Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
250

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
The end times are happening. They were happening in the 1800’s and they are happening now. Everything is leading up to it. What’s a couple hundred years out of earth’s history?
quote]

Following this logic one could have stated 2000 years ago, immediately upon the death of Christ that the end times are happening, I mean since you propose that all things are leading toward this end. By that logic too, in a couple hundred more years then end times will still be upon us.

251

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
haney wrote:
Ren wrote:

Did I say it was a coincidence? Did I say everything in the Bible was a load of crap? No. I just pointed out that there ARE translation errors. Some can be minor, but some could be major. I mean, what would you do if some archaelogist unearths a manuscript written in Aramaic that when translated says Mary wasn’t a virgin? (this is just an example I am using, so don’t get your panties in a bunch).

The Bible has some real good stuff in it, a lot of interesting stories, a bit of history, some nice fables, all that jazz, but I wouldn’t use it as the roadmap for my life. You can use your scare tactics all you want, you can claim the end of days is coming like thousands of other people have for the last 2 millenia, and when we are all dead and done and the world is still going strong, a new generation of people like you can stand up and spread their hoo-ha.

I know this is only going to get me flamed but ehh…

It is not required for mary to be a virgin for Christ to be Christ. That is a phophecy that is under debate anyway.

As for the end times futurist is not the only view on such topics. The is also the preterist/partial preterist view that fits well with Revelations.

I am sure you don’t really care about what I am writing, but I figured I should give a different opinion of what Emu is talking about. I used to see things the way he did, but I have done a lot of studying, and found a few models of biblical interpretation that make more sense to me.

No offense Emu. This is just the conclusion that I have come to.

Truth be told if you want to find a way to believe, you will. If you want to find a way to not believe, you will.

No offense taken at all. I am interested in what makes more sense to you, please share.

[/quote]

not here this thread has been hijacked more than should be.

252

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Why in the world would you ever believe what a priest says? Catholics follow their traditions. The Bible strongly warns against following the traditions of men. I am saddened by your remarks.

So why do Catholics have Bibles? Do you let men tell you what is true out of the Bible and what is not? I prefer God’s word. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it surely is good enough for me.
[/quote]

The best historical guess right now, based on discoveries of what appear to be the most original texts, is that the first gospels were assembled for the express purpose of replacing the Torah reading in the early Christian service (proto-mass or proto-liturgy) which now is believed to have been in use by 35 AD. In other words, the mass/liturgy predates any written gospel, and originally used the Torah readings, and then the Apostles wrote them to be part of this “tradition”.

Also, if everyone could enterpret the Bible the same way, why are there 10,000 protestant (or pre-reformation Christian) denomonations which can’t agree on what to believe?

253

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I learned that the Bible was originally written in Greek. Some scholars believe that parts were written in Aramaic. At a minimum, you have Greek to English. But wait, the English we’re talking about is Old English. While I wouldn’t classify Old English and Modern English as completely different languages, there are differences.

No, I am obviously not a Bible scholar. I took one class in college on the New Testament, which, BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed and got a lot out of. But I know enough about foreign languages to know that things get lost in the translation. That’s common sense - no Ph.D. needed for that.

Wikipedia lists several versions of the Modern English Bible. If the translation was easy and straightforward, why all the versions? And which version represents the one true, inspired word of God?

And furthermore, people have to understand that Greek had Aristotelian Eupehmisms/contexts/models which were not consistent with Hebrew philisophical models so sometimes word had to be used in the “best possible” but certainly not perfect way. For example, Artistotelianism has Body mind and soul, while Hebrew stricly has body, soul and spirit. Again these are not even the best words to use, but the Hebrew “soul” was not the spirit or life force but rather the mind or more appropriately the “mental and emotional decision making complex” of a person.

I had a Jehovah’s witness tell me that the “eternal soul” was a Christian heresy, and that it was only one’s consciousness that can survive death-well, in Hebrew, soul WAS consciousness!

254

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
designated as the Lord’s day; the day mentioned is the Sabbath, the last day of the week. The early Church, conscious of her authority to teach in the name of Christ, deliberately changed the day to Sunday."

and more
[/quote]

Unfortunately, many Roman Catholic “theologians” don’t even know their own theology.
The sabbath is still the sabbath and still saturday, and still to be kept holy. The Resurrection is the 8th day of creation in RC theology, and so Sunday is not only first day of the week, it is the theological 8th day of the week. Nevertheless, all days are kept holy. The services of the church, as still practiced in traditional monestaries, includes virtually around the clock services every day of the year.

