Looks like it's a done deal

[littlebillie]

A scientific theory points to a piece of rock, a rock that can be handled and touched and vouched for by a Buddhist or a Jew or a Hindu or any at all. None would deny at the least the common appearance of the rock, reagardless of any story of origin they might bring to it. The rock is there and tangible across the boundaries of faith.

 

This is the dividing line between the THEORIES of evolution and literal creationism.

 

a scientific theory is founded on demonstrable physical evidence and conclusions drawn logically therefrom.

 

a religious theory is founded on faith - believe this, because we are told to believe it - with no exceptional credence given to or even sought for physical evidence.

 

while i'm at it, even mathematics talks of theories, tho' a lot of those look pretty incontrovertible.

 

when we use the single word "Theory" we are muddying the linguistic waters, when to be properly descriptive we should indeed specify Religous or scientific. Failure to do so accidentally leads to confusion; to do so deliberately, to obfuscation and deception.

 

Creationism is a theory in the religious sense until someone can show us the four-legged cricket, or a galactic path that can be traced back 6000 years and then end mysteriously - something outside of the bible - AND at the same time explain what fossils and the apparent age of the earth are truly due to.

 

without challenging anyone's faith, I have to ask, BESIDES your faith, what TANGIBLE, demonstrable proof is there of any religious theory of origin?

 

If God is truly omnipotent, how many countless realities can there be - can He not make all seemingly conflictive beliefs be true, if He chooses? What are miracles but the impossible made to happen? This seems almost simpler to believe than what some would have...

 

The arguments that were lined up against Galileo have all fallen aside, and he was finally REcommunicated. Out of curiosity, does anyone out there disagree with the currently held opinions of astronomy?

 

It's pretty tough sitting in the middle - a religous evolutionist. The fundamentalists think you're a heretic for not taking Genesis literally, while a nonreligious evolutionist thinks you're an idiot for taking it at all! Still, it's the most satisfying position, I think, intellectually and personally. But ok, enough of that.

 

I am on record as saying that I am in sympathy in principle with those families who truly have deep religious objections to evolution. I believe in evolution, but recognize the possibility that evolution in the classroom at too early an age may conflict with early formative family teachings. AND I've said that perhaps it should be withheld in the classroom until high school, but I see that as an imperfect solution. We're already so far behind academically... and I fear where it could lead. Geography that doesn't show the world on the back of a turtle may step on some religious toes, and discussing the idea of life on other planets may step on others. Any health education that discusses medicine is in danger of offending some, and a cafeteria that serves any kind of trayf is unclean in toto.

 

Regardless the preceding.

 

Scientific theory - demonstration and deduction.

Relgious theory - faith and tradition.

 

I still say they can get along; I still say we need them both!

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

Without challenging anyone's faith, I have to ask, BESIDES your faith, what TANGIBLE, demonstrable proof is there of any religious theory of origin?

 

All the same evidence that you see around you today. We exist don't we? Are you asking me to prove the Bible or creation?

 

If God is truly omnipotent, how many countless realities can there be - can He not make all seemingly conflictive beliefs be true, if He chooses?

 

If He chooses to do so - I believe the above to be true.

 

What are miracles but the impossible made to happen? This seems almost simpler to believe than what some would have...

 

If you choose to see to it that way, but I don't think you have to.

 

It's pretty tough sitting in the middle - a religious evolutionist. The fundamentalists think you're a heretic for not taking Genesis literally, while a non-religious evolutionist thinks you're an idiot for taking it at all!

 

I'd rather be called a fool by man than by God. Despite what others thinkthis is not out of superstition, but from the knowledge I feel God has given all of us.

 

[RobK]

Rob, let me throw something back at you. If an orthodox Jewish child goes to the school cafeteria...

 

Considering that the Constitution doesn't grant the government the authority to run a school in the first place, your question is moot.

 

By the way, the hotdogs are quite unlikely to be kosher, so the Jewish boy has nothing to eat.

 

I'd be willing to bet that most people fighting for giving creationism equal time to evolution in school would laugh at the Jews or Muslims who would think of the food and clothing as religious issues.

 

If another does wrong, are you then also allowed to do wrong?

 

Just to make where I stand absolutely clear, I am not for teaching creationism in public schools. I am for the elimination of public schools.

