stlscouter

not adding to or modifying requirements-I know several parents who have said no Eagle - no drivers license

firstpusk says-"Let's start by not comingling theories. The big bang is the standard theory to explain the current condition and history of the universe. Evolution is the theory that explains the development and diversity of life. It is of utmost importance to keep clear what each theory addresses. The big bang can explain what happened after the bang but not tell you what was there before. Evolution can tell you about what happened after life began, but it does not address the origin of life. I don't believe that faith is required at all to accept either theory. I view creationism as the denial of evolution. Creationists may or may not deny an ancient universe or an old earth. The evidence that supports the theory of evolution grows with each passing year. There is too much science that must be denied to deny evolution. That is the basis of my statement. You are free to disagree. But if we start to talk about what specifically a creationist will accept or deny, I think that you will begin to see my point." I stated earlier that creationists are not necessarily (Bibical)literalists, but that literalists are creationists. And it is not evolution = natural selection. Your comingling comes at the big bang and that which you call evolution is not natural selection. So the science which you seem to deny-physcis, chemistry, math-can not and do not have theories, hypothesis, or formuli to account for that which was before the big bang. In a void there is nothing and science does not even portend a clue as to where that infinate matter that was compressed into a finite space orgininated. It had to come about somehow-ask a creationist because scientists don't even have a theory....

Fuzzy Bear-I guess your post is to me. Since the original Merlyn post refered to Phillip Johnson's article and related to should the BSA promote creationism his complete works are his. I don't remember which translation of the BIBLE he is using. Makes no difference. They are his thoughts and many are original. Your bonus question is similar what I have been asking in a different way-putting it into a scientific pose. answers to your other questions-how 'bout GOD said it, I believe it, that ends it-sorry no book reference.

firstpusk-I'm not sure about your last statement. things that science can't "prove" yet have workable theories or hypothesis for relies on the "faith of the scientific method and as more information is gathered the theories and hypothesis are changed; ie current thinking about some dinosaurs is that they didn't die out they merely adapted-the skeleton of a turkey very closely reslembles a T-Rex. But...that aside, my understanding of some "creationist" thinkers does not exclude science but provides a larger context for science. Again a void is nothing . random anything can not exist in it or it ceases to be a void and becomes something else. Perhaps if we think about scientificly-scienctists have a symbol for infinity yet they have no symbol for before the big bang(read started infinity). Might I suggest Alpha as in Alpha and Omega. Not all creationists are literal BIBLE believers but all literal BIBLE believers are creationists. Llike the square /retangle thing. And scientifically no perpetual motion anything can exist because it had to be built and started somehow.

firstpusk-madkins-I did not ask for the restatement of the scienctific method. I did not ask when it happened or where or what the first particle of light looked lke or what it was composed of. My point is still valid-the reality of the facts are quite clear(?) the stuff that came to be the big bang came from somewhere, somehow-where? how? Again a void means there is nothing. nothing, period. not even anything to big bang. Science does not even put forth a hypothesis as to where the stuff comes from, it starts with the hypotheseis that there had to be something which led to something else etc. I don't question science of its methods just that before there was anything there was something to cause everything.

step one; start with nothing and cause light. or; start with something compressing into such dense mass that its mass is infinate and its dimensions are finite and there results a big bang. Prove either.

Welcome Trevorum- I read what anthropologists say religion is, now what do you say it is-same for God. When the God of the Hebrew declared, when asked who are you, he declared "I am that I am". for anyone to expand on that becomes as the blind men describing the elephant each has a different idea none completely wrong, none completely right- and they just can't "see" the whole picture. editedpart and by the anthropologists definition the BSA isn"t religious because there is no common theology, certainly no common ritual but of course there is common morality. (This message has been edited by stlscouter)

Well since for you a Creator is imaginary there is no need for you to even to adress the question of creationism-for me, my Creator created science and that science can not create a Creator. If the only point to your inquiries about creationism is to find fault or belittle or ridicule the beliefs of others then I'll leave it to you to explain the Everything Theory and only in scientific terms. You may begin with the simple premise: Why does time go in only one direction. Next, explain by physical proof a thought, prove that thought absolutely. Thirdly, prove concusively the unified field theory so as to make it absolute. While my Creeator created these things and knows why and how, science can not create a single thing from nothing.

packsaddle-Merlyn I did not ask what Mr. Webster said about God or religion I ask you. Answer the question s in your own words.

Merlyn's post was pointed in "maybe an anti-science merit badge or something." My post involves a point that the validity of science does not impact the overall plan of a creator. The Creators ways are not our ways and the creators methonds our not our methods. But then Merlyn needs to answer 2 questions: What is God? What is religion?

And the topic is creationism and my point was that understanding or explaining one little slice of a scienticfic process (theory of evolution) should be able to fit neatly with all of the other theories, laws etc-Hence the Everything theory-Should the BSA teach ceationism vs randomism To quote John F.Haught, a lay Catholic theologian at Georgetown University, agrees that scientists sometimes turn evolution into an antireligious world view that exceeds the proper limits of science. However, he opposes ID as both bad science and bad theology. To Haught, educators fail to admit that 'there are different layers of explanation' for phenomena. For example, water boiling on a stove can be validly explained as molecules responding to heat, as effects caused by turning on the burner, or as evidence that someone wanted a cup of tea. Similarly, he thinks evolution can be seen as both the tresult of natural selection and part of God's averarching purpose.

trevorum-firstpusk- glad you're having LOL but, while you're laughing, put the small concept of evolution, add string theory, why time goes in one direction only, wave/particle properties of light, gravity, Laws of thermodynamics, how can there be as many as 9 different dimensions, sigularities(black holes) and put them into one sigular convient package-Call it the Theory of Everything-an advancement on the unified theory-Mr. Hawkings and I can hardly wait.

and so this is the definitive example of the chaos theory-taking a whole lot of something and letting it degenerate into nothing?

so then evolution theory is so small in scope that there is no room for a larger context?

so there's a design difference between the stuff my body is made of and the stuff he rock is made of? How do they know which one they are? By random occurance or by some other process? It is possible to work the scientific method to explain the process of rock eroding into sand or as evidence that "someone" wanted a beach for an ocean.

so the 20% of the cases they lose the defendant gets no relief and has to pay his own lawyer. Does this seem like the thread that was titled "Heads they win tails you lose"?

again with respect- the government is US. The ACLU tries not to file fivolous /malicious/ wrongful- actions yet not one payment to anyone-curious. The ACLU always wins. My original big league comparison was totally wrong.(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

with respect- The fact that the government ( we are the government) has to pay is and has been improved for the ACLU because many of the suits are venue shopped and/or class enhanced. My question is still/was has the ACLU ever been sued for wrongful/malicious/frivilous action and been sactioned or had to pay $ as a result. My guess is no. But as with some recent actions the mere THREAT of civil action by the ACLU has caused schools etc to stop supporting scouting rather than incur a lawsuit because "litigation is expensive". So again the odds are in the ACLU's favor.

quick as in quickening (bibical)-a first stirring in mothers womb-archaic as in the Apostle's Creed ..to judge the quick and the dead (living) Does that mean that the oxygen, hydrogen, silica, iron, nitrogen et al in the rock are somehow diffrent than the oxygen, hydrogen, silica, iron, nitrogen et al in the human body? Do dead bodies erode? My old live body doesn't do what it once did is it evolving or eroding?

NJCubscouter-so if a lawsuit is filed you have a 1 in 2 or worst case senario 1 in 3 chance of winning $- in the big leagues a .333 hitter is on track with an MVP award. I don't think that the ACLU has ever had to pay a defendant for having lost a suit and had to pay $ or am I wrong?

I would like to believe that most of us try to be more like the "Little Dutch Boy" or perservere like the "Little Red Hen" and most of try to deal effectively with the ADHD "Chicken Little".

'dillos and possums are even-neither one seems to able to make it across the road. (religion)Is it a matter of the quick and the dead? By the way I've had a large rock in my side yard for many years and this past winter it cracked in half-does that mean it is starting to evolve? I always thought things devolved into a simplier state and not to a mmore complex one. Am I misinformed?

is it time for kum ba yah yet?...

or could it be an Oz thing?

Nj you're right -my finger just wern't able to type archehatever-he also wore a foursquare and a campaign hat..oops wrong thread.