dd_8630

Why do people take the Bible as inerrant? Why not accept that errors, factual, grammatical, mathematical, etc, could and have been made? The Bible needn't be infallible to be the Truth, especially since one is trying to convey the Absolute into a 66 chapter book written for apes.

So, those who are 'saved' are enticed to do good in order to stay in favour with their God? What happens if they do not do good acts (not commit sinful acts, but just cease to perform good deeds)? I'm sure you're aware of the old adage that 'all good deeds are selfish', even those done in Jesus' name. Sometimes the selfishness is simply a feeling of 'I've done good', sometimes it's more, but there is usually some element of altruism involved. However, what happens when what we feel is 'right' comes into conflict with what the Bible says is 'right' (assuming a Christian methodology here)? Does blind dogma override intelligent thought? Or do absolute truths & moral standards override human emotion?

God didn't just create the physical universe. He created consciousness as we know it... before God created the angels, His was the only consciousness. Morality exists only because God chose to include the mechanism for it in us. He designed it, and His morality is the only independantly existant one, as His consciousness is the only independantly existant consciousness. I thought we were created with an independant conciousness? And just because God's sense of morality existed before our own doesn't mean its correct (assuming there is a correct moral code, of course). The children in the example didn't fully grasp the consequences of eating ice cream, but they did understand their parents' instructions not to do so. Therefore, they were not left to make their own decisions, but were responsible to follow the instructions of the parents. The difference between the analogy and reality is that the parents have an active say in what the kids do. They didn't leave a note (Bible) and leave them to it. If they did, the children would almost certainly ignore it and eat ice-cream anyway. The analogy is flawed. There was NO OTHER CHOICE except to leave man to the consequences of his sin. God is just, so sin had to be accounted for in some way. Either man paid his own penalty (eternal separation from God), or the sinless Son of God Himself became the Sacrifice to pay for the sins of man for him. No other choice? Why would God create a universe where one could forgive the sins of ones creations only by sacrificing ones only son/self? Whatever happened to omnipotence? I already discussed this briefly. Quite. Gen 1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind... and God saw that [it was] good.", 1:26-27 "Let us make man in our own image...So God created man in his [own] image". Right? Animals then man. Gen 2:18 "[it is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.", 2:19 " And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field...". Right? Man then animals. Explain. No, we do not. America's systems and people have been railroaded into the ridiculous assertion that this would violate our constitution... All we are allowed to have in public schools are "World Religions" classes that briefly outline the main tenets of major religions, almost always with little and biased representation of Christianity, so as not to "favor" it. We have something similar here. At GCSE (post-primary school, pre-college) Religious Education (RE) is an outlining of the beliefs and tenants of the 6 major world religions. At A-level (college), RE is split into philosophy (cosmological, teleological, ontological arguments, problem of evil, etc) and ethics (morality & religion, utilitarianism, etc). Very good class I thought, wish I'd taken it for the full 2 years. Non-Biblically is the key phrase. I said "Were the God of the Bible real...". According to the Bible, "There is none righteous, no, not one." What about the unborn? What about neonates? How does one justify their 'sins'? In the OT it is written that all the works of righteousness which we have done are as "filthy rags". That term refers to the rags lepers used to wipe their sores (Leprosy has always been representative of sin in the Bible). Unless we are made clean from our sins, any work we can do is contaminated by them. Then why be good at all? If we can just be made 'clean' again, what's the incentive? If I had the cure for cancer in my pocket and walked through a room of terminally ill cancer patients, not offering it to anyone, it would be horrible on my part. Jesus has done something amazing for me, giving me life when I was dead. If I didn't tell people about the ETERNAL cure, don't you think, from MY perspective, that would be pretty terrible? Continuing the analogy, you would be walking into a hospital proclaiming your cure (which has not passed scientific or medical tests; indeed, it has proven harmful in the past when (mis)applied) is the only way to cure cancer; anything else will merely make it worse. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are thousands upon thousands of people in the world who have never even heard Christ's name, much less His true gospel. Perhaps this is a good thing. In my experiance, Christianity is merely an excuse to do what you want and call it 'Gods work' Bush is a strong believer of Christianity, and look at the things he has done. Look at the homophobia that has resurfaced. Look at the HIV epicemic. I'm not saying Christianity is the cause of the worlds problems, but it certainly is a big factor in the west. Troublel always follows zealous literalists of any faith. I grew up in supposedly Christian America, in an Episcopal church. Until I read it on the internet less than three years ago, I had never heard (at least understandably) the REAL gospel of Christ, that it is not my works that atone for sin and bring eternal life, but the blood of Christ only. Again, what is the incentive of doing good works if they are cleansed by Jesus' blood? Heya jeffnevins! Which religion denounces gravity? None that I know of; I was merely showing how fundamentally solid some scientific theories are. Sometimes discoveries & technology break old scientific theories down. Eventually we learned the planet's round and not the center of the universe. Electron microscopes might introduce new insights into Darwin's thoughts. We learned the planet was round because of the advent of modern scientific theory; it was thought to be flat simply because that was always how it was seen. It looks flat, therefore it is flat. Things look complex, therefore they are complex, and complexity needs a complicator; enter, the God of the Gaps. My responses to the Bible's science (in rough order of posting, forgive my lack of credits): Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, not a globe. Circles are flat. Jeremiah 33:22 says the hosts of heaven and the sand at the sea are innumerable; but surely there is a very definitive number of non-terrestrial bodies ('hosts of heaven') and particles of sand, however hard it may be to count them all? Since when did science declare that stars were identicle? Actually, Job 26:7 says the Earth is hanging (albiet on nothingness; but it is hanging nonetheless). And it was Hinduism that says the Earth is on the back of a giant elephant(s), in turn on a giant turtle; not science. Hebrews 11:3 says that which can be seen (scientifically observed?) is made of that which does not appear (cannot be scientifically observed?). Presumably, you are referring to atoms and their constituents. But, they are observable! Both visually (albiet not with the naked eye) and indirectly. Futher, which Greek philosopher was it who said that you could divide something up untill you got to the indivisible substances ('atom' comes from 'άτομον', meaning indivisible) Job 28:25 says the winds were given weight, which, given the context, looks to be equivalent to the force of winds. But besides, since when was air seen as weightless?

God didn't just create the physical universe. He created consciousness as we know it... before God created the angels, His was the only consciousness. Morality exists only because God chose to include the mechanism for it in us. He designed it, and His morality is the only independantly existant one, as His consciousness is the only independantly existant consciousness. I thought we were created with an independant conciousness? And just because God's sense of morality existed before our own doesn't mean its correct (assuming there is a correct moral code, of course). The children in the example didn't fully grasp the consequences of eating ice cream, but they did understand their parents' instructions not to do so. Therefore, they were not left to make their own decisions, but were responsible to follow the instructions of the parents. The difference between the analogy and reality is that the parents have an active say in what the kids do. They didn't leave a note (Bible) and leave them to it. If they did, the children would almost certainly ignore it and eat ice-cream anyway. The analogy is flawed. There was NO OTHER CHOICE except to leave man to the consequences of his sin. God is just, so sin had to be accounted for in some way. Either man paid his own penalty (eternal separation from God), or the sinless Son of God Himself became the Sacrifice to pay for the sins of man for him. No other choice? Why would God create a universe where one could forgive the sins of ones creations only by sacrificing ones only son/self? Whatever happened to omnipotence? I already discussed this briefly. Quite. Gen 1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind... and God saw that [it was] good.", 1:26-27 "Let us make man in our own image...So God created man in his [own] image". Right? Animals then man. Gen 2:18 "[it is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.", 2:19 " And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field...". Right? Man then animals. Explain. EDIT: I have to go now, but will finish 2moz (GMT)!

Who says? You? Says the ethical system I outlined. If God is truly the Creator of ALL things, including the Creator of morality, then who else could possibly be the determining standard of morality? "What is good is good because God is good." Creating the physical universe does not mean creating morality. Your God may have shared his beliefs on what is moral and immoral, but morality is only a concept. It isn't anything real, just something humans use to the mutual benefit of society. EXACTLY. We are the children in the picture... we do not understand the full implications of our actions, God's actions, or anything else, really. God does what is best... we simply are not always capable of gettin' it. Possible, of course. We may simply be incapable of grasping God's intentions. But if that is the case, we must make our own descisions. "O wondrous love, O power of love, you are able to do what no man ever thought; God and His Son to force apart! O love, love, you are strong!" The sacrifice made by both the Father and the Son in Jesus' death is amazingly acute. Granted, the loving bond between father and son is very strong, and it takes a strong heart to sacrifice ones child. But this is the Judaeo-Christian God! Why choose to sacrifice your only son when there are much less greusome ways to interfere with mans affairs. I have researched the various so-called errors, and have heard some completely satisfactory responses and explanations. Let's sidetrack a little. Gen 1:25-27 says humans were created after animals, but Gen 2:18-19 say before. Gen 1:27 says men and women were created simultaneously, whereas Gen 18-22 says man first, then animals, then woman. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ for a nice long list. But enough sidetracking. The government does not force students in the public education system to study and memorize the tenets of the Bible. No, but that is what Creationists are pushing for. Although, do you not have Religious Education classes in America? That's why I said it was a bad example of an important point. A better example might be the development of systems of sexual reproduction, or another similar set of mutations toward a distict purpose. Keyphrase there being 'toward a distinct purpose'. Evolution does not have a purpose; we are simply the latest in a long line of mutations. Sexual reproduction, briefly, most likely began when two asexually reproducing organisms had a chance collision during mitosis, their DNA combined, and the resulting offspring (ie, what would otherwise be clones of the original pair) shared genetic information from both. From there, hermaphrodites and later sexually seperate organisms evolved. First of all, are you seriously saying that, were the God of the Bible real and His standards THE standards, you have never sinned? You've never lied? Had an "indelicate" thought? Been angry with someone without just cause? Secondly, that's the beauty of free will. Jesus died to make forgiveness of sin a free gift... but He does not force His love on anyone, just as God did not force it on Adam and Eve in the Garden. He simply asks you, by faith, to receive that gift. That's what makes it yours. It's a bit of the stick-and-carrot really. I have the choice to accept Jesus etc, with consequences of both, only denying Jesus means I get burnt forever. Wonderful. Why should I be punished for what I believe? I am not a bad person (non-Biblically, of course), I try to be altruistic and kind and helping blah blah blah. Besides, I don't beleive in the Bible, nor the Judaeo-Christian god. So I have no worries. Pleasing my God, who happens to care very much about you, is more important to me than your respect. If it was the respect of people who don't believe in my God that I wanted, I would hush up about the things of Christ and follow my original plan to go into some prestigious, academic, intellectual profession. I'll admit, I didn't mean to sound so harsh. I was trying to get across how insensitive it is to proselytise by being insensitive to you. If you're happy, fine. As it is, I'm training to be a missionary, so I can tell MORE people about my Savior, who has changed my life and my eternity. What if people don't want to be told? I'm sure they know about Christianity well enough.