 

[Weekender]

Littlebillie,

 

All argumentativeness aside for a moment, I used to be a "religeous evolutionist" but I came to the conclusion at some point that if my reason for believing in God at all was based on what the Bible said then to believe in God I had to believe in the Bible and if I'm going to believe in the Bible I have to believe in all of it not just the parts that fit the way I think things should be. God said He created the world in 6 days. By my human logic that seems imposible but if I'm going to believe that God exists then I have to believe that He is exactly who He says He is and can do and has done exactly what He says. If ANY part of the Bible is incorrect then the entire document is worthless.

 

I once read that "the Bible is God's love letter to his children. People who don't know God don't understand the Bible but that is what they get for reading other people's mail."

 

(This message has been edited by Weekender)(This message has been edited by Weekender)

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster:....believe in a man-concocted theory about how life evolved on earth from the non-living to the living....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't God create man from the dust of the earth in Genesis? That is quite an "evolution"!

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

Are you truly a believer in God the Almighty?

 

I believe in the implausible with God being the author and initiator - creationism. You believe in the implausible without the need of God - evolution. Do I need to define who God is, and explain His limitless capabilities (as if that were possible by mere man)? Your comments suggest that you doubt God has the means - or at least, you seem to be suggesting that evolution has more credibility because of some perceived weakness in God's power to accomplish life without the aid of something else (i.e., evolution). Am I totally misconstruing your comments, or do you truly believe these things? If I am misinterpreting your words, why do you pose the question that you do - As if you find it difficult to accept the possibility that "God create man from the dust of the earth." In creationism - God is the catalyst - the power that enables the dust to become life. In evolution - what is the catalyst - the power that enables the non-living to become the living?

 

At the risk of over emphasizing a point, the difference between these two suppositions is GOD! That's in CAPS, BOLD, and extra large font, not for the purpose of shouting, but to stress the point that God is not limited. Perhaps, from your perspective, the existence of God and/or His purpose for us is something to ponder and debate, like the theory of evolution. To me, He is a reality. His powers are endless. Your question and its inference are silly.

[littlebillie]

Weekender,

 

I can appreciate where you're coming from, and respect your stance - I jsut don't accept it for myself. I continue to see the "days" in Genesis as "vast time periods" of indeterminate length (one acceptable translation of the original text). Indeed, the original texts refers to elohim, gods, plural, but that seems to have been lost through the process of translation and transcription, and no matter. Faith is faith, and I believe that God told a story of Creation in Genesis that was at our level of understanding at the time. He also gave us science, and our understanding has grown.

 

For me, a micromanaged creation of 14 billion years standing sings more loudly to the Glory of Him Who made it than the story of Creation. But again - that's just me.

 

I gotta ask, do you take ALL the Bible literally? Where do you stand on the unclean foods issue, for example? I ask about this one, just because it seems like it's one area that seems to be interpreted a couple of different important ways - and I ask not challengingly, but out of honest curiosity.

 

Rooster7, I acknowledge and respect you as an individual of faith and sound argument within the context of that faith, and be aware that know I can never shake that faith. My discussion is just that - let's consider the points, and see where they take us. Neither of us has changed the other's mind, and that's ok. It speaks to the strength of our respective beliefs. If I ever thought something I wrote here might actually shake anyone's FAITH, please know that I wouldn't post it.

 

 

 

 

[littlebillie]

kwc57 "Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't God create man from the dust of the earth in Genesis? That is quite an "evolution"!"

 

Not only man from the dust, but chimps from the same dust, with just a flick-o-the-wrist's difference in the DNA!!!

 

You just GOTTA wonder what the point of that was!?

[ScoutParent]

Quantum Physics

 

time, space, and matter came into existence at the same time

 

Genetics

 

recombination of genes occurs producing variables within the same species

 

 

dna is actually extremely lengthy codes placed within each cell

 

humans originated from one group of ancestors with a common female ancestor

 

 

Geology

 

fossil records do not support Darwin's theory of evolution

 

intermidiary fossils do not exist between species

 

 

 

Evolution is a hoax perpetrated on much of the world. It's interesting to me that if you look at gallup poll results; most Americans do not buy into this hoax and that as the level of education goes up the level of belief in evolution goes down. Look at the figures for the % of Americans that support teaching creationism in the public schools. It's quite different from the figures FirstPusk and others would like you to believe with their "most americans" or "most Christians" comments. What is the evidence for macro evolution? When has it been tested? When has it been shown to be true? What experiments have proven it?

