I believe that the universe is so complex that it could not have been created by a higher power.

I'm glad I'm on the East side of the State Line.

I think this is the kind of crap that results from opposing the optional and voluntary teaching of creationism in public schools. Those who are never going to relinquish creationism, find a way to permeate the way science should be taught.

I'm not trying to knock anyone's beliefs, but Creationism is theology, trying to wear a lab coat. Believe it if you want, teach it if you want, but call it what it is. It is no more or less scientific theory than is the Holy Trinity.

Ray

We were deciding on how we should teach our grandchildren about how babies are made. We decided to teach both theories: One was that the sperm of the male combines with the egg of the female and 9 months later a baby is born, and the other theory is that a stork picks up a baby from a cabbage patch and delivers it to the hospital.

Following President BuSh's idea of: "we should teach both competing theories" (re: evolution v. Intelligent Design), my wife and I are teaching both theories (sperm/conception/birth v. cabbage patch/stork).

Isn't BuSh wonderful?


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

I repeat, teach it if you want, but call it what it is.

Ray

What would you have the man do? A considerable portion of his support comes from religious conservatives, and he would be even dumber than you seem to think he is to jump into that debate. Its called politics.

>
>What would you have the man do? A considerable portion of
>his support comes from religious conservatives, and he would
>be even dumber than you seem to think he is to jump into that
>debate. Its called politics.

How can people call themselves religious when they expect and allow their President to violate one of their God's Commandments?

Or does the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement not believe in "Thou Shalt Not Lie"?


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

I can only think of one Christian who never lied. How's your score?

Ray

>I can only think of one Christian who never lied.
>

I do not know of any Christian who never lied. I do not think that Jesus was a Christian, since Christianity had not been invented by man (as yet).

What I am objecting to is the criticism of others by the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement for their alleged sins, while respecting and applauding BuSh for his sins.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Ralph Reed, a leader of the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement was on a political talk show and he guaranteed the show's host that BuSh would win. When asked why, he informed the host that the members of the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement had been told to disregard what BuSh says during the campaign, because he is saying those things to attract the independents, moderate Democrats, and other people near the middle of the political spectrum who's votes he needs in order to win the presidency. "Don't worry, no matter what BuSh says in the campaign, he will do the things that we want."

A true Christian would not tolerate lying to gain advantage, but the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement was more than happy to embrace these lies. As Hitler said: "The ends justify the means".



I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

"A true Christian would not tolerate lying to gain advantage,......"

You must live in the Yankee part of Florida. Before I was 10, I knew to put my hand over my wallet pocket when someone said, "Ah'm just a good Christian bidness man."

Anyone who believes your statement must be young, naive and stupid. The good news is that they may recover from two of the three. (Although the news is not so good for some of the posters here.)

Ray

I think you will find few examples of politicians in history that were unfailingly truthful. That's because usually truthful people have a hard time getting elected or staying elected. The public does not wish to hear the truth, they only wish to hear what they want to hear. The most truthful politician I ever knew was Barry Goldwater, and he always amazed me, not because he was truthful, but because he usually got away with it.

People with strong religious beliefs want to hear things that reinforce what they believe, and there is nothing wrong with that. Faith and truth are different things, and when truth contradicts faith most people, unlike scientists, will ignore truth in favor of the faith that sustains them. There is also nothing wrong with that. But belief in faith should never be confused with or taught as science. There is not a shred of science in creationism or intelligent design. Evolution is the most tested concept in the history of science, and although we are constantly discovering new aspects of the evolutionary process and filling in gaps in our knowledge, no objective person who has investigated the subject can reasonably doubt that all living things evolved over a very long time.

That life occurred at some point spontaneously from non living materials is as yet unproven, since we have not yet been able to demonstrate this process, but at some point in time simple living organisms appeared on Earth either by forming somehow from the available material or by being seeded here from elsewhere by visiting comets or asteroids that landed here.

It took the church a long time to finally accept the fact that the Earth was not the center of creation, and that the heavens did not revolve around our home planet. Many were put to death for believing and teaching that the church was wrong. Yet the church was wrong, and today everyone, including the church, accepts that truth. Evolution would long ago have been accepted as a scientific law if it was not for the emotional religious reaction to it.

Shelly

I have been watching the reruns of the "Cosmos" series by Carl Saigon. In the 25 year old episodes, he talks of how we have escaped from the dark ages of myth. He would be shocked if he came back to life and found that the USA has thrown it all away in the name of satisfying a group of people who have no faith in humanity, just faith in superior beings.