255

[quote]Just one more thing here…

With all of your verbosity, you do not answer the fundamental question. Even if I would concede your point that The “Big Bang” Theory and Evolution are not one intertwined atheistic system, attempting to explain all that we see without a Divine Creator, you still cannot tell me where the “stuff” or the “energy” or whatever supposed to “bang” in the first place came from?

Where did it come from? [/quote]

Alright. Let’s have schools that teach the evolutionary view admit that they cannot answer these questions, when whoever teaches their kids about Christianity mentions that there is still the question “Who made God”? Why would an omniscient God punish us for our sins?

Anyway, I don’t care about “losing points” either. I’m just agnostic. I honestly think that all flaws with evolution should be explained in just as much detail as the rest.

EDIT: Didn’t realize I was in the middle of the thread when I was writing this, I thought I had hit the “last page” button.

256

[quote]grew7 wrote:
Alright. Let’s have schools that teach the evolutionary view admit that they cannot answer these questions, when whoever teaches their kids about Christianity mentions that there is still the question “Who made God”? Why would an omniscient God punish us for our sins?

Anyway, I don’t care about “losing points” either. I’m just agnostic. I honestly think that all flaws with evolution should be explained in just as much detail as the rest.

EDIT: Didn’t realize I was in the middle of the thread when I was writing this, I thought I had hit the “last page” button.[/quote]

Here is the thing though, we do have answers for those questions. Are they the right answers? We can’t know with absolute certainty, but they are the best answers we have now. They fit with current theory, and they form a coherent model. They might, of course, be proven wrong in whole or in part eventually…

The thing is this…we can’t really teach the answers to these questions in high school. Well, we could, but hardly anyone would understand it. We don’t even teach modern physics to high school students in this country. The most you can hope for is maybe some basic mechanics, and even then the math can’t get too complex because a lot of people don’t know calculus in high school. In a lot of places it isn’t even required to take a physics class to graduate.

So how are we going to teach these kids about things that require a basic understanding of quantum mechanics and general relativity?

Incidentally, the whole losing points thing was just my way of saying that my opinion of steveo5801’s scientific knowledge had dropped a few notches. I’m sorry, but anyone who so incredibly misunderstands the laws of thermodynamics should have no business at all talking about science education. He should get some science education first.

257

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I learned that the Bible was originally written in Greek. Some scholars believe that parts were written in Aramaic. At a minimum, you have Greek to English. But wait, the English we’re talking about is Old English. While I wouldn’t classify Old English and Modern English as completely different languages, there are differences.
[/quote]
The NT was written in greek. The old was in Hebrew. The old english is only the KJV which dare I say is not the best translation.

Agreed things can get lost in translation.

The way the Bible was translated those was idea for idea.

[quote]
Wikipedia lists several versions of the Modern English Bible. If the translation was easy and straightforward, why all the versions? And which version represents the one true, inspired word of God?

Because the language is sometimes more easily relatable in different versions. A better question though would be is the message lost in any of the translations, or are the fundamentals of theology lost.

No scholar that I know of would say that the translations hurt those two important questions.

258

yesterday was Darwin Day, some fun reading for the anti-evolutionists that spout crap:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1096932.php/Churches_celebrate_Darwin`s_birthday

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/13847613.htm

and another fun one I found, puts an interesting perspective on things in saying that ID supporters are actually insulting God’s intelligence:

259

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
All the prophecies and world events that are all lined up for the end to happen any day now don’t mean anything.

People have been claiming this for hundreds of years remember the big tent revivals of the 1800’s and 1900’s? That was the big drive behind that movement, the end times were upon us.

I find it quite humorous that people claim that the end times are right around the corner when the bible says that no one will know the day or the time of Christ’s return. I think some of these people need to read their bibles before going forth to make new deciples using this rationalle.

The end times are happening. They were happening in the 1800’s and they are happening now. Everything is leading up to it. What’s a couple hundred years out of earth’s history?

I never claimed to know the day or hour.[/quote]

Intelligent design cannot exist, because if it did, you would not be alive.

261

Intelligent Design makes a bit of sense… it’s that Jesus Christ story that’s a load of shit.

262

Article about our possible viral ancestors. The title is "Unintelligent Design, but the article is not about the Evolution/ID debate.

