In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Evolution Verses creationism

alledanalledan Member Posts: 19,541
edited February 2002 in General Discussion
Evolution versus Creationism COLUMBUS--Should your child be taught evolution or creationism in school? It's an age-old controversy that is being debated in the Ohio State Legislature.A bill introduced in the Ohio House calls for the teaching of alternative theories on the origin of life, in addition to evolution. Another bill would make science standards established by the state board subject to approval by the Ohio House and Senate.Last week, several members of the State Board of Education pushed for a rewrite of the proposed science curriculum because an early draft does not include alternative theories to evolution. Most scientists accept evolution as the explanation for how life developed on Earth. However, some religious groups and others say students should also be taught about the possibility that God or some other higher intelligence played a role.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Unless there's a gun in there somewhere, this is basically spam on the gun boards....I'll say this much -- scientists have been put to death for saying the earth was NOT the center of the universe, that the earth was NOT flat, for experimenting with "witchcraft," and for saying that tiny germs caused great diseases, etc. Now we know, of course that some diseases mutate, or "evolve," with very little difficulty. If you're going to teach, as you put it, "God or some other higher intelligence" played a role, then in order to be fair you'd have to explain about Allah, and that the Jews don't believe the Messiah ever showed up, about aliens, about the Goddess of Wicca, and whatever those people in California were practicing when they all committed suicide so the mother ship could pick them up. Ask them how they'd like all that added to the creation curriculum "just to be fair and balanced."Since freedom of religion is an American ideal, how would these people like it if the "wrong" creationism were taught? Not very d*** well, I'll bet. Be careful what you pray for -- you might get it. I suggest basic education covers the three "Rs" and the sciences, and seminaries, catechism classes, Bible school and such are for the spiritual belief systems of a given family's values. Now back to guns and stuff we're all here to enjoy together ....
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sandman2234sandman2234 Member Posts: 894 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I caught the website to the bunch just b/4 they took off on the mothership. Nice picture, but I would not post it on any respectable board, for fear people think badly of me.
    Have Gun, will travel
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In answer to Offers opinion , allow me to state mine.The theory of evolution, teaches evolution contrary to the established Laws for the study of science.Problem is, most all classes that teach, both in elementary schools thru colleges, teach this subject as thou it were a proven scientific theoreom; when in fact it ought to be taught with a disclaimer stating that science has not proven ALL most all ideas as put forth by this THEORY. For this reason I beleive it has no place, among the science courses at all.Academia, today attempts to lend fiction an air of truthfulness, by quoting, so called "renoun" scientists in certain fields which have come forth in this last generation, with certain celebrated finds in the field, amounting to a few bones or artifacts, and then, have designed a skull, body part or some other so called authentic depiction of an evolving "homo-something".It's nonsense.Pilt down man, supposedly discovered in the american southwest, was a find which bilked millions from sponsors, when it's discoverers wrote their findings in the journals, visited by their peers.A complete human looking skull was designed and fabricated around a few teeth, jaw bone and skull bone fragments; which was later to become the laughing stock of it's authors and sponsors, and, within five years, the rest of the pig skeleton was found a few feet away, which was missing precisely the fragments taken, which by now were imbeded in this "fictional skull of early man" at a leading evolutionist museum.Since then all of the artifacts and other evidence from this historical find have been hidden and or lost from the public view; and the academic journals and writings have all but disappeared except from the "believe it or not" files. I agree with Offeror, our schools ought to concentrate on teaching the three R's, and for science, they should teach only those teachings that can be proven using the laws established for the the study of science.For history, they should teach who the people were that settled our country, along with their historical periods of historical signifance, our Declaration of Independence, who George washington, Thomas Jeferson, Ben Franklin, and other founders and signers of our Constitution, Our great Civil War, culture, and the fact that this country was founded by a majority of men and women that belived in the God of the bible, which would allow students to understand why, our coins declare, "In God We Trust", and why Congress, the Supreme Court, still open their sessions daily with a prayer to the Living God, together with any other historical accurate personages and history. After all this is the truth and a part of our American National Heritage.[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-28-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ref44ref44 Member Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well said, Turbo.....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Personally, I believe evolution was planned. I better duck!These subjects, as has been stated, belong in the family, until folks enter higher learning facilities where they can debate and discuss with some foundation, their beliefs.And, if the greatest scientists 500 years ago thought the earth was flat, what makes anyone think that the greatest scientists of today will not be proven idiots 500 years from now? Huh?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Its all based on Ideas not facts ... evolution and creation, one on religion the other in materialistic oriented science,yet the 2 err in many aspects ,if i built a time machine and send the Taliban familys back in time to the dinosaur era ,sure modern science will reach the conclusion we do decend from the monkeys....HE HE HE!