But that is not the point I was making. My point is that while all politicians are liars to one degree or more, George W. BuSh was supposed to bring back honor and honesty to the white House, yet he lied to get in and the Religious Right knew he lied (in advance) and used that to elect him.

I am a registered Democrat, yet if a Democrat promised to do everything that the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement wanted and then winked to me, "don't worry, I am only saying that to get elected", I would not vote for him. When Mark green used ethnic slurs to win the NYC Democratic mayoral primary against a Puerto Rican, I voted for the republican in the general election. And I don't claim to be a "Holier than thou Christian". I am just a regular Christian.



I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Jesus was Jewish and the Christian religion grew from his teachings.

Under Construction

>Jesus was Jewish and the Christian religion grew from his
>teachings.

Jesus was Jewish and the Christian religion grew out of political fights and mismanagement of the religion by a series of Popes and Kings with agendas.


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Before the Christian church was established, there was no Pope.

Shelly

>Before the Christian church was established, there was no
>Pope.

But the Popes came into being soon after the death of Christ and many distorted the messages of Christ. Eventually Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and today the Christians of the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement have become the Romans of their time.


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

But getting back to the topic:

Actually evolution is holding up better and better for those that investigate scientifically.

To all those who believe in Intelligent design, I'd like to hear an answer to these questions: Please do not respond if your answer is: "Who are we to question God's ways".

Why did God (or any other intelligent designer) give humans a gnome that is 80% of no value?

Why did God (or any other intelligent designer) give humans a gene for growing gills and then turn off that gene?

Why did God (or any other intelligent designer) give humans a gene for growing webbed feet and hands and then turn off that gene?

Why did God (or any other intelligent designer) give humans a gene for growing a tail and then turn off that gene?

Why did God (or any other intelligent designer) give humans a gene for growing an opposing finger (toe) on our feet and then turn off that gene to some extent? I say to some extent, because in some people the gene is not fully turned off causing bunions.

The investigation of the human gnome is further proof that we evolved, but is too complex a topic for the average US voter. When I was a child and watch "National Geographic" and similar nature shows, I was amazed when the pointed out two (or more) diverse creatures and said that they were cousins. Today, though DNA study, they have proved the relationships. Teaching our children, "God did it" will not lead to scientists who can investigate. Maybe that is why we have to import close to a half million people a year from India and Pakistan to be our doctors and nuclear physicists. US children are stumped by science since "God did it" is what they are being taught in school. Is it a good thing that we did not have this philosophy during the and before the Manhattan project?


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

in an effort to save costs??

Your points may be in earnest, but your biology is seriously out of whack. Same with your podiatry

And who are you to question the value of my "gnome"?

Freddie, has a gnome got a genome?

I have one. He keeps my shoes in good repair.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

LOL...

Noun: gnome
1. A legendary creature resembling a tiny old man; lives in the depths of the earth and guards buried treasure
2. A short pithy saying expressing a general truth

Noun: genome
1. The ordering of genes in a haploid set of chromosomes of a particular organism; the full DNA sequence of an organism

Anyway, we all knew what he meant.

>LOL...
>
>Noun: gnome
>1. A legendary creature resembling a tiny old man; lives in
>the depths of the earth and guards buried treasure
>2. A short pithy saying expressing a general truth
>
>Noun: genome
>1. The ordering of genes in a haploid set of chromosomes of a
>particular organism; the full DNA sequence of an organism
>
>Anyway, we all knew what he meant.

Thank you for correcting me on the usage of the words gnome and genome.

I guess I am human, like most of God's Creatures.

Getting back to the topic: Pat Robertson has today told the town of Dover Pennsylvania not to look to God for help if they are victim to a natural or unnatural disaster. He suggested that they pray to Charles Darwin instead. It seems that the voters of Dover threw out all 8 Republicans on the 9 man school board who had voted Intelligent Design into the school system curriculum in a straight party line vote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5407711,00.html

The mentality of the leadership of the (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement never ceases to amaze me.


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Check out my post below. There are clearly multiple flawed designers working against one another.

Intersting views from the Vatican:

http://www.theregister.com/2005/11/21/id_vatican_not_science/


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Don't know if this is the appropiate place for this or not ! And to ,it may have already appeared here at sometime or another . In any event ,i didn't want to start another thread .