Agreed. People nowadays (says I the 17yo) seem to equate theory with hypothesis (establish but unproven explination of observations, with a suggested explination. Hypothesis is kind of like a proto-theory), which is where the old argument of 'it's just a theory' comes from. So yes, proper education in scientific terms would end the unproductive debates going on. However, I don't think the scientific theory and the religious theory should be taught in the same context, since they are quite different fields discussing a similar unknown.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh when I said I'd laugh, but I was merely trying to get across the insensitiveness felt by the proselytisee (ie, the one who is being converted). You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Let's leave it that, yes? Agreed. Lets move back on topic, yes? The validity of evolution needn't lead to a debate to Christianity's validity, so we should be safe from the powers-that-be.

I was referring here to the "with God, 1000 years is AS one day, and one day is AS 1000 years" part of Smalcald's quote. I'm aware of 'I am that I am' (hope I got that right); I'm quite impressed with it in all honesty, it's a good line. Again I disagree. Holding the Biblical God as a moral standard is, in my opinion, irresponsible again. Who was it who annihilated untold numbers with a flood? Levelled the cities of Sodom and Gomorra? Killed the first-born children of the Egyptians? Turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt merely for looking? Ordered the stoning of a man collecting wood for a fire on the Sabbath day? (More here; god bless the internet). The parent in this scenario isn't wrong or immoral because they havn't done anything particularily wrong or immoral. From the child's point of view, the lack of nightly ice-cream is a want unfulfilled, but the child is incapable at that age of serioulsy realising the consequences of the alternative. It's the short-term good vs the long-term evil dilemma (or phenomenon). God sent his only son down to Earth in the full knowledge that he'd be brutally humiliated and murdered? This was the solution God chose to clense us of our sins? Selfless love indeed. Also, how does this negate the moral 'badness' (for want of a better word) of free-will infringement? The purpose of free will, whether God-given or otherwise, doesn't really have much bearing on it. To begat something is to cause it's existence, most often via reproduction and procreation. A minor detail, at any rate. It's not bad if you bake it in a cake ^^ Agreed, although I wouldn't use the word faith, as this has heavy religious connotations. Also, how much bigger are the holes in a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint? And the pieces that are missing are things like the incompleteness of the fossil record; we can extrapolate their likely structure and geographic location, but they may never be found. It is quite a thrill (well, mild tingle) when you can look at some text and pronounciate it (to a certain extent). When I look at, say, Arabic, all i see is a line with squiggles above and below it. Clearly they mean something, but I havn't the foggiest (naturally) 'Sorry'. It's a common British contraction; don't you have it o'er the pond? Of course not. I can't see how not one studier of the Torah found an error in it, yet we find nigh-on hundreds today (Excluding, of course, the New Testament). The translation into English can't have helped. True, theory over there is seen as a hypothesis (a distinction which is, admittedly, not entirely quantitative). But why not put such stickers on the Bible? It claims absolute truth, which science textbooks do not. I expected as much, given America's reputation for education. But then again, evolution has been evidenced, speciation observed etc. It may be a theory, but it's a damn solid one. quote]Do you Englanders start college at seventeen? If so, congratulations on your matriculation!

Again, I ask for specific biblical verse which support God's temporal isolation (or, prehaps, supersedence). I am not a complete novice in that I know some biblical verses, inconsitencies, themes etc. I remember 'First and the Last, Beginning and the End'; is this an example of what you are talking about? Also, I'd debate the fact that non-linear time is a 'very advanced' concept (but this is just my pedanticness ) Time's illusion may be apparent to God, but the 'ancients' (writers of the Torah?) had a very linear view of Time. So, if God revealed Creatoin to have taken 6 days, I think he would've meant 6 days as they pertain to the 'ancients', rather than confuse them by having 6 days mean something different (an interesting note: according to science, Creation took 0 time, in that before there was no spacetime continuum, and after there was a singularity that 'exploded'). If God meant 6 million years from the perspective of the 'ancients', then why not use 6 million years? Time clearly began when God created the universe (according to Genesis, anyway), since some time is passing from the perspective of an internal observer. Time's illusion is only apparent from on external observer; we experiance the flow of time because we are internal (presumably God is external (to the universe)). So, 6 literal days would be just under 144 hours (given that 1day<24hrs) for an observer at their own Creation, which is how God would've described it as (would be dumb not to, really). Hope that makes some sense Initially, we were dealing with evolution being taught in classrooms, not the nature of philosophy, religion, and science. Science deals with the observable and inferable, no more. What more is there? Religious faith does not rely directly on divine revelation; my own spiritual beliefs do not stem directly from any divine source. I beg to differ that Science does not, cannot, and should not deal with the nature of reality. The advent of relativity and quantum mechanics (and, recently, M- and String- Theory) have completely upsided our view of reality. Further, why should science not deal with reality?

Care to quote some? I'm not particularily familiar. Neither does it for us, actually. Science has shown that time is an illusion, a fourth dimension along which we have no length, no position. But the nature of time is too complex and off topic for now Could this be a translational error, given that ancient aramic and olde english have quite different tenses and temporal cases Agreed Here I disagree. Major scientific concepts, like gravity and evolution, keep thier main fundamental priciples, especially since evolution is hardly has mathematically sound as gravity. I can't see something better then (and entirely different from) evolution arising without a major reworking of the laws of everything. Science deals with the empirically observable (that which is observed, and inferred from the observed), and the theories that arise to explain said observations. Empiricy gives us the facts, and is arguable the only absolute truth we can know (unless you call into question the nature of reality, in which case we get nowhere) I disagree. Religion invokes the dogmatically supernaturale, philosophy the meta-knowledge of the world (forgive my overwhelmingly huge overstatments here). Further, faith can come from the observation (and means other than revelation).

Hello! I don't claim evolutionary theory to be airtight, merely backed up by overwhelming amounts of evidence. If it was airtight, we wouldn't be having this debate. We cannot predict evolution beyond the laboratory (or even inside it) because we simply do not have technology accurate enough to predict things such as radioative decay, brownian motion, entropy, etc. The slightest change in the position of a chiasmata can completely alter or invalidate the new gene. Such accuracy is just... impossible, at this stage. A robust theory rarely predicts to the accuracy you ask for (outside of mathematics, of course) (of the form x = f(y)). Need I quote again the Hawthorn Fly? Classic example of macroscopic speciation in an insect? I agree that no mammalian speciation has been observed. But artificial selection and human-made sympatric barriers have created widely varied (though as far as I know still interbreedable) breeds of a species (cattle, livestock, foxes, various apes etc). Changed in what way, may I ask? In that they cannot interbreed to produce fertile young? I think we'll have to agree to disagree with the validity and completeness of the fossil record here, as the medium of the Internet does not allow us to examine it in its entierity. Though surely a 6-day Creation (and presumably a 6000 year old Earth) contradicts the fact that the evolution from abiotic substances to the life we have today needs a good few billion years? But then again, you do not say you belive in evolution, merely admire its... complexity? Evidence? I think that if Christ was divine in origin, he would have been able to bend the usual rules and reanimate. May I ask what your mothertongue is? I'm having trouble understading your first sentence here. Darwin does not make God unneccesary, but instead relegates him to a different role in creation than shown in the Bible (as opposed to creating everything fully formed ex nihilo, he guided the universe from the Big Bang to the evolution of humans, for example). Naturally, a literal interpritation of King James' Bible is going to have some difficulties, but the Judaeo-Christian God is not invalidated. Further, I disagree with the term 'god of Darwinism', for that implies, well, a god of Darwinism! Granted, a certain amount of belief goes into the interpritations of the evidences, but nowhere near as much as that of Creationists and/or Intelligent Designists.

Well that was helpful. Anyways, evidence for evolution from... Palaeontology: 1) The fossil record, when layed out chronologically, clearly shows gradual morphological changes in the bone structure, which correleates to changes in, on, and around the Earth as documented by other fields. 2) The equine record is a notable example of said fossil record, in that it is quite complete. 3) Tiktaalik roseae (fish-land intermediary) and Ethiopean pre-human fossils have been recently found (Here and here respectively) Comparative Anatomy: 1) The Pentadactyl Limb 2) Insect Mouths 3) The convergent evolution phenomenon, whereby orgnaisms evolve similar structures if in similar evironments dispite being relatively unrelated (bird, bat, & insect wings; insect & vertibrate joints; aquatic mammalian & fish tails & fins; vertibrate & cephalopod eye structure; etc) 4) Vestigal organs that have use in some organisms but not in other, more evoled, organisms. Geographical distribution: 1) Continental drift: Pangea and its following landmasses predicts similar organisms where land was once joined (Long-tailed monkeys in Africa v short-tailed in South America; lions v pumas & jaguars; giraffes v llamas; all similar, but slightly different from isolation) 2) Australia has the worlds only 2 monotremes (egg-laying mammals) (echidna & platypus) and very few native placental mammals, and since they are primitive mammals, this supports the idea that Australia has been terrestrially isolated for a very long time. 3) Again, the fossil record shows us how various organisms migrated across the world (horses, camels, humans, etc) 4) Oceanic turbulance continually generates new islands, whose native animals are only birds and fish, since the aquatic barriers obviously do not impede them. Comparative genetics: 1) Organisms morphologically similar have a similar genetic code, while older, more primitive organisms tend towards simpler, less complex, and more diverse genetic mechanisms. 2) The very fact that almost all organisms utilize DNA and ATP molecules, and that DNA & RNA codons are the same irrespective of the host organism (bacterial codons code for the same protien as they do in a human cell) 3) Cytochrome C is a classic example of biomolecular differentiation; I won't bore you with the details Google can surely provide. Iterative programming: 1) Modern computers can simulate evolutionary environments in ever more complex virtual environments, providing back-up that the evolutionary priciple holds mathematically. I will not be so arrogant as to claim this is conclusive nor complete, but I think its a nice taster. Any equally extensive Creationist evidences?