    _%_S
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    If we evolved from monkeys- why do we still have monkeys? HA!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • William81William81 Member Posts: 25,342 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I will never forget opening up my Anthropology book my Freshman year of college and reading a message from the authors in bold Print:"We no longer need to debate Evolution vsCreationism. Although most believe it to be a theory, we believe Evolution to be the only real truth" Pretty narrow minded for men who are suppose to be very intelligent...I am a firm believer that both sides of issues should be taught and explored when possible.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Forgive my error, on Piltdown Man, my wife caught the mistake, I was thinking of another fraud hoaxe, perpetrated in New Mexico in this last century.Piltdown Man was located in Sussex County, England, and the bones were identified as those of an Ape.If "evolution" was taught as SCIENCE FICTION, I for one would have no problem with teaching it in public schools.Anyhow, same subject matter, a few bone fragments, teeth and skull bones....and poof you've got early man.My apologies.[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-28-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • woodsrunnerwoodsrunner Member Posts: 5,378 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Funny, both evolution and creation therories require a miracle.. I prefer to beleive a supreme being planned the miraculous event, rather than it was an accident.WOODS
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Anyone who knows how a gun rusts (and how time and the elements play a part) can understand the basic idea of why there are "strata" in the rock formations of the Grand Canyon. "Strata" may be formed in an instant, as we tragically saw (if you'll pardon the reference) in the collapse of the World Trade Center. But strata without time does not produce aging, like the rusting of the gun, like bones turning to stone, like coal turning to diamonds, like dinosaurs turning into oil. Geology and Paleontology are sciences, not theories. Similarly, evolution seems negotiable to non-experts like you and me because we don't know all the details. The fact that there is an occasional hoax in any science or in any religion (remember the Shroud of Turin?) does not discredit the entire arena. This country was built on more than the bible -- the Statue of Liberty suggests it was created to welcome the world's people "yearning to be free." Since we now have freedom of religion, teaching one only in school makes no more sense than omitting Black history, American Indian history, or foreign languages. Myself, I studied French, though I regret not taking Latin instead. It would be easier to omit discussion of evolution, if we really believe it's just a theory, than to add all those things which are just faiths. I guarantee legislating to teach one faith only will have us branded bigots in a heartbeat by all the obvious dissenting groups. If all we teach is the facts, then we must, by our own rules, omit both the faiths and the theories, no matter how we feel about the amount of proof for each, precisely because there is room for disagreement. There is very little room for disagreement that 2+2=4, or that Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens wrote Huckleberry Finn. I am a conservative. Having said that, I'll ad this unpopular bit of opinion: The fly in the ointment when the two arrested American girl missionaries finally returned from imprisonment in Afghanistan was that they were unable to truthfully deny breaking the law over there. The children's bible story books were obviously not for their own personal reading. If they really wanted to help oppressed people in their own land, they would have done better by teaching the kids that the Koran stands for peace. Sometimes when we Americans go overseas to "help," we're technically guilty as charged. I wish we could get over that arrogance. The trouble with me is, having lived in the big city, I've been friendly with people from many cultural backgrounds -- all of whom were Americans. I've found a few groups distastefully self-serving and cliquish, true, but I've found the same among what you might call rednecks along old Route 66, too. (I'll duck now.)
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a primitive ancestor of both ourselves and the other anthropoid apes. Evolution is not a theory, it is proven fact, though not all of the details are completely understood.Evolution speaks how we and other organisms come to be as they are or were, but it does not speak to "why." Thus evolution does not preclude creation, though it does reveal that the lyrical creation myth written down as Genesis is not history. Evolution and belief in a supreme being are not mutually exclusive, unless you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, presuming you are Christian. Many scientists who know that evolution describes the mechanisms by which species come into being, change over time and/or give way to new species are also devoutly religous.The idea that the two are mutually exclusive is a red herring. I does strike me that when the creationists began calling it "scientific creation" that they betrayed their own perception of the weakness of their position in trying borrow 'scientific' to strengthen their creationist explaination.Science does not argue that there is no god. Scientific method only is only used to study phenomona that can be measured. Gods are exceedingly difficult to measure, so there exists not one shred of scientific proof that god exists or does not exist. That is simply not a question for science to consider.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 223believer223believer Member Posts: 128 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    offerer, you're being entirely too reasonable and logical. Shame on you.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I've got to go with offeror, HeDog, and dano. (dano? yikes!) There are two reasons that people want to cling to "creationism" and deny evolution. The first is a wish to "prove" that the universe is only 5,000-6,000 years old to be consistent with a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of the generations since Adam. That just doesn't work; there are too many scientific observations disproving it. The second is to feel offended that God could have a much more subtle plan for creating mankind than just, POOF, we're here. To me, that only shows the limitations of what some people can understand and accept, not what God is capable of. In fact, to me it is much more wonderous that the universe exists in its present form after billions of years of gradual change than to imagine it was created in an instant nearly exactly as it now appears. I also have little patience for those who claim that science proves it was all "an accident." All the evidence points to the fact that something remarkable has happened to get us here today from where the universe started billions of years ago, even though we only understand it imperfectly.[This message has been edited by Gordian Blade (edited 01-28-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • William81William81 Member Posts: 25,342 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sorry He Dog...we will have to agree to disagree on this one. There are far too manyholes of 40,000 plus years in the evolutionary time lines I have studied for me to conclude that evolution is any more than a theory.As none of us have been around to see the whole thing it can not be proven absolutely.Just as creationism is impossible to absolutely prove.In terms of believing in creationism...That requires a little thing called faith. I also believe it requires faith in something to believe in evolution also. Someday we will really know the answer but today we do not...JMHO