Nonetheless, it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/

263

[quote]pookie wrote:
Article about our possible viral ancestors. The title is "Unintelligent Design, but the article is not about the Evolution/ID debate.

Nonetheless, it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/
[/quote]

Pookie,

(1) In the Begining God created the Heaven and the Earth…

(2) “Now the viruses appear to present a creation story of their own: a stirring, topsy-turvy, and decidedly unintelligent design wherein life arose more by reckless accident than original intent, through an accumulation of genetic accounting errors committed by hordes of mindless, microscopic replication machines. Our descent from apes is the least of it. With the discovery of Mimi, scientists are close to ascribing to viruses the last role that anyone would have conceived for them: that of life’s prime mover.”

And you call Creation a fantasy?

Pookie, this article comes from the bent that macro-evolution is true, and thus it has already a preconceived bias as it looks at the world. It takes evolution as fact and then goes from there. Creation takes God as fact and goes from there. Again, since neither position can be PROVEN, they are both ‘religious’ positions inherrently and are not scientific positions in the rigorous sense of the word. Therefore, again I say that either both get tossed from the science classroom or both go in. But to favor one relgion over another is just plain unabashed indoctrination of our youth of the worst kind.

You have the right to believe you have decended from green slime, but don’t bring in your wacky religion to the science classroom.

264

haney wrote
Because the language is sometimes more easily relatable in different versions. A better question though would be is the message lost in any of the translations, or are the fundamentals of theology lost.

No scholar that I know of would say that the translations hurt those two important questions. .

I think this is a very important point.
Something triggered an investigative thought after I read somwhere that priests were being annointed in holy oil.
I looked this up, and it seems preists all the way back to Aarron (brother of moses) have been anointing not only themselves, but also the sick, as well as holy items.

I looked up this holy oil.
KJV Exodus 30:23
30:23 Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred [shekels], and of sweet cinnamon half so much, [even] two hundred and fifty [shekels], and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty [shekels]

Now I?ve never heard of sweet calamus, so I looked it up.
http://dict.die.net/calamus/
calamus n
1: any tropical Asian palm of the genus Calamus; light toughstems are a source of rattan canes
2: the aromatic root of the sweet flag used medicinally
3: perennial marsh plant having swordlike leaves and aromaticroots [syn: sweet flag, sweet calamus, myrtle flag, flagroot, Acorus calamus]
4: a genus of Sparidae [syn: Calamus, genus Calamus]
5: the hollow shaft of a feather [syn: quill, shaft]

and

Calamus the Latin for cane, Hebrew Kaneh, mentioned (Ex. 30:23) as oneof the ingredients in the holy anointing oil, one of the sweetscents (Cant. 4:14), and among the articles sold in the marketsof Tyre (Ezek. 27:19). The word designates an Oriental plantcalled the “sweet flag,” the Acorus calamus of Linnaeus. It iselsewhere called “sweet cane” (Isa. 43:24; Jer. 6:20). It has anaromatic smell, and when its knotted stalk is cut and dried andreduced to powder, it forms an ingredient in the most preciousperfumes. It was not a native of Palestine, but was importedfrom Arabia Felix or from India. It was probably that which isnow known in India by the name of “lemon grass” or “ginger
grass,” the Andropogon schoenanthus. (See CANE.)

So according the the KJV, sweet calamus is either a cane or other member of the grass family, a feather, or a marsh grass

Now the first part of 30;23 says the holy oil is made from spices and herbs.
Of the above definitions, none are spices or herbs (some might argue that lemongrass is a herb ? but no it?s defined as a grass, and is used as a condiment, as well as a very good soil binder against erosion in areas of high rainfall ? if you wanted to know).

So I searched Kahaeh and came to this http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/poison/marijuan/about.htm

Sweet calamus might be a mistranslation of Aromatic Cane : the Hebrew word for aromatic cane is transliterated as
‘kana-besem’. The modern Hebrew word transliterated as ‘kanabos’
is translated as “hemp”, the English word for cannabis.
(Ben-Yehuda’s Pocket English-Hebrew/ Hebrew-English Dictionary, p. 140)

Now what leads me to think the of the possibility of poor translation…
Then I read about what the holy annointing oil was supposed to do:
People who were immersed in the holy oil would “Be filled with the presence of God”
People might think big deal ? but the skin is an organ which can absorb chemicals. If THC was in a reasonable concentration in a carrier oil (here olive oil ? and in 25% of total ingreidients used) and a person was immersed in it ? enough THC could be absorbed.
Could this not be the reason people felt they were filled with God? ? they were off their collective nut and out with the fairies? I mean gods and angels?
And could this also mean that current priests are annointing themselves with a not-so-holy oil? And what does that mean to everyone who?s been baptised, annointed, etc by someone who by definition is not annointed themselves?

So yes ? mis translation looks to be quite important - for the faithful, their ministers, and pot-heads who want the law changed.

flame away!

265

I listened to a radio programme on this this mornining.

I feel it should only be left in theology, i.e. church.

Anyway, the programme had a mathematician (like that adds credence) stating that evolutionists should bring forward all the evidence to support that contention.

Now, if this is being touted as a science, then that would count both ways. It is not enough to say, however pleasing it is, that it must be so, or it says so, or that is the only explanaton. there is confusion with things that are unexplicable and those that are not yet explained.

It will be the downfall of the wests educational supoeriority over the developing east if this will be allowed to continue.

Good luck in the dark ages.

266

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
(1) In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth…[/quote]

How He did it is not specified, though. Isn’t your God capable of creating a universe (via Big Bang) where life eventually appears on its own and evolves to intelligence? All that’s required is the right physical laws and constants.

If He did it the “POOF! It’s there.” way, why all the evidence pointing to a universe billions of years old? I thought God didn’t lie.

quote “Now the viruses appear to present a creation story of their own: a stirring, topsy-turvy, and decidedly unintelligent design wherein life arose more by reckless accident than original intent, through an accumulation of genetic accounting errors committed by hordes of mindless, microscopic replication machines. Our descent from apes is the least of it. With the discovery of Mimi, scientists are close to ascribing to viruses the last role that anyone would have conceived for them: that of life’s prime mover.”

And you call Creation a fantasy? [/quote]

Q1. Did you read the whole thing? You’re quoting stuff not even 1/4 of the way through.

Q2. ID advocates / Creationists keep asking for “life from non-life” explanations. The article points to one possibility. Are you honest enough to at least allow for the possibility that life’s beginning could’ve been heavily due to viruses and/or other simple replicators? If anything that’s proposed is always rejected as “fantasy”, then just come out and say it: Anything differing from Genesis is false, period.

If so, please stop wondering why American kids are so poor at math and science.

Last point: While you consider the article “fantasy”, it at leasts offers an hypothesis that could be tested in a laboratory setting. Genesis, on the other, will always require faith, because otherwise simple common sense is enough to simply it.

It’s a science article written in a science magazine that discusses advances made by scientist. Stop looking for the “verily I say unto you…”

Science is interested in objective truth; not convenient “truth” (ie, crap) that aligns with your primitive beliefs.

As for Evolution, isn’t your God godlike enough to use that method to arrive to His ends? What a puny, man-like God you pray to.

No theory is ever proven in science. They’re tested myriads of times until they fail a test. The vastness of the processes covered by evolution guarantee that it does get everything right. But for every difficulty, there are myriads of observations and mounds of evidence that corroborate it. So evolution is as much “fact” as science can produce.

Its as if someone rejected the Bible because he’d found a typo on page 569 of his copy and from that concluded that the Bible contained errors and was therefore not of God.

Yeah, let’s not teach any science at all to our kids, 'cause all those theories are not perfect.

You keep doing that while Science moves offshore to Asia and Europe (where the International Fusion Reactor will be; where the LHC opens in 2007 whereas your SSC is abandoned pork in Texas) and in three or four generations your grandkids will thank you for relegating the U.S. to the status of second-class nation, as far as scientific endeavours are concerned.

If the truth is that we’ve all come from green slime, you’d rather keep your faith in a lie? I thought you liked truth…

And again, who’s to say that God’s method of arriving at intelligent man didn’t go through the slime phase. Why is your God so restricted in what He can do? Or is you who’s presumptuous in claiming to know God’s ways?

267

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
(1) In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth…

How He did it is not specified, though. Isn’t your God capable of creating a universe (via Big Bang) where life eventually appears on its own and evolves to intelligence? All that’s required is the right physical laws and constants.

If He did it the “POOF! It’s there.” way, why all the evidence pointing to a universe billions of years old? I thought God didn’t lie.

(2) “Now the viruses appear to present a creation story of their own: a stirring, topsy-turvy, and decidedly unintelligent design wherein life arose more by reckless accident than original intent, through an accumulation of genetic accounting errors committed by hordes of mindless, microscopic replication machines. Our descent from apes is the least of it. With the discovery of Mimi, scientists are close to ascribing to viruses the last role that anyone would have conceived for them: that of life’s prime mover.”

