.

There has been nothing like it in human history, and all of human history prior to that time gave no indication of this sort of thing happening - a whole series of civilizations supplanted by followers of a man executed for disturbing the peace in 1st century Palestine.

Rather strange, huh? Perhaps even miraculous?

Rana,

Actually, macro-evolution has never been observed anywhere - not in the lab, not in the fossil record. Remember, macro-evolution is the arising of an entirely new species out of an already extant species. Changing colors doesn't count - it has to be a change from a beetle to a fly, as it were.

Jeremiah

please tell me how religion answers these questions better thant science. Then we'll talk.

Until then, I'll use the better tool : science.

Mark :

how does the opinion of the human race (of a part of the human race) prove anything about the state of the universe? Why is youg god truer than the ones living on olympus? why is your prophet more right than mahomet?

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl
1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

just a parabole

That is funny Jeremiah, you need exact numbers of wheat and water and sand but you will bet your Soul on something you were taught could destroy you as a child for being bad. The mythical white bearded boogey man who has chosen all the tow headed children as his own special project. Phooey! The instant religion becomes a weapon of hate and ignorance it becomes irrelevant to anyone who has the power of Reason.

frenchie,

Couldn't you find anywhere else to dump your pile of garbage. If other sites don't want it, translate it into French and e-mail it to your [soon to be former] friends!

Perhaps Mark finds some value it it. I see nothing of value and would delete it!

AAR

please tell me how religion answers these questions better thant science.

french student,

God knows the answers, and since He made the earth, He knows the exact number of hairs on your head right now!!!

Look, I can see now that you are beyond the point of help, hope, what have you...So I'm not going to argue in a vain attempt to show you the truth, because only God can do that...either way, you've been given a choice to do the right thing. Remember-God doesn't want us to serve Him against our will, He wants you to serve Him out of love, But, whatever you choose, that's between you and God, either way you will ultimately give and account.

I can't force you, just give you another opportunity to change you ways.

I hope you will re-consider before it's too late.

Jeremiah

Cavalor Epthith, Esquire

Will never know all the answers, never.

God placed everything according to His order, and he appoints things to happen whenever He sees fit--He can do anything He wants with it--Avoid worldly wisdom!

'Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness", and again, "The Lord knows the thought of the wise, that they are futile." Therefore let no one glory in men. For all things are yours: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or thngs present or things to come--all are yours. And you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.'

'For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.'

Also, Read Job 40.

Science will never, ever, know all the answers, Never!!

Jeremiah

jeremiah

and believing god knows gets you the answers how exactly?

sure science will probaly not know everything, is it a reason to stop trying?

We'll never know how to live forever on this eath, so let's stop studying medicine?

We'll never go to the moon, so let's stop trying?

There is nothing smaller than an atom, so let's not try and split it?

THAT is a useful mindset, jeremiah, you can be proud of yourself.

AAR : try reading it, there is actually a reason I've posted it here. It looks a lot like any discussion with religious types.
It's just that some words have been changed so the ideas expressed can be evaluated instead of shrouded in "holy"

Learning to center with HTML

God is the Light of the world!