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    He Dog- You sai that evolution was not theory, but indeed fact. Could you point out the evidence that you know of to back up the "fact" known as evolution? Actually, one bit of evidence that conclusively proves that evolution is indeed correct, and not based on theory, would suffice.The evolutionist seem to rely on faith more than the creationist do.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can Salzo, though perhaps not to your satisfaction. Evolution is grossly misunderstood and thus feared by many who believe in creation. Evolution is not a theory that says we decended from monkeys and there is no god. Evolution is actually the mechanics of speciation and extinction. It happens primarily at the genetic level with mutation. Thus it is difficult to study in things like humans and elephants because the generation time is too long. It can be studied in animals like mice and fruit flys which have very short generation times and thus more probability of showing mutation while you are looking. There are in fact numerous studies on fruit flies and mice that demonstrate mutation, selective advantage and other elements evolution. You will, however have to look to the scientific literature and not the bible to read those studies. We are talking about a process that began on earth something on the order of 300,000,000 years ago. There is ample evidence of the process in the fossil record. [This message has been edited by He Dog (edited 01-28-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yeah right.. August 15, 1789 1st Federal Congress (Amendments) Excerpt--James Madison said "I apprehend the meaning of the words to be, that congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their consicience."Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an ipinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the Contitution, and laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.(Source: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (annals of Congress) Aug 15,1789, Vol 1, Joseph Gales, as published by Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp7290749)For those of you who don't already know, Evolution has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a religion, not a scientific fact, the United States should not promote teaching it. As it comples one to believe contrary to conscience. As I stated before, evolution taught as a matter of fact is wrong and should be removed from the public school system, unles taught as fiction. It's removal in no way diminishes the value of the rest of science.Biology should be taught as pure biology without making inferences to how life got there and developed from the inanimate.Today many inroads have been made into the begining of life in the womb of mothers, sheep have cloned, other animals, have been bred with similarly close relatives with in their species, and have not resulted in any breakthrews to a new species.A so called "scientist" recently claimed that homosexuality is inherited. Biologically, in life forms genetic traits appear which are adaptive, in other words they help the organism to survive in some way. Biological organisms are considered succesful if they succeed in reproducing, and, failures , if they do not, The succesful ones pass their traits onto their children, and so they should, The unsuccesfull ones do not pass their genes onto their children, and so they shouldn't. Therefore, from a biological perspective, homosexuality, which is not a trait that in any way helps the organism or it's species to survive, is therefore maladaptive, It will gradually become more scarce if it is an inherited trait.So, here again evolution takes a left turn,Homosexuals who are incapable of impregnating their partners of the same sex, are unable to bare children, because as any person with a little grey matter knows, a sexual union of same sex humans cannot produce an offspring, and yet homosexuals are comming out of the closet in droves, or are they successfully evolving?, Ask yourself, is this possible?You figure, is homosexuality gentic, as evolution would have you believe?The Liberal Left, is using these issues, known as "wedges issues" to keep the some of the masses of uninformed citizenry, confused and unable to crtically evaluate these arguments, and others are like proverbial "Frog" in the water being heated, content and perfectly at ease with their understanding of these matters, and are taken, being swept up in the confusion.Homosexuality is spoken of in the scriptures, and the causes of it, are explained in Romans Ch. 1:21-32.Such is the way of all who reject the truth: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" .[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-28-2002).][This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-29-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pops401pops401 Member Posts: 616 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't type good so I"ll say this. We evolved from something that was created. How's that? Teaching cerationism in schools is teaching religon. Not teaching it is depriving children of an education. Where do you draw the line? Keep an open mind.Listen, learn, and if you're smart, keep your feelings to yourself. Less you have to worry about proving something you can't. I WANT TO BELIEVE!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    He Dog,You are wrong, no one in science has proven anything concerning the Theory of Evolution.As a matter of fact, there is a standing offer, of a reward of $250,000.00 for anyone that can. So, if you believe that science has proven it, I say submit your empirical data, together with the scientists that has proven it."Berkley's best shot at proving evolution is just metaphorical, and is based on the philosophies of writer's who are long DEAD."Evolution is like a tree...", Life is like..." Never do they mention how it started because they DON"T KNOW.They assume it did so by itself, like stars going through different stages in their life cycles. Unfortunately life does not work that way, as we know it.On the other hand, there is much evidence that a man named Jesus walked the face of this earth in the years 3AD - 33AD, he was crusified, died and was buried, and as the scriptures predicted he rose from death on the third day, and fifty days later, rose into the heavens, where he sits at the right hand of GOD, until his enemies are made his footstool, where he makes intercession for HIS people day and night; and then he shall return to earth to judge the living and the dead. They are written for you, that, you might believe in HIM.This my friend, is a HISTORICAL fact, witnessed by many and written about throughout the centuries, even his enemies have written concerning this.These historical accounts, are the written record, and to say they are theories, is itellectually dishonest.The Theory of Evolution hasn't produced anything since it's invention, that could be used as evidence in a court of law. On the hand, any one can prove Jesus, was real, and his death and resurrection were authentic, by just using the historical record.As, for Evolution?It' all fiction, delusions of those desiring to be remembered as academicmetians.Or, something like that...[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-28-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    I make a point of not debating certain issues with anyone I dont know really, really well.Simply because people usually have very set opinions on these certain hotbutton issues, and even a civil and enlightened discussion can degrade to a shouting slugfest in a fraction of a second. It's happened way too many times to me, so I dont bother anymore.It doesnt help that both sides have their own set of "independently verifiable" facts. Enough to choke a horse, in fact.These issues include abortion, religion, and racial rights.So gentlemen, I respectfully abstain from voting. I also refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it may incriminate me, and officially request political asylum and my constitutional right to legal representation based on the precedent of Miranda vs. Arizona
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jeenyesjeenyes Member Posts: 330 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wait till your standing in front of God, and then tell him you don't belive in him.All I can say is, someday you will belive in him. Hope it's not to late.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • REBJrREBJr Member Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well, that was fun - or something.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,078 ******
    edited November -1
    I am very pleased. Over 25 posts on this thread and no name calling or other nastiness.Thank you.
    Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Visit www.gunbroker.com, the premier gun auction site on the Net! Email davidnunn@texoma.net Jesus is Lord!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    HeDog- Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought the theory of evolutions basic premise was that a species will evolve into another species. You spoke about how there has not enough time to consider the evidence, because the evolutionary process takes too long. So how can you say evolution is a fact, when you readily admit that it cannot be proven.Regarding mutations. You spoke about experiments with fruit flies, and how they adapt to their environment via mutations. Did these fruit flies become a different species? No they did not. Their characteristic changed, but they were the same species after the experiments as they were before the experiments. That is not proof that the animal will evolve into another species. One can only "theorize" that after enough generations, and enough time, they will evolve into something different. That is not proof, thgat is theory. And until proof of evolution occuring is offered, it should not be talked about as fact.I am not worried about evolution overturning the creationist idea of life and history. I am only concerned when scientist expect us to assume their theories are fact, because they say so. Scientists have also been known to lie with respect to evolution(Archeopterix comes to mind).You did say there is ample evidence in the fossil record to prove evolution. Again, if the premise is that an animal(or plant) will evolve into a completely independent species(correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I understand evolution takes place), show me in the fossil record where this has taken place? Of course, species have become exstinct. But show me where in the fossil record where we witness a species evolving into another species?
    Happiness is a warm gun[This message has been edited by salzo (edited 01-28-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    HeDog, as a biologist, can carry the argument better than I can. But there have, in fact, been new species coming along in the last 100 years.Link Here
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    I sometimes think "man" thinks too much. It just gets us in trouble. Creationism does not mean "religion". It means that there was a "creator". A christian beleives in a Creator- Religion is how you beleive in the Creators laws. Evolution is the changing (mostly in appearence) of plants/animals ect. This happens all the time and doesn't exclude Creationism. If you look at some old movies in the 20's- you will see a slight difference of appearence in the people then to now. I am a Christian but I am not Religious. That is to say- I beleive in God but, not the "mans" way of seperating himself from his brother because his ideas of how God wants things done are different. Religions has caused enough wars, deaths and judgements. You have every right to beleive what you want and thats fine with me- I will not judge you as that is not my right. I can only say that I see God in my childrens loving eyes, in the love of family and freinds, the sunrise to sunset and in the miracles of life itself to not know that HE is here amoung us. HE created and we evolved! "And thats good"!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    turbo--Not quite. Actually, the 3 synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke are called synoptic because they are generally synonymous, i.e., the same story. And they largely describe a historical teacher/preacher who taught that the Kingdom of God was at hand -- that is, within reach. Only the fourth book chosen to be a Gospel -- John -- makes Jesus out to have said a lot of explicit stuff about BEING a god to be worshipped himself as the goal of his teaching. In fact, the Bible suggests (the verse is there, but I can't give the number offhand) that Jesus also said, "Only those that God sends to me can come to me." Meaning, perhaps, that some may well address God by some other means.There is a strongly held theory that says the synoptics are far more historically accurate and corroborative, and that Jesus never intended to do more than deliver a spiritual message about the possibility of heaven on earth for those who were willing reach out and make an effort to have it. I even read a scholarly book a couple years ago called THE SECOND COMING suggesting that the reason Jesus looks so disappointed at Peter as the soldiers take Jesus into the building in Jerusalem is that he sees that Peter has persisted in following him despite the message. Yes, I was raised Lutheran and I memorized the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds, but I suppose this has something to do with why I'm not active. Too much dogma and memorization, not enough willingness to acknowledge that more might be revealed over the years. I agree, by the way, that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. It's usually somebody's version of the creation story that is problematic. If you say that God can create a world that appears to have a past, fine, but when did it start? Did Einstein exist, or do we just have a memory of Einstein which is a part of the world created by God. Does God create the world, archeology and all, from instant to instant? How arrogant to believe that while I really exist, the last generation didn't -- it was just evidence planted by the supreme being. Now we ARE in the realm of sci-fi, and I'm still talking about creation....!The biggest problem of all is the tiny size of the human brain, combined with our hunger to know all the answers, and believe in something. The scary thing is that there are people who believe in Chariots of the Gods, Wicca, the Illuminati, and various conspiracy theories with equal fervor.....
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    Jeenyes:I am a Catholic. I was born and raised a Catholic. I go to church every Sunday, and I DO believe in God.I merely said I didnt want to argue about the issue because it would most likely deeply offend some people and also not accomplish anything.I keep my beliefs between me, my priest, and God. I dont run around trying to force people to believe in God. That's ineffective and more often than not results in someone getting insulted and hurt. That's what seperates me from the Jehova's Witnesses.So please dont proselytize to me like I'm some sort of pigmy from Borneo.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have to admit these articles are interesting.IS FLAT-FACED MAN YOUR ANCESTOR?by Bill SardiWhen are paleontologists going to stop digging up chimpanzee bones and calling them your ancestors?It's yet another fossil discovery, one of at least five in the past year, that The Associated Press says "may redefine evolution." It's "Flat-faced man," (Kenyananthropus platyops), found in sandstone west of Lake Turkana in Kenya by Meave Leakey of the Leakey Foundation [Nature Volume 410, page 440, 2001]. News sources have headlined the announcement worldwide even though no other scientists have had an opportunity to examine the 30 fossilized bone fragments from just one skull to confirm Leakey's claim that it's a new genus and species of pre-humans (hominids), and even though the dating of the fossil is questionable.When you read the news reports carefully you see how eager scientists and reporters are to turn speculation into scientific fact. The Boston Globe headline reads: "New fossil adds an early branch to the human family tree." But in the Associated Press story, Meave Leakey, who discovered Flat-faced man, is quoted as saying the chances are 50-50 this species could have been an early ancestor of human beings. "I don't have any scientific grounds to say that this is directly anecestral. It certainly is a branch of the human family tree," says Leakey in the Los Angeles Times. That means, in her mind, it is assumed to be a pre-human, and under the assumption that humans evolved from apes, it could be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, or, like one of the many new rival hominids, it may have lived millions of years ago but became extinct and died out without an ancestral link to modern humans.Readers have to scan news reports for the assumptions and qualifiers. A commentary in Nature Magazine by Daniel Lieberman of the Department of Paleontology, the George Washington University, says the new fossil is "presumed to have evolved..." [Nature, March 22, 2001] The Washington Post report says: "If it turns out that the newly discovered species did eventually evolve into modern humans...." That's a big "if" that will likely take years to determine.The Los Angeles Times admits: "Only about 30 fragments of skull and jaw were found, but no long bones or ribs. So much about the creature is still guesswork." The Boston Globe says: "It is difficult to establish that flat-faced man was even a new species, because there are simply too few fossils available for comparison." A commentary in Nature Magazine admitted that of the 30 fossil fragments found, only 2 have been actually assigned to flat-faced man. So what are readers to believe? According to the data, Flat-faced man is/isn't an ancestor of modern man?The dating of Flat-face man is also in questionDaniel E. Lieberman, Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, says "These fossils were all found in deposits reliably dated to between 3.5 million and 3.2 million years ago." [Nature, March 22, 2001] Paleontologists continue to date fossils by the layer of earth they are found in, and the layer of the earth by the fossils typically found there, which is circular reasoning. Scientists maintain sedimentary layers were laid down at a constant rate that can be measured and that fossils found at the bottom of the heap are the oldest and most primitive and are millions of years old, and precede man (called uniformitarianism). Again, this is an assumption.New dating techniques are now being employed rather than just relying on the rock strata. Recently two geologists, from the University of California at Berkeley, studied Java man (Homo erectus). The original Java Man was dug up in 1893 by Eugene Dubois, a Dutchman. The UC Berkeley researchers, using the newer dating techniques, estimated Java Man was no more than 50,000 years old, not the 1.8 million years previously claimed! [New York Times, January 10, 2001]To totally confound modern science, miners have unearthed a man-made metal sphere from the Ottosdal Mines in South Africa, whose rock strata is estimated to be 2.8 billion years old. David Childress, author of Technology of the Gods [Adventures Unlimited Press, 2000], says: "Given the distinct possibility that uniformitarian geology and dating are completey erroneous, objects that would initially appear to have a startingly ancient date, say hundreds of thousands or millions of years, might actually be of much more recent manufacture. While it seems most of them are authentic, they are probably closer to tens of thousands of years old, rather than millions of years old."Scientists have repeatedly documented tools and human fossils in the geological record, even into the Pre-Cambrian age, long before scientists indicate man appeared. [Forbidden Archaeology, The Hidden History of the Human Race, Torchlight Publications, 1994]Reporters Don't Question SciencePaleontologists, who appear to be seeking headlines, undergo little or no scrutiny from science journalists throughout the world, who themselves appear eager for a story. For example, paleontologists continue to employ archaic fossil dating methods. When French researchers recently reported they had found human remains of 5 individuals that date back 6 million years, the widely heralded "Millennium man" (Orrorin tugenensis), they admitted they had not performed any dating on the fossils, but indicated the fossils had been obtained from "rock strata .....previously proven to show an age of 6 million years." [Reuters, December 4, 2000] More assumptions and circular reasoning that go unchallenged by reporters."There is only one species of humans today, but there were two or more throughout prehistory until Neanderthals became extinct about 35,000 years ago," says Guy Gugliotta, science reporter for the Washington Post. But of course, Gugliotta forgot to tell readers these are still unproven theories. Gugliotta says Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), previously thought to be the oldest pre-human ancestor, was "a bipedal forager about 3 ? feet tall, lived between 3.5 million and 2.8 million years ago and had anantomical characteristics about halfway between those of apes and humans." This is conjecture. Lucy was made up from just a small pile of bone fragments. Recently the National Geographic commissioned 4 artists to sketch what they believed 2-million year old Homo habilis looked like from castings of seven bone fragments they were given to examine. Each artist produced radically different renditions of Homo habilis, all without body hair. [National Geographic, March 2000] Yet there is no way of knowing if Homo habilis was hairy or not. Drawings of Neanderthal man, who supposedly existed only hundreds of thousands of years ago, are shown in biology books with body hair. So were man's ancestors hairy like apes or not?Paleontology's frauds and blundersLook at the blunders and outright fraud that have been reported in the just the past year in fossil studies.April 7, 2000: The National Geographic Society admitted that a fossil hailed as evidence that birds descended from dinosaurs was a composite of two different animals.April 21, 2000: A computer scan of a dinosaur fossil, which researchers had previosuly claimed had a heart and therefore was warm-blooded, revealed the heart to be nothing more than a clump of minerals that misled researchers. [Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2000]November 9, 2000: Tohoku Paleolithic Institute in Japan fired archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura after he was caught planting stone artifacts, a practice that had been going on for two decades.November 26, 2000: Canadian scientists indicate that an earlier report claiming a reptile fossil had wings was erroneous. The "feathers" were found to be scales.December 8, 2000: 200-million year old fossil on display at the National Museum in Wales was found to be a forgery.Paleontology doesn't have a very good track record to build upon. Recall the following blunders and frauds that were published in biology textbooks for decades.Piltdown man: a combination of a modern human skull and orang-utan jaw, revealed as a fraud in 1953, 40 years after its discovery. Nebraska man: based upon one tooth found in 1921, which actually belonged to a pig-like animal. Drawings of a hairy animal were erroneously published. Java man: Admittedly its teeth were probably from a orang-utan and its long-leg bone was more recent than its skull. Lucy: French researchers no longer consider this specimen, found in 1974, to be a direct human ancestor. [Associated Press, February 7, 2001 Neanderthal man: once shown in biology textbooks as the missing link and estimated to have lived 100,000-200,000 years ago, it was thought to be an extinct species that was not a descendant of modern man. But the discovery of a fossil with combined features of Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, coupled with discoveries of bone flutes, spears and other tools, appears to indicate Neanderthals were human contemporaries of modern man. [Scientific American, November 8, 1999]Some scientists have, for some time now, believed that man came from a common ancestor. Using DNA mutation rates to date fossils, researchers believe that the first humans (not hominids), "Adam and Eve," lived 100,000-200,000 years ago. But recently researchers recognized they had miscalculated the rate of mitochondrial DNA mutation in fossils of early humans. Instead of having existed over 100,000 years ago, the new data indicates "Eve" may have lived only 6000 years ago, a scenario that amazingly correlates with the Biblical dating of creation. [Science, Volume 279, page 28, 1998]Even though researchers use the veil of science for their beliefs, they often are nothing more than that. So the scientists have their "belief systems," and those who don't buy into Darwin's evolutionary scheme have theirs.March 24, 2001Bill Sardi writes from Diamond Bar, California.Copyright c 2001 Bill Sardi[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-29-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    offeror,I can't understand what your point is, but if your saying that the Gospels don't quite reveal Jesus as "the Messiah", and you have read these books, I would have to answer you by saying, you need to go back and reread them again.All the Gospels are in harmony with one another.They all give and account of "Jesus" as the Son of God, born of a virgin, revealed as the "Savior and the Forgiver of Sin", and the ONLY ONE that can impart "Eternal Life".Those that accused him, "accused Him of making himself God", and it was for this very reason he was put to death.You see, the same error that people make when looking into the Constituion today, is made, when considering the life and death of Jesus; People want to take the accounts written in the Gospels and, RE INTERPRET them, as if those that wrote them didn't quite understand what it was they had seen and heard. Kind of like the hanging "Chads" in Fla.These writers plainly state that Jesus, when being questioned "are you the Son of God, the blessed" by the religious leaders; answered "I am", their answer was, that he was worthy of death, because he blasphemed. (Mk14:61-63,Lk22:70-71, and so he was Crucified.The Synoptic Gospels together with all other books of the Bible, have a single irrefutable thread in which they agree, running thru them, and it deals with his resurrection. "HE IS RISEN" is the message loud and clear, in fulfillment of the old testament prophecies. (Mt28:6,Mk16:6,Lk24:6)The rest concerning the witnesses that saw, and walked with him after his resurrection is well documented, even Josephus the Roman historian writes concerning this.Now concerning the point, you raised concerning Jesus desiring to be a "GOD to be worshipped", he never made this declaration to anyone, at all.Jesus asked "who do men say I that I the Son of man am"? Peter answered ""You are the Christ the Son of the living God" , and Jesus answered "Blessed are you........for flesh and bone has not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven." (Mt16:13-17). All those that have wrestled with this "truth" and have received it by faith come to, and are still coming to Jesus today; because, God who is faithful will not reject an honest inquiry from an unbelieving bankrupt sinner, who ponders this very question, "Who is Jesus".Now, if any person, has no interest in this matter, does it nullify the truth? NO. Evolution in a nut shell is founded on the presumption that living cells, came into existence from microorganisms, able to intelligently assemble a living breathing complex life form, and the process has continued uninterrupted since the beginning of time; but that it takes to long for it to happen (billions of years). Biologists and Archeologists scour the world for fossils, when they ought to looking for living existing species that can better prove their theory, this type of exercise can't be good for a good brain, It's absurdity at it' worst. No wonder kids today are so confused about life issues. Evolution today ridicules anyone who challenges these claims and labels them as religious fundamentals, fanatics, or just plain crazy, since asking questions would expose this psuedo science for what it has become, NONSENSE, and thereby limits any debate, and forces the public to accept and support theses ridicules claims, with hard earned tax dollars.It takes more faith to believe, these things, than to believe an intelligent creator, "made an itelligent being in His own image." PS. with regard to man trying to cut his own deal with GOD and circumbenting Jesus, there is no evidence in that in the scriptures, and to isinuate this is unethical with regard to the written account, as it does not imply it in any way.The word does say that: "The natural (unregenarate) man recieves not the things of God, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned". The old testament men of faith, chosen of God that their life stories might be known even to this day, appear in these writings, and are enumerated, in the book of Heb Ch 11, they having never lived to see the day of Christ, longed for it, knowing their redemption was in his finished work on the cross.Thank Your for your ear...[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-29-2002).][This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-29-2002).][This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-29-2002).][This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-29-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Salzo: probably we will have to agree to disagree here as we probably do on some gun issues. I should know better than to get myself into one of these snake bitting its own tail discussions. My original point was that while we know evolution takes place, we don't know how it started (but certainly not with intelligent cells deciding to evolve in to humans). Thus it may be that evolution is the means of creation chosen by a creator. Again I stress that evolution is largely misunderstood. It is a process best understood at the cellular level over geologic time. it is emphaticaly not statement that there is no god. My point about evolution taking too long with species like elephants was that generation time is to long, thus no single observer will see any change before he dies. That is why it is most easily observed in species with very short generation times. As I said before, we do not understand all the details of the process, and scientists disagree as to those details. One of the best (I think) suggestions is a process called punctuated evolution which views the process not as an uninterupted very gradual change, but a rapid process that occurs following ecological disasters. Thus when the dinosaurs went extinct there were many unfilled econiches into which the mammals, who had been around for a long time with out making much headway in diversity, suddenly speciated very rapidly (10,000 years is rapid in geologic time) to fill those niches. The fact that scientists disagree over the details, does not mean that it is not true. If it did the fact that there are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans and AME Zionists would prove that Christianity is a hoax. Just as a matter of logic, think about all the species that we know from the fossil evidence are extinct. (Yep there have been some frauds, but I submit that a handful of frauds or 100 among hundreds of thousands of fossils do not disprove the lot. If that were so Christians would be judged by Jerry Falwell, which they hardly deserve. Obviously in any human endeavor, whether archeology or paleoanthropology or theology there will be a few incompentents and a few charletons. It is specious to judge all by the few.) Imagine now an ecosystem wherein all of those now extinct species together with all of the extant species (since no new species have come into being, right?). Boggles the mind. Extinct species outnumber extant species by many orders of magnitude. Among other things there are far too many predators to be supported by the grass eaters, and large fierce animals are rare in any ecosystem. There are also far too many species in too great numbers to be supported by the planet.In the previous post there are several errors, including the note about a dinosaur having a heart which would prove it was warm blooded. Crocodiles not only have a heart as do all other reptiles, but it is a four chambered heart like ours. They are not warm blooded. [This message has been edited by He Dog (edited 01-29-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • XracerXracer Member Posts: 1,990 ✭