CSLewis, that is a most fascinating, if prescripted, read! I especially loved the bit about the religio-scientific synergy and benefits thereof. Young Earth Creationists disagree with pretty much most science, so I doubt they would appreciate the grandour of your post, but for the most part I reckon everyone who reads that would like it! Hah, look (?) at me, the arrogance, I'm reviewing Admitidly, this is partly a bump post, but I wanted to give my thanks for the post anyway, it reminds us that religion and science needn't be exclusively contradictory. Anyways. One question I have for any YEC-ists out there is: you say the Earth is 6000 years old. That means there was no history before 4000 BCE. But, what about civilisations before that? The Early and Late Ubaid cultures? The archaeological finds that predate 4000 BCE? The biological organisms that are quite older than 6K? I can understand disputes over the very old ages of the order of millions and billions of years, but a few millenia? We can date things to the month, even week if we're lucky, from those eras. So, given that you would have to otherwies somehow disprove all of paleoarchaeology, how can you deny an old Earth, at least one quite older than 6000 years?

Evolution does not go out to dismiss the supernatural. Indeed, the supernatural may be behind the exact mutations which occur, guiding the random process. In any case, there will always be traditionalists resitant to change. Atheists prefer evolution because it is, in its most general form, the only mainstream one available. Given the definition of atheists (of which the majority of scientists are comprised), they won't be accepting a theistic explination anytime soon, if only because they have examined and objectively rejected it. Anyway, I digress. You say that a Creator, eg God, has the right to claim authority over rules & punishments thereof; how? Does this right extend to parents? Are parents not held accountable if they brutally rape, torture, or murder their children as some (though thankfully few) do? Just because you create something does not give you free reign over it. One of the few things that is seen throughout mankinds psyche is that infringement on anothers free will is (morally) bad (hence the difference between theft and gift, murder and euthanasia, making love and rape, etc etc). Holding God as excusable for anything simply because He begat us is morally ignorant and irresponsable. Evolution has an intrinsic morality of self-preservation (or rather, 'seeding of your wild oats' at the expense of others) in lone animals, and societal-preservation in social animals (leading to altruistic and occasionally homosexual traits, since self-sacrifice leads to the societies benefit, and homosexuals in an all-male hunting group or all-female nursing group (particularily in the Primates) leads to more cohesive and efficient groups). True, there is no 'punishment' for breaking such intrinsic morality (from which instincts and emotinos stem), because societal breakdown is no longer possible by such means in the majority of todays societies. Furthermore, to attack evolutions validity on the grounds that it has 'undesireable' implications is such a basic logical fallacy of Creationists that that's all I'm going to say on it. *puffs on pipe in pretentious manner* Imho, it is unfortunate that Christians have not made the effort to "study to shew thyself a workman approved...". Creation science does not merely state that God did it and that's all we know. One of the reasons I came to believe so adamantly in Creationism (other than that it's in the Bible) is that I actually studied the scientific end of it. I would challenge you to watch the Creation Science Seminar series (17 hours long, unfortunately ) by Dr. Kent Hovind. The videos are intended for a Christian laymen audience and are purposefully injected with humor. However, some truly stimulating and engaging evidences for creationism and against evolution, from the scientific angle, are presented therein. Believe it or not, I have watched his seminars (not all, but most of them)! Interesting stuff, and one of the most convincing Creationists I know. However, some things irked me (besides the 'Evolutionary Philosophy leads to the evils of Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Humanism etc' (since when was Communism/Socialism/Humanism evil?), and the 'Evolutionary history v Biblical history' (even going as far as to say that there are no other versions of history *smack*)). One being the example of the eye, the dissmissing of Deep Time (eg, 12-13 Byo universe, 4Byo Earth), the appeals to authority and ridicule etc. He does show up the holes and incompletness of evolution, to his credit, but this does not disprove it, merely shows it to be a work in progress. It was never espoused as complete and absolute; undoubtedly it will change (evolve, if you will) as time goes by. Further, dispite his obvious intelligence and effort he put into his presentations, he uses New King James Version! Quite different from the original hebrew translated straight to modern english (but lets not start a Biblical Innerrancy debate, unless you want PM me That would be fun) Anyway. 1: I think this is open to interpritation and translation of the tenses and temporal words involved. Lacking any knowledge of Ancient Hebrew (or whatever they used) besides the etymology of YHVH, I'm not going to venture. 2: Hah, agreed. Hebrew is a lil harder than (ie, completely different to) the Russian I study, soz! Must be someone who knows it... 3: I disagree. Philosophers and theologans since before Christ (such a hippocritcal temporal reference on my part, argh!) have disputed the literal translation of the Bible. Even during the iron-fisted reign of the Catholic Church inconstitences, theodicies, and reinterpritations were rife. The even the Western illiteracy that plagued the Dark Ages didn't stop Middle- and Far- Eastern writers from discrediting their versions of the Bible (obviously different from KJV since it hadn't been written yet). Point? The hebrew bible, as far as I know, wasn't accepted at all by non-Jews, so there wasn't much dispute. The Christian Bible, with its initally (and unfortunatly occasionally continually) prosthletising followers was/is simply asking for a much more indepth and 'scientific' examination. Hence the influx of inconsitancies that have arisen over the past 2K years, and more so in our liberal and telecommunicated (qv Internet) age. The number you have dialed has not been recognised. Please call back and try again. If you can find indirect observations that infer a Creator, please, let's hear them! I can see a Christians (and other religious') problem with man being at the top, given that it ousts God from his moral highness. Point taken. By reminding them that, though they may be taught only evolution in their classroom, it is an unproven theory amongst other theories? It is a scientific theory, not a theological one. There are not contending theories, and it has a world of evidence behind it (Ask Google, and ye shall recieve). I'd also like to point out that an 'unproven theory' is a bit redundant, as a theory is de dicto unproven, else it would be scientific Law. Hah, I like your analogy But evolution (at least, here in England) is not taught as watertight, complete, and absolute. We acknowledge its assumptions, potholes, and basic lack of completeness. But, we also acknowledge the lack of other scientifically credable counter-theories. Even the Big Bang had Steady State theory, and that's now all but gone (though String theory may yet open the question of infinites before the Bang). If the contrary is taught o'er the pond, then I see your angst and resistance to it; I would too, though prehaps not abandon it entierly. A fair comment, and I won't insult you by attacking your conclusion I don't have faith in evolutionists inference of evolution, I have worked it out for myself (insofar as my 17yo intellect and free time will allow). I was most quizzical, for example, at how plants know what colour and smell to evolve to attract the right types of insects, but then it hit me in a rather clich