And you call Creation a fantasy?

Q1. Did you read the whole thing? You’re quoting stuff not even 1/4 of the way through.

Q2. ID advocates / Creationists keep asking for “life from non-life” explanations. The article points to one possibility. Are you honest enough to at least allow for the possibility that life’s beginning could’ve been heavily due to viruses and/or other simple replicators? If anything that’s proposed is always rejected as “fantasy”, then just come out and say it: Anything differing from Genesis is false, period.

If so, please stop wondering why American kids are so poor at math and science.

Last point: While you consider the article “fantasy”, it at leasts offers an hypothesis that could be tested in a laboratory setting. Genesis, on the other, will always require faith, because otherwise simple common sense is enough to simply it.

Pookie, this article comes from the bent that macro-evolution is true, and thus it has already a preconceived bias as it looks at the world. It takes evolution as fact and then goes from there.

It’s a science article written in a science magazine that discusses advances made by scientist. Stop looking for the “verily I say unto you…”

Science is interested in objective truth; not convenient “truth” (ie, crap) that aligns with your primitive beliefs.

As for Evolution, isn’t your God godlike enough to use that method to arrive to His ends? What a puny, man-like God you pray to.

Creation takes God as fact and goes from there. Again, since neither position can be PROVEN, they are both ‘religious’ positions inherently and are not scientific positions in the rigorous sense of the word.

No theory is ever proven in science. They’re tested myriads of times until they fail a test. The vastness of the processes covered by evolution guarantee that it does get everything right. But for every difficulty, there are myriads of observations and mounds of evidence that corroborate it. So evolution is as much “fact” as science can produce.

Its as if someone rejected the Bible because he’d found a typo on page 569 of his copy and from that concluded that the Bible contained errors and was therefore not of God.

Therefore, again I say that either both get tossed from the science classroom or both go in. But to favor one religion over another is just plain unabashed indoctrination of our youth of the worst kind.

Yeah, let’s not teach any science at all to our kids, 'cause all those theories are not perfect.

You keep doing that while Science moves offshore to Asia and Europe (where the International Fusion Reactor will be; where the LHC opens in 2007 whereas your SSC is abandoned pork in Texas) and in three or four generations your grandkids will thank you for relegating the U.S. to the status of second-class nation, as far as scientific endeavours are concerned.

You have the right to believe you have descended from green slime, but don’t bring in your wacky religion to the science classroom.

If the truth is that we’ve all come from green slime, you’d rather keep your faith in a lie? I thought you liked truth…

And again, who’s to say that God’s method of arriving at intelligent man didn’t go through the slime phase. Why is your God so restricted in what He can do? Or is you who’s presumptuous in claiming to know God’s ways?[/quote]

Pookie,

I can only say that I am quite appalled once again at the anger which you seem to always write. It almost seems to me that you are angry at God…

I am not going to go point by point, since your reply seems to me a frenetic rambling of someone who just wants to BELIEVE evolution rather than Creation.

The only point I will make is about your attack upon God.

No, Pookie, God, unlike us, is not “puny” or held to the same constraints as his creatures. The fact of the matter is that God DID NOT USE EVOLUTION TO CREATE ANYTHING BECAUSE HE TOLD US THAT HE CREATED EVERYTHING BY SPEAKING IT INTO EXISTENCE FROM NOTHTING!

In addtion, I am not at all presuming upon God’s ways, because He has told me all about His ways that I need to know in His Word. Go argue with God, not me!

Lastly, Pookie, evolution is not science. As much as you want to scream it, shout it, hit me over the head with it, it is simply not science. I want kids to be taught real science – science that can advance an hypothesis and then test that hypothesis to see if it is false. The way the Universe was created is not testable. It is simply faith – i.e. ‘religion.’ Period.

So, again, either take evolution and Creation and teach them in a comparative religiion class, or have both in the science class. The problem with the atheists who want everyone to “renouce their faith,” is that you are tolerant only of your own non faith, and intolerant toward anyone else’s.

I will continue to pray for you Pookie. You must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

Take care. I do wish you and your family well.

268

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Pookie,

I can only say that I am quite appalled once again at the anger which you seem to always write. It almost seems to me that you are angry at God…[/quote]

You’re reading something that’s simply not there. Maybe it’s your own anger that colors what you read.

What could I be angry about? You never address any points directly. You broadly dismiss then talk about the Bible and prayer…

See what I mean? Always evading the questions. At least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

I’d be nice if once, just once, you’d concentrate less on the messenger and more on the message. “Unbelievers” might find you more convincing if you were able to show us where we’re wrong in the various points we make.

[quote]The only point I will make is about your attack upon God.

No, Pookie, God, unlike us, is not “puny” or held to the same constraints as his creatures. The fact of the matter is that God DID NOT USE EVOLUTION TO CREATE ANYTHING BECAUSE HE TOLD US THAT HE CREATED EVERYTHING BY SPEAKING IT INTO EXISTENCE FROM NOTHING![/quote]

So your God is unable to simply create the laws of physics from which this whole universe could happen. The same for life; without direct tinkering, we’d have to species.

Why is it that I can image a God greater than yours then? The God you keep taking about is so manlike, it’s pitiful. Awe, wonder, magnificience… none of it is there. Maybe for a child, but not for an adult mind.

Anger check time: I’m not. Are you?

I’d like to. Care to produce Him? He’s rather hard to get ahold of.

Science allows for evolution to be replaced by a better theory, when and if ones comes along. Until something that better explains the biosphere as we know it comes and replaces it, Evolution it is.

See? Science can be wrong, it happens all the time. That’s how progress is made.

Oh, come on. What about evidence like the Cosmic Background Radiation? Red-shifted galaxies from the expansion of the universe? Radioactive decay in rocks and meteorites?

What’s your explanation for the results given by that evidence?

And note that most of Science hasn’t been made by unbelievers and atheists, but by men and women who had faith in God and in the brain and reasoning ability that God gave them.

What’s the Bible’s position on using our brain and five senses to understand our universe? I’m sure it won’t be encouraged, but surely it’s allowed?

Well, evolution is not religion and Creation is not science, so we’re in a bit of a pickle here.

But hey, you dumb down your schools all you want. We won’t be around to reap the results of what you sow anyway…

Again, stop concentrating on what I do, think or believe, and address the issues please. I don’t understand the difficulties you’re having.

[quote]I will continue to pray for you Pookie. You must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

Take care. I do wish you and your family well.[/quote]

And I’ll tell Santa to keep you on his naughty list until you stop evading all the questions.

269

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Lastly, Pookie, evolution is not science. As much as you want to scream it, shout it, hit me over the head with it, it is simply not science. I want kids to be taught real science – science that can advance an hypothesis and then test that hypothesis to see if it is false. The way the Universe was created is not testable. It is simply faith – i.e. ‘religion.’ Period.

So, again, either take evolution and Creation and teach them in a comparative religiion class, or have both in the science class. The problem with the atheists who want everyone to “renouce their faith,” is that you are tolerant only of your own non faith, and intolerant toward anyone else’s.[/quote]

Evolution says nothing about how the universe was created! In fact, it says nothing about how life was created. All the theories for the creation of life are speculative, and no one is trying to present them as scientific fact. Evolution describes how life changes over time. Its that simple.

By your definition of science, our children should not learn any biology, physics, or chemistry. Because no scientific theory has ever been “proven.” Newtonian mechanics is not exact, because it doesn’t apply in the relativistic regime, and relativity is not exact, because it doesn’t apply in the quantum mechanical regime.

However, we use Newtonian mechanics to fly our spaceships and to send probes to other planets. And we use quantum mechanics to make computers, digital cameras, and medical devices like MRI’s. Without relativity, we wouldn’t have the GPS system.

But, none of the underlying theories are 100% correct! So, should we abandon them as not being real science, and not have our kids learn about them?

Science never claims to have all the answers, but it is always improving and changing, and when new theories arise which better describe the physical world, then the old theories are abandoned. Its as simple as that.

My question is, how is that not compatible with faith? Why can’t you imagine your deity creating the universe as we see it? It is an incredibly beautiful and awe-inspiring place! The atoms (the carbon, nitrogen, etc) in your body were created in great explosions of stars billions of years ago. How is that not an amazing thing?

I also hate to remind you that the technological advances which have made your life more liveable (i.e. energy, medicine, transportation) came about because of scientific progress. If you think the science behind radiocarbon dating is false, then how do you explain the MRI which could detect cancer early and save your life?

Its the same science (nuclear physics). Are you suggesting that the scientists are able to manipulate nuclei in a way that can map your body, but made a colossal mistake when it comes to dating? A nuclei’s halflife is what it is.

Anyhow, here’s one of my favorite quotes:

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness. ~Dalai Lama

270

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Pookie,

I can only say that I am quite appalled once again at the anger which you seem to always write. It almost seems to me that you are angry at God…

You’re reading something that’s simply not there. Maybe it’s your own anger that colors what you read.

What could I be angry about? You never address any points directly. You broadly dismiss then talk about the Bible and prayer…

I am not going to go point by point, since your reply seems to me a frenetic rambling of someone who just wants to BELIEVE evolution rather than Creation.

See what I mean? Always evading the questions. At least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

I’d be nice if once, just once, you’d concentrate less on the messenger and more on the message. “Unbelievers” might find you more convincing if you were able to show us where we’re wrong in the various points we make.

The only point I will make is about your attack upon God.

No, Pookie, God, unlike us, is not “puny” or held to the same constraints as his creatures. The fact of the matter is that God DID NOT USE EVOLUTION TO CREATE ANYTHING BECAUSE HE TOLD US THAT HE CREATED EVERYTHING BY SPEAKING IT INTO EXISTENCE FROM NOTHING!

So your God is unable to simply create the laws of physics from which this whole universe could happen. The same for life; without direct tinkering, we’d have to species.

Why is it that I can image a God greater than yours then? The God you keep taking about is so manlike, it’s pitiful. Awe, wonder, magnificience… none of it is there. Maybe for a child, but not for an adult mind.

Anger check time: I’m not. Are you?

In addition, I am not at all presuming upon God’s ways, because He has told me all about His ways that I need to know in His Word. Go argue with God, not me!

I’d like to. Care to produce Him? He’s rather hard to get ahold of.

Lastly, Pookie, evolution is not science. As much as you want to scream it, shout it, hit me over the head with it, it is simply not science. I want kids to be taught real science – science that can advance an hypothesis and then test that hypothesis to see if it is false.

Science allows for evolution to be replaced by a better theory, when and if ones comes along. Until something that better explains the biosphere as we know it comes and replaces it, Evolution it is.

See? Science can be wrong, it happens all the time. That’s how progress is made.

The way the Universe was created is not testable. It is simply faith – i.e. ‘religion.’ Period.

Oh, come on. What about evidence like the Cosmic Background Radiation? Red-shifted galaxies from the expansion of the universe? Radioactive decay in rocks and meteorites?

What’s your explanation for the results given by that evidence?

And note that most of Science hasn’t been made by unbelievers and atheists, but by men and women who had faith in God and in the brain and reasoning ability that God gave them.

What’s the Bible’s position on using our brain and five senses to understand our universe? I’m sure it won’t be encouraged, but surely it’s allowed?

So, again, either take evolution and Creation and teach them in a comparative religion class, or have both in the science class.

Well, evolution is not religion and Creation is not science, so we’re in a bit of a pickle here.

But hey, you dumb down your schools all you want. We won’t be around to reap the results of what you sow anyway…

The problem with the atheists who want everyone to “renounce their faith,” is that you are tolerant only of your own non faith, and intolerant toward anyone else’s.

Again, stop concentrating on what I do, think or believe, and address the issues please. I don’t understand the difficulties you’re having.

I will continue to pray for you Pookie. You must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

Take care. I do wish you and your family well.

And I’ll tell Santa to keep you on his naughty list until you stop evading all the questions.
[/quote]

This will also be my last post on this thread as well. I have said all I can say and if you want to continue your insults, diatribes against the Bible, misrepresentation of what I write, then go right ahead.

If you want to call Evolution science and teach it to the kids, fine. You want to kick God out of the schools (which was already done) and kick God out of every other part of the society, go right ahead.

But don’t blame God for what will result. A society where man replaced God is a very dangerous one indeed.

Hopefully, one day, God’s truth will shine upon your hard hearts and you will open it up to Him. I sincerly pray so before it is too late.

Oh, one more thing Pookie…

…<>

…your posts (especailly your last one) reveals for all to see a very large amount of intellectual pride. Pride is the number 1 root of all sin. You have a great mind and are very prideful. Like me over 11 years ago, you (wrongly) believe that the mathematicians and physicists will come up with the “Grand unifying equation” that will explain everything and make “dumba**s religious people” like myself see the stupidity of our beliefs. Well, good luck! It is never going to happen.

over and out !