    edited November -1
    It seems only fair that if you teach evolution you should also teach creationism...and if you teach astronomy, you should also teach astrology....and chemistry should be balanced with alchemy....and so on.Think I'll put on my tinfoil hat and go transmute some lead into gold.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey Xracer can I go too? I agree but creationism should be taught in a religion class, which I think every high school should teach (if not earlier), not in science class, since it is not science.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    You see- we think too much. Life is very simple. It doesn't matter where we came from,who we were, who we will be - but who we are now, and what we have learned in this life. "Man" tries to make a reason for every simple thing, and makes it complex because "it just couldn't be that simple". It is simple! Do any of you think that consciousness comes from nowhere? We love- we think-we laugh- we feel- we exist, and are aware of that fact! We are the only (per se) animal that thinks of a God- that is a creator! Nothing dies- it only changes- the leaves on a tree turns brown and falls- only to feed the tree it came from. All things that exist today are the same age-. The rock in your yard, the car in your driveway, ect. We cannot die- we can only live- we will change to a spirit or a conciousness other than this one. We are spirits- here to learn on this earth and may reincarnate to perfect ourselves. I know some of you may think I'm a "nut" but -that which lives cannot die! * The thing that gets me is- "there is no end to space"- it goes on forever. If there was an end- what would be on the other side?A wall? whats on the other side of the wall? You see? There is no begining and no end- Just like God said!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Turbo --Nonsense! is not an argument. It's an empty characterization containing no rebuttal. Since the gospels were written a century after the fact and the average age span was 30 years, there is no proof that anyone wrote what they "saw," and lots of proof that those who "saw" were dead for two generations or so when the gospels were written. You are obviously what Eric Hoffer would call a True Believer. Knock yourself out. I wish for you lots of Jewish, Muslim and Hindu friends of equal passion. Next time somebody proclaims that he knows "the reason for the season," ask him if he's referring to Hannukah and see what happens. Meanwhile, since I am loathe to repeat myself, I'll let my previous posts stand as my practical commentary on the subject, since I find no corrections or further explanation would be either necessary, helpful, or welcome.I would end by saying that I know my version of the spiritual nature of the universe will have its effect on your life whether you believe it or not -- but I know you folks think you invented that line, so never mind... Just don't become the new ambassador to, say, Afghanistan and try that line out on Hamid Karzai... I doubt you would enjoy his equally "convinced" response.
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    By the way, have you ever heard of the expression "the Holy Trinity, God in Three Persons"? Kinda blows that "Jesus never claimed to be a god" thing out the window...I'm sure you have one of those digital bibles somewhere. Look up "Only those that God sends me can come to me." It's in there, and I don't think Jesus was talking about "cutting a deal." But there I go again, pretending there's room for logical persuasion... I just want to see that resurrection defense used in a court of law on your historical evidence and find out if the proof is really there. Faith yes, but proof? They would have more accurately exclaimed, "HE IS GONE!" By the way, you don't know what I believe yet. You only know what I'm willing to debate with you. I'm just not a big fan of the fundamentalist "by rote" my-way-or-the-highway method. In the first place it's impolite in our small world. In the second place, it gets girls arrested and indicted in Afghanistan (and would in a number of other countries -- this is not a Taliban-specific thing). Now you know why this is the gun board, and why the NRA has a large membership that may not agree on anything but one -- the right to keep and bear arms for citizens. Better stay away from this topic with me, I'm liable to talk you out of it, and then where would you be.... (wink).
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    offeror,Look, we have gotten way off the subject matter of this post.However I don't want you to leave thinking, I am arguing with you. You can say, I've injected my own views into this, but you're way wrong, everything I've written is verifiable by what is already written about and historically established by the record. I have simply pointed out to you the truth concerning the account as written, you had made reference in your view point concerning all that you believe to be on equal par with God of faith in God, and then, when I pointed out that "Jesus" was not a mythical character as someone else stated, and that he, started some fictional religion, you came forth with your interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels.Was Paul a mythical character?, He single handidly wrote ,practicaly, the rest of the New Testament, He speaks of his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts Ch9, Gal 1:21) and he writes the same message to the end which agree with the rest of all biblical writings, that "Jesus is The Messiah". Now you state, "..there is no proof that anyone wrote what they "saw," and lots of proof that those who "saw" were dead for two generations or so when the gospels were written." There was 12 men chosen as apostles by "Jesus" himself, who lived and died the life of real "MARTYRS" for the, CAUSE OF CHRIST".To say that so called martyrs of the muslim faith or any other faith, are on par with the Apostles faith, is dishonest. They (the Apostles) may have exhibited a fanatical faith (as you or others would describe real Christians faiths).However, I would point out to you that just because muslim martyrs are willing to give their lives in the murdering of 100's or 1,000's for their unbelief, and their idea of doing their god a service, is countrary to the fundenmental belief both of the Christian and Muslim faith.Real people of Faith in the God of the bible would never kill you, for NOT believeing the TRUTH..Yes, I am aware of the crusades, and other so called voyages to bring savages under the faith, and I condem these, and would point out that, everyone that professes to have faith in the God of the bible and undertakes to convert any unbelieving soul by these methods, exposes themselves to their own bankrupt spiritual condition, and should reconsider his understanding of his religions teachings.Any person desiring to be a teacher, can never be one, unless he himself is able to be taught. And thats whats wrong with our school system today, there are plenty unteachable, teachers around.In closing let me say, that what is not visible to the natural mans eye when looking at what I have pointed out in the previous paragraphs, is this, THE OBJECT OF ONES FAITH. Christians focus on Jesus's teachings, who is, "the author and finishers of our faith",others,Who profess faith, focus on the object of what their spiritual leaders, or prophets have taught them to be their perceived ideas of what the truth, is. Regardless, of what is historically accurate.Mohamed, who supposedly received the spiritual writings, from the angel Gabriel, is a prime example, his own life and legacy can be researched and read about.So, can the history of many other churches, the Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, they have all added their spin or spam as you would call it.Consider it, they all have the same bible, and proclaim their faith in it, but their practice is something ,else.[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 01-30-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    AAAAAAAA another "Unflushable" one ! egg and chicken debate, but if you are lead to the FACTS of new findings can you stand to the trut?,or atemt to deny it and destroy it?Read and dezukerize your brains ,a mental enema for all ages and minds! I recomend it strongly..... http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/forbidden.html http://home.fireplug.net/~rshand/streams/science/russcrew2.html http://www.time-travel.com/cenozoic.htm http://www.time-travel.com/cenozoic.htm
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Turb --I could quote you, and rest my case, to wit:"You can say, I've injected my own views into this, but you're way wrong, everything I've written is verifiable by what is already written about and historically established... To say that so called martyrs of the muslim faith or any other faith, are on par with the Apostles faith, is dishonest. "They (the Apostles) may have exhibited a fanatical faith (as you or others would describe real Christians faiths)."Please -- to say that Jesus was a real person who lived (as of course he was and did) is a completely different kettle of fish than declaring he is the Messiah, as Saul/Paul claimed. A lot of stories have sprung up, and a lot of books were left out of the Bible that are as old or older. I'm saying John's version is suspiciously at odds with the other three, or at least that's what the scholars are saing nowadays and it appears to be so, to me.You rely heavily on the notion that certain writings "prove" historical accuracy, but of course there are many writings in the world, laced with fiction, fantasy, storytelling for entertainment, parable, allegory, and just plain exaggeration. The jump from Bible verse to historical accuracy leaves out a whole slew of steps, including first hand verifiability. In a court of law, the Bible would conservatively be referred to as "hearsay." It is my understanding that what we have is very little Aramaic, and a lot of Greek and other material from a century after the facts, which seems to have been embellished to suit the writers along the way. If we are being fair and balanced here, and respectful of all points of view, why is it when we talk about the Christians we fall into words like "real, true, accurate, historical, verifiable and proof" and when we talk about any other equally respectable person's beliefs (faith) in any other religion, in science, or in evolution, we fall into words like "so-called, supposedly, theory, dishonest, unbelieving, fanatical, spin and spam"?There is no doubt we agree that historical evidence and accuracy is vital. That, I think, is what the sciences are for, including anthropology, geology and paleontology, among others. And quests to know "the historical Jesus," and the quest to understand how we came to be. There does seem to be a growing body of evidence that everything on earth evolved from something before it. It's kinda hard to ignore, and even harder not to believe. Of course our imagination balks at the formation of a complex human from some less complex life form. A girl in school once asked me, "Do you believe you evolved from an amoeba over millions of years?" I responded, "Do you believe you grew from an egg in 9 months?" One looks very little like the other, in both cases. Assuming God is all powerful, he could make us any way he wants -- even evolve us over millions of years from apelike ancestors. Sometimes I think that would be an insult to apes. Come to think of it, Neanderthals were around only 50,000 years ago, and they look pretty hairy and hunched over to me....I don't have a problem with God. You hit on one of my favorite key points when you said we must remain teachable. Amen, brother. That means, of course, open-minded. That means being able to say "I don't know," sometimes. That means questioning the dogma, reading as much as you can find from all points of view, and coming to one's own conclusions of the truth. Your truth, my truth, equally valid, but two different bodies of knowledge -- historical evidence, if you prefer. We're not really off the topic. We're just talking about teaching religion in public schools along with the sciences I mentioned, and whether it's a good idea, particularly when we have diversity in the classroom, guys named Broukhim and Goldstein and so on. If you're going to teach religion as if it were a science, which religion would you teach. Would you willingly teach them all without prejudice? Would you abandon the need for teaching evolution on this planet and others, the concept of a round earth? I'm sorry, but one of the qualities of faith is that it requires belief in things which CANNOT be proven. You're claiming faith isn't faith, it's fact. I'm saying it's still faith, and therefore requires individual spirituality. That is not a quality required for teaching the theory of the ascent of man, the movement of the continents, or the mode of death of the dinosaurs. Evolution needs to be taught. The Bible, which is not universally held to be a textbook, cannot be taught among the sciences. It needs to be taught in the seminaries and such, along with other books like the Koran and Book of Mormon. I'm not so far from you really. Some day, I hope there will be scientific proof of the phenomenon of resurrection, and much more concrete information about the events surrounding that fascinating teacher called Jesu. For now, the "creed" is where the rub is in the previous posts. To quote a favorite book of mine, sometimes people can become "quite convinced of things which are not necessarily so." That's fine, so long as we do not go too far with the pronouncements. If only there was as universal an agreement on some of these other things as there is about the process of evolution. In fact, I don't think there is much disagreement about evolution among the religious when it comes to earth, plants, dinosaurs, oil, diamonds, gold, precious metals, and mammals any more. I think there's just that one little catch -- the homo sapiens. That should suggest something about the likelihood that our case was so different. Evolution doesn't have to mean we're "just animals." But just as obviously, we didn't all get made like we are now on a convenient Saturday. We've got poor Neanderthal and Cro Magnon to worry about too, you know...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.