 

 

 

 

[Weekender]

LittleBillie,

 

Your question on unclean foods is a good question. If I may, I'd like to broaden that just a bit to include most old testament instructions. I see the books of the old testiment having two main purposes. First, God uses all of the old testiment, the historical books, books of poetry, and the books of prophecy to point to Jesus Christ as the final fulfillment of man's need for reconciliation wih this creator. Second, the Israelites were very stuburn (stiff necked) people who, after being chosen by God to show the world His power, grace, and mercy, began to see themselves good enough to earn their way into heaven. God needed to make them understand that no matter how hard they tried, nothing they could do would be good enough. The rules of the OT were designed to cause the Israelites to realize they could not succeed in earning their way to heaven no matter how good or moral or religeous they were.

 

Specifically looking at the food issue I look to Acts Chapter 10 verses 9-16. (forgive me, but it is quicker to write the verse than to paraphrase it)

 

Acts 10: 9-16 (Peter's Vision)

The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

 

 

I see this as God's permission for believers in Christ to no longer follow the food related restrictions required of the OT Israelites.

[littlebillie]

hey, here's a Gallup poll article.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html

 

I don't come to the same conclusions as you, looking at this, ScoutParent. While it's "most Americans" don't buy into evolution, it seems more do than buy into strictly literalist creationism. Can I ask what poll you're looking at?

 

Thanks!

 

oh, and fyi

 

Genetics also addresses hybridization and mutation

 

thanks again

[littlebillie]

Weekender,

 

from:

 

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/bk26/distinctions.html

 

Later Peter realized the significance of the revelation. It was that "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse

28). Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles (non-Israelites) God called into the Church (verses 45-48).

 

 

???

 

 

on the other hand, if the law can change - as you describe - and the land can change - erosion - then why not life?

[SR540Beaver]

For those interested in public schools and religious issues, you might want to watch the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News tonight. Here is one of the topics of discussion for tonight:

 

"Should public schools change their rules to accomodate the religious practices of Muslim students? Parents and students in Maryland are struggling with that question right now."

[firstpusk]

"Quantum Physics

 

time, space, and matter came into existence at the same time"

 

This establishes creationism, how? The Bible says something about the big bang billions of years ago? And what about that multi-billion year time lag between then and the appearance of life.

 

"Genetics

 

recombination of genes occurs producing variables within the same species

 

dna is actually extremely lengthy codes placed

 

within each cell

 

humans originated from one group of ancestors with a common female ancestor"

 

And what does this prove? You need to establish that creationism can explain these facts and predict other phenomena. That's a problem for you. Creationism is used to stop asking questions, not to answer them.

 

"Geology

 

fossil records do not support Darwin's theory of evolution

 

intermidiary fossils do not exist between species"

 

You have been given these two at least a couple of times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

And here are a few more for you.

 

hominids

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

transitional vertebrate fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

whales

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

 

 

 

"Evolution is a hoax perpetrated on much of the world. It's interesting to me that if you look at gallup poll results; most Americans do not buy into this hoax and that as the level of education goes up the level of belief in evolution goes down. Look at the figures for the % of Americans that support teaching creationism in the public schools. It's quite different from the figures FirstPusk and others would like you to believe with their "most americans" or "most Christians" comments. What is the evidence for macro evolution? When has it been tested? When has it been shown to be true? What experiments have proven it?"

 

29 evidences for macroevolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Evidence for evolution an eclectic survey

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

 

It is interesting to me how easy it is to be a creationist if you refuse to look at the evidence. Americans and certain American Christians are uniquely likely to adopt a creationist stance. As I have said many times creationism is far from universal among Christians.

 

And on the level of education and acceptance of evolution, I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. I see no sources for the information, but I guess I have taken you to task a number of times for quote mining and sloppy sourcing. The PFAW study in 1999 found the exact opposite findings. What percentage of scientists in any of the above fields are creationists? I doubt if you could get 1/2% in any of them.

 

[DeLukas]

Another sad part of all this is that people think this country (the USA) was found on the Christian religion. That is just plain wrong. The fore fathers thought religion should nothing have nothing to do with the goverment of this land. Some did believe in Christianity, some where Deist, others out right atheist.

 

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

 

Article VI, Section 3

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

Washington:

"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness"

 

"If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists...." [George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

 

"To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical. "[George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

 

Adams:

The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.- the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11

 

The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.

 

...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

 

Thomas Jefferson:

 

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

 

Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?

 

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

 

James Madison:

 

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. -- Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

 

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

 

Benjamin Franklin:

 

...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.

 

Thomas Paine:

 

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all. From The Age of Reason, pp. 89

 

 

Religion should never enter public school, or any other governmental.

(This message has been edited by DeLukas)