On the contrary, the horse has never stopped being a triumph of evolutionary predictions (namely, that fossils may exist that chart the horses evolution from the small first member of the Eocene family, Hyracotherium, 55 million years ago, to the modern day Equus ~2 million years ago. The 'mythical 5-toed creature' has been found all over, as well as over 30 other 'transitional' (for want of a less linear word) species and subspecies. Comparitive DNA and protien testing, a multitude of dating methods, and examinations of morphological changes in the remains, all corroborate the evolution of the horse. www.talkorigins.com have an article on equine evolution, and one reference is: Simpson, G.G. 1961. Horses. Doubleday & Co., New York. (An interesting and readable, though outdated, account of horse evolution. Written for the intelligent non-scientist by a prominent paleontologist.) No 'complete debunking' at all; rather, GG Simpson traces horse evolution in terms the layman can understand. If you have misunderstood even this account, I really do dispear at America's education. Vive les Anglais! Why would any Creator create such a baffling array of highly related organisms? And how does one infer a common Creator? Why not many Creators to account for the variation in organisms? Unless it is all one practicle joke, of course. Nice, starting with an insult. Given the peer review nature of scientific research, flaws in major experiments, and many minor ones, are soon found out. Even if a rogue scientist were to publish deliberatly or accidentally flawed work, he or she would quickly get discredited. Perhaps this is why not one Creationist paper has even been presented for peer review, hmm?

Firstly, what other reason is there to accept evolution? Secondly, an ulterior motive? Could this be to advance the 'Homosexual Agenda' (forgive my satire)? Scientists are scientists because they have an interest in science, no more. Could you hint as to what motive these scientists have? I honestly can't think what else it could be. Science tends to the explinations that do not need God because there is no reason to conclude a God; to many, it is a cop out to simply relegate it to some higher power. Science works by observation (in this case of fossils and other relics from way back when) and inference: Current organisms have a very similar geno- and pheno- types, which grow in similarity the further back in time you go (as evidenced by the fossil record (The evolutionary record of the equine family is famously complete in showing this)). Thus, one infers that at one point far, far in the past, there was a common ancestor. A brief and probably undetailed look at evolution, forgive any mistakes, it is early. Science in its entierity begins with the notion that there must be a natural explination (although why God should be seen as beyond the natural, and therefore beyond the observable, I don't know), since it works through observation and inference. How one is supposed to arrive at the same conclusion for organic origins as genesis is going to be difficult, since Gen 1:25-27 (humans created after beasts) and Gen 2:4-25 (humans created before beasts) are contradictory! One: it has been observered ('micro'evolution is a certainty, and speciation (one organism differentiating into two non-breedable organisms) has also been observed, in the form of the Hawthorn Fly, among others). Two: lack of direct observability does not exclude something from the empirical, since there is always inference from indirect observations. Three: Creationism is different in that it has a conclusion it wants to back up, while 'Evoutionism' has facts it wants to explain with a conclusion. What, is the problem with humanism? A philosophy that deals with human issues? Further, how is evolution a 'vital component of humanism'? Evolution scientifically explains the origins of life, while humanism focuses on exalting human traits (without holding that only humans can have such traits) and the problems that lie therein. How are they intrinsically intertwined? While the proof of evolution is arguable, I fail to see the error of most states not allowing stickers that undermine the foundations of scientific progress in a childs education. I can understand that if you disagree with evolution you want something done about its being taught, but you fail to understand what is meant by 'theory' in the context of science. Also, since when is evolution presented as unchallengable? Scientific falsification is all about challanging the established theory with new theories. It is not so much to protect the absolutism of evolution, but to halt Religion being wedged by force into the scientific curriculum. I have not observed the fossils with my bare hands, but I have 'faith' that they exist. I have not handled and sampled the artic ice-cores with my own equipment, but I have 'faith' that they exist. I have not sat down and speciated an insect, but I have 'faith' in the reports that it has been done. My point is that I 'believe' it to be true insomuch as I have not gone out and looked at the evidence firsthand, and have faith in the truthtelling of my fellow scientist (unless, of course, the entire scientific community is out to confuse and dupe me), but like you said, it is not religious faith, but nor is it an absolute truth. We have observed facts which lead to the inference of an evolutionary process that gave rise to the complexity of life today from simpler origins. Darwin reads a book 'disproving' Creationism, and then goes on his famous Beagle trip. Historically fascinating, but what does it have to do with anything?

They do!! Most of the creationist websites have credentialed scientists and not laymen providing the information. And they provide documentation of both their information sources and their credentials. I recognize we may not convince you. You seem determined to receive only the indoctrination you had before coming here. But there is light, if only you will see it. I urge you to examine the online book linked from my previous post, and see if there might not be some alternate explanation to what you have been taught. I have looked at it. It serves to outline some of the specifics of evolution at best, not disprove it. Also, bear in mind that a handful of Creationist scientists does not bear much weight against the vast majority of Evolutionary scientists; rather, it shows them to have seriously misunderstood evolution. Think about what you are saying. You are asking me to accept that some mighty force in the sky created all I see around me, that the entire scientific community is flawed, that for whatever reason Christianity is the only logical alternative (Hinduism for one has been remarkably in line with science, from alinear time to quantum fluctuations). You say I ignore the painfully obvious light, that I am 'determined to receive only the indoctrination had before coming here'; I could say exactly the same about you. What evidence do you have for Creationism? And why should Creationism, Genesis, and the Judaeo-Christian God be the alternative to Evolution (apart from your indoctrinated pre-belief)? Back to the OP, of sorts (Should Evolution/Creationism be taught in the (American) classroom?), should Science not be taught in the Science Classroom, and Religous Education in the Religous Education Classroom?

Evolution does not imply self-satisfaction, not in humans. In all social species, altruism for the net genetic benefit of the society is key. Since humans are social species, we work towards enhancing the society as a whole, coopting the environment to ensure optimal reproductive conditions. Our improved intellects allow us to do this with much greater impact than other animals, but the point remains: human societies revolve around successfully rearing (protecting, educating etc) the young, at the expense of the older generations if need be. You are correct in seeing Nazism as a perversion of evolution (given the name Eugenics in this case) as Nazism promotes the idea that the Germanic race is somehow 'more evolved' than the other 'races', and is therefore superior and should be given dominance. Communism is entierly unrelated, and if I'm honest, I think you only mentioned it because of the prexisting slander the US government has given it. True, attempts at practicle Communism have been warped into something rather different from established Commnuism (namely Genocide), but Communism as a social theory is the best attempt at a utopia we have so far come up with (control of produce goes to the producers etc). Anyways, it is a quite humongous logical fallicy (domino effect, in fact) to go from atheistic morals to the 'Evils That Are Nazism And Communism [TM]' since many atheist are moral, if for different reasons to you. They are moral because they choose to be; you are moral because you are told to be. Further, I question the 'blind faith' people put in evolution. True, the layman is unlikely to know the intricate details of evolution, genetics, etc, and so rely in the empiricy of science, but as for the scientists themselves, the thousands of men and women from across the whole sphere of scientific fields, all those people accept evolution as a fundamental scientific fact. You quote a handful of scientists who reject evolution. It would be more suspicioius if there weren't any anti-evolution scientists. My point, ladies and gentlemen, is that if evolution really was the flawed mess of a philosophy you people call it, then a lot more scientists would clue in, don't you think?

You are guilty of the same failings! Lack of evidence for anti-evolution or pro-creation! Darwinism is: # the theory referring to biologist Charles Darwin's beliefs that the origin of species is a result of variation due to a genetic mutation from the parents, with individuals who are best adapted to survive chosen through the process of natural selection. Survival requires cooperation, which is why socialists of London's day accepted Darwinian science as proof of the superiority of their politics. sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Essays/glossary.html # a theory of evolution by natural selection put forward by Charles Darwin www.fairchildgarden.org/EduProfDev/Adaptations_vocabulary.html # The theory attributed to Charles Darwin (1809-82) which posits that all biological organisms evolve through natural selection , a scientific term which essentially means that certain species will survive over others because they are better suited to a particular environment. For instance, as different species are struggling to survive in a particular ecosystem, Nature herself, in a sense, selects those species which are the fittest to survive. ... www.apologetics.org/glossary.html # The theory of evolution that states that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by changing and adapting to their environment for survival www.sitesalive.com/admin/glossary/sectD.html # The theory of how evolution might have come about which constitutes the major contribution to science made by Charles Darwin (1809-1882). www.theology.edu/theology/glossary.htm # a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # Darwinism is a term used for various processes related to the ideas of Charles Darwin, particularly concerning evolution and natural selection. Darwinism in this sense is not synonymous with evolution, but rather with evolution by natural selection. Modern biology suggests a number of other mechanisms involved in evolution which were unknown to Darwin, such as genetic drift. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism Where, then, have I gone to terribly wrong? While Darwinism can be interprited to 'catagorically deny the Judaeo-Christian God', it does not set out to do so. Indeed, if so interprited, it would omit any divine concept that involves a Creation myth, not just Judaeo-Christianity. I also like how you assume that if something contradicts your beliefs (ie, Christianity), then it immediatly becomes an irrational and illegitimate worldview. Further, since when does legitimate science allow for the supernatural? If you are so clued up on Science, then you would know that the supernatural cannot exist, as there is nothing but the natural, by definition. Science works by observation and inference, formulating peer-reviewed hypothesis to explain empirical data. The supernatural, if it could exist, cannot interact with the natural, and so cannot be observed nor measured, and so is beyond the realm of science. That is, the supernatural may exist, but there is no way to prove either or. Wicca (not Wiccan, please have a little care) has no say on Judaeo-Christianity and its divine concepts. I believe the Judaeo-Christian God may exist, but not as the literal Olde-English Bible words Him. Whether our Gods are part of one larger force, or are seperate in their own right, is quite irrelevant. Also, how is my concept of deity weak, not to mention confusing? You simply state that it is such. Is it any more confusing that the idea that one God (who is actually three at the same time) sent his 'son' (or rather, one of the three) to incarnate on Earth so that he can die, for that is the only way to clense humans of their intrinsic sins? I am a Wiccan of 4 years, and I throughly enjoy it, thank you. You say only your God offers a credible and realistic view of reality? I tried Christianity, I went to Church, I prayed to your God to forgive me of something I hadn't done but was supposedly being punished for anyway, and I ignored the atrocities and absurdities in the Bible. You call me irrational? Take a good, long, objective look at your own beliefs before you start rallying mine. Back to debate methinks Does anyone have any evidence that evolution leads to moral decline? What about homosexuality? Beastiality? Communism? Atheism?

Apologies for the strangeness that is the quotation notation. It seems quotes arn't allowed here! lol

The Wiccan concept of the divine is varied, but there is general consensus on 2 deities, equal and opposite, commonly known as the God and the Goddess (not to be confused, obviously, with the Judaeo-Christian God). Most Wiccans accept the existance of divinities from other religions, and the validity of the philosophies common to all (the 'Golden Rule', for example). If all existence is strictly by chance and randomness, then the gods play whatever role they must. A god does not become any less of a god if it has less or no control over things. It is what it is ('I am that I am', as it were). God does not need to play a part in the universe to exist in it.

The question goes begging – are there any Darwinists who are theists? The famous anthropologist (and evolutionist) George Gaylord Simpson summed up the evolutionist mindset when he stated, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." Why do you think Darwinists insist on a godless system without an option for a Creator-God? Why would any theist (Christian or non-Christian) choose to buy into the idea the universe must operate by random mindless processes? Where does God fit into you worldview? Isn't it true from a Christian perspective that evolution contradicts much, much more than "the literal English-language King James Bible"? Let's concentrate on facts and reality. Darwinists do not insist on a godless system, nor does Darwinism remove any place for God. Evolution is a description of a natural phenomena. The cause of said phenomena, may be God. It may be God nudging certain mutations to occur, thereby resulting in us. I don't know. I am myself a theist, Wiccan to be exact. That the universe operates by random processes is irrelevant, and, given the nature of randomness, may in fact lead another door open for God. What causes the random decay of a radioactive particle? for one. Also, Darwinism is de dicto beliving the works of Darwin. While groundbreaking, neo-Darwinism is the current scientific consensus.