The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University
of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was
so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the
Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying
it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some
variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So
we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate
at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a
soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions
state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to
Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in
Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because
Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell
to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls
are added. This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until
all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate! faster than the increase of souls
in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes
over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Theresa during my Freshman
year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and
take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number
2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already
frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it
follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine
being which explains why, last night, Theresa kept shouting "Oh my
God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY A .





Charlie Brown
Madison, Alabama

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

A funny story but alas, Snopes says not a true story.

Jim.

"Interestingly enough, the purported student's opening gambit, "We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass," stands in opposition to the position taken centuries ago by the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy See had given its official approval to a particular line of scientific thought, the vacuum, to specificially allow for immaterial forms such as weightless souls and armies of angels in what would otherwise be a filled universe. Without vacuums, places where measurable matter does not exist, both Heaven and Hell and all their denizens would have no place in the cosmic order of things. The time-honored Aristotelian assertion "Nature abhors a vacuum" had to be (and was) elbowed out of the way because the vacuum was a theological necessity."

And to think that despite all the years I spent in parochial school soaking in the doctrine of the Roman Catechism, I managed to miss the part where it discussed this vacuum theory and mislead myself into believing Heaven, Purgatory and Hell were "supernatural" places, and therefore unfettered by the "cosmic order of things."

Cripes! My faith in the Official Science Bureau of the Holy See has been shaken to its very roots! Like Galileo, I doubt I'll recover.

IMO, after listening to several of the hearings, the real problem with this decision by the IIC (Idiots In Charge) lies with the guidelines they are pushing. The main thing they want is for students to be taught that if you can't find the answer with known scientific facts, it is okay to look outside the natural world. Shades of phlogiston!! If there isn't a known, provable scientific explanation for a phenomenon it is okay to say it is caused by God. So easy!! None of that pesky research and worrying about not enough data yet. Don't know how something works? Don't worry about it, God did it. The persecuters of Galileo and Copernicus would be proud.

"Intelligent design" school board booted.

A small ray of hope and sanity.

Shelly

I guess some Republicans don't check the statistics that say only 20% of their voter base are extremist Christians.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Freedom of choice... gotta love it. Now if only we could get the government and schools to understand that concept one more time...

>Freedom of choice... gotta love it. Now if only we could get
>the government and schools to understand that concept one more
>time...

I guess we should have the freedom of choice to teach that Adolph Hitler was Japanese and Empera Hirohito was German, in history classes.

Or we should have the freedom of choice to teach that storks deliver babies, in biology classes.

Freedom of choice only applies to choices that are real. I do not expect any science teachers to be invited into a Christian church to teach evolution, so why do you expect religion to be taught in science class?


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Ridiculing the one true freedom every individual has does not make it less significant. People can choose to be what they make out of life and what they do with what they are given. Ramming things down their throats and force feeding them your innuendo and propaganda does not dictate that they will only choose the choices you want them to. That’s the beauty of being intelligent enough to apply our knowledge and experience to make the choices that define us for good or evil.

Same as it was your choice to make your comment of this one true freedom. No one twisted your arm and said you had to reply as you did. You made that choice.

Care to think about it a minute before you come back with another satire laced reply?

>Ridiculing the one true freedom every individual has does not
>make it less significant. People can choose to be what they
>make out of life and what they do with what they are given.
>Ramming things down their throats and force feeding them your
>innuendo and propaganda does not dictate that they will only
>choose the choices you want them to. That’s the beauty of
>being intelligent enough to apply our knowledge and experience
>to make the choices that define us for good or evil.
>
>Same as it was your choice to make your comment of this one
>true freedom. No one twisted your arm and said you had to
>reply as you did. You made that choice.
>
>Care to think about it a minute before you come back with
>another satire laced reply?

Actually, I thought that a little humor, satirical as it was, might go down more nicely than saying that freedom of choice is a myth.

I used to be an instructor for TWA and I didn't have the freedom of choice to tell my mechanic students that planes flew because God's hand lifted them into the sky. The reality of life is that most people do not understand complex issues and that dumbing it down for them, does no one a favor. I am a Christian who believes in evolution. Some Christians tell me that I have no right to pick and chose which parts of the Bible to believe (word for word) and which I will not believe, yet they eat a Ham and Cheese sandwich which is an abomination (just as homosexuality is supposed to be).

I agree that "People can choose to be what they make out of life and what they do with what they are given", but they should not ram there religious believes down the throats of children in public school science classes.

The (UN)Christian (NEVER)Right Political Movement and the Taliban have much in common. Many people disagree with that statement, just like a person looking into a mirror disagrees with "the person looking back at you from the mirror is you".

"He's left handed, I'm right handed. He winked his left eye, I winked my right eye."


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Just curious: How does the idea of Intelligent Design account for the different races?

I know that Blacks were created when Kane killel Abel and God put a mark on Kane (negro features and dark skin), but what about the other races?


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Everyone has freedom of choice. How you wish to use it is up to you.

If I am correct, you choose not to tell your TWA students those things because you wanted to keep your job and to teach what you believed is correct. They made the choice to either listen or ignore you, to learn from your mistakes, or make their own.

The only time I think people don't have those choices is when someone else's choices are more powerful than your own, driving their choices over yours, and when you let them. There are numerous circumstances I could think of that would do so, terrorism, kidnapping, being framed, and so on. You could choose to live a long healthy and free life, but they could choose to take that from you as well.

>
>If I am correct, you choose not to tell your TWA students
>those things because you wanted to keep your job and to teach
>what you believed is correct.
>

Actually, I chose to tell the students about why and how aircraft do what they do, because I wanted them to be able to fix problems. If I had told them that God lifts planes into the sky, what would their trouble-shooting be for "aircraft does not lift at v/r (Rotation Velocity)"?

It was not to keep my job. The reason that I did not lie to my students was not out of fear.

I would not steal, even if was not against the law or a violation of a Biblical Commandment.

I do not kill (humans); not because it is against the law and against the Bible, but because it is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Because I have decided that the Golden Rule is correct. I could have made that decision with or without a God; with or without a Bible; even if were not called the Golden Rule.


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Actually, I chose to tell the students about why and how aircraft do what they do, because I wanted them to be able to fix problems.

Why is it wrong? Because I have decided that the Golden Rule is correct. I could have made that decision with or without a God; with or without a Bible; even if were not called the Golden Rule.

So where is the arguement? You've chosen your course. At this point, I don't see where we have a disagreement.

>
>So where is the arguement? You've chosen your course. At
>this point, I don't see where we have a disagreement.

The disagreement is that I taught a scientific subject in scientific terms. I did not bring my religious philosophy into the lessons of how to make the mechanical repairs to an aircraft.

I did bring my philosophy of life into my teaching about how to fix an aircraft when I discussed "pencilling". Penciling is signing off the accomplishment of a procedure, job or repair of an aircraft without doing all the steps as per the FAA regulated maintenance manuals. Because Boeing designs aircraft so well that they do not really need to be serviced as often as the manual states, does not mean that it is legal to falsify (pencil) the servicing.

There is much choice when it comes to the signing off of an aircraft. Some mechanics might do only 5 of the 10 required checks before deciding that a system is ok for flight. Some might do 9 of 10. Some might decide that since the last pilot did not "write it up" in the log book, it must be ok. Those are choices. They may cause death and/or injury.

But the reason an aircraft lifts off the ground is because the lift being generated by the airfoils (wings and horizontal stabilizer) is greater than the weight of the airplane, so by Newton's first law of motion, the unbalanced force causes the body to move in the directing of imbalance. It has nothing to do with God's hand lifting the plane.

The philosophy of honesty when repairing/servicing an aircraft and the science of flight are too different topics. I had a choice about the philosophy, but not about the science.

The people of Kansas, may think they have a choice, but they are only fooling themselves into thinking that bullying people in the name of (their interpretation of) God makes them holier or more god-like. They are destroying the ability of their children to reason scientifically. Yes, Intelligent Design may be suited for religious schools or philosophy class, but it has no place in science class.



I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

*shrugs*
I understand your arguement. However, I don't think you understand my statement. I tried to not color my wording to have to do anything with intelligent design, religion, faith, evolution or any other flavor of the month regarding the sides of comments thereof within this long thread.

I made a flat statement about being able to have the freedom to choose the path in ones life. You're continuing arguements re-enforce that statement every time you make your statements and how you make them.

I do apologize if you believe that I have some how inferred that your choices were not good or bad. They are yours and I respect them as long as they do not cause harm to my family or myself nor impede in their capability to make their own choices.

If you have a point to make, please make it. However, I do ask that you stop using my statement of human observation as a launching platform to fulfill your need to critize something.

The statement of "Freedom of Choice" was not an attack on you or anyone else. If you feel otherwise, thats your problem; not mine.

>
>I do apologize if you believe that I have some how inferred
>that your choices were not good or bad. They are yours and I
>respect them as long as they do not cause harm to my family or
>myself nor impede in their capability to make their own
>choices.
>

I have neither the ability nor the desire to do anything to harm either you or your family, nor to impede your abilities to make your own choices, except by voting to stop people from teaching fraudulent science in school. If your choice would be to teach fraudualent science in school, then yes, I would do anything legally possible to prohibit that. But, that is probably why we seem to be talking past each other. We may or may not agree on "Intelligent Design", but I am not sure about "Freedom of Choice".

"Freedom of Choice"
and
"Freedom of Choice without consequences"
are two different issues.

You and I may each be debating one issue while the other debates the other issue. However, I want to stick to the issue of this thread.

>
>If you have a point to make, please make it. However, I do
>ask that you stop using my statement of human observation as a
>launching platform to fulfill your need to critize
>something.
>
>The statement of "Freedom of Choice" was not an attack on you
>or anyone else. If you feel otherwise, thats your problem;
>not mine.

I am commenting in this thread. I am discussing the issue of this thread. You are commenting in this thread and I would assume that you are commenting about the issues of this thread.

I never felt attacked by your statements, I just refuted them in regards to this issue of religion masquerading as science. I am only criticizing the unintelligent idea of "Intelligent Design". Your statements appear to support the idea that teaching "Intelligent Design" is valid, so, of course, I try to explain why I think that the idea that teaching "Intelligent Design" is valid, is invalid.

That is what is called a debate. There is nothing personal on my part. It is not about winning or teaching, because many people become more stubborn in their argument, the more that you show them that their argument is wrong. I am just explaining my feelings about the concept of teaching "Intelligent Design" as science. Again, I will repeat, I have nothing against discussing "Intelligent Design" in a course on Religion (we had a course on "Comparative Religion" at college) or philosophy, but not science, especially not elementary school science.


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Here is a question for your friends who insist that you accept all parts of the Bible as true (word for word).
Who was the father of Joseph? First have them check Matthew 1: 2-17 and then check Luke 3: 23-38. Whether a Christian believes in virgin birth or not, the person Joseph was his legal father and important to establish that the messiah was in the line of David; you would think the stories would match up.

Mainstream Christians have reasonable explanations for the many inconsistencies in the Bible. Fundamentalist Christians, like fundamentalists in other religions are forced to argue absurdities because they insist that their sacred texts are infallible historical documents. If Intelligent Design proponents faced the prospect that their religious texts would be put under the same type of scrutiny we ask students to apply to scientific papers and texts, they might retreat from their desire to have their philosophy treated as science. I wouldn't care if they taught Intelligent Design in school as long as they teach it as philosophy rather than science.

>
>Mainstream Christians have reasonable explanations for the
>many inconsistencies in the Bible. Fundamentalist Christians,
>like fundamentalists in other religions are forced to argue
>absurdities because they insist that their sacred texts are
>infallible historical documents. If Intelligent Design
>proponents faced the prospect that their religious texts would
>be put under the same type of scrutiny we ask students to
>apply to scientific papers and texts, they might retreat from
>their desire to have their philosophy treated as science. I
>wouldn't care if they taught Intelligent Design in school as
>long as they teach it as philosophy rather than science.
>

I always ask who Adam's and Eve's children married.

Or who the people who were saved on Noah's ark married.

Does the Bible promote incest?


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

Choose to send your kids to a private religious school if you want them to get faulty science lessons.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

You might be surprised at how many scientists you could find in church.

Hah,I know a lot of hypocrites that go to church weekly.

LilJoe

LilJoe

>You might be surprised at how many scientists you could find
>in church.

There are many religious scientists. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The mainstream religions made peace with science long ago, and accepted a role as moral and ethical teachers. The world would be an even more scary place without religious teachings that constitute a barrier to barbarianism.

Science has no agenda to oppose religion. It is purely an attempt to find knowledge, and understand the behavior of of the universe around us in terms of what can be observed and tested.

There are fanatics that pollute religion, and defend untenable positions to exert influence over their followers, and they despise rational thought. Any belief that can not stand the test of truth is not worth believing. Once enough evidence is presented to disprove a long held belief, a thinking person will re-examine their beliefs and modify them to fit new discoveries.

This is how the scientific method works. We form a hypothesis based upon observed effects, then submit it to examination by ourselves and then others. Only when the hypothesis stands up to every test will it become recognized as a theory, that is something tested and likely true, once a theory is proven to the point that there is almost no chance that it is wrong, it may become a scientific law. Even a law is not immutable. Newton's laws of gravity though correct as far as it went, was found by Einstein to be incomplete, and added to in Relativity to enable it to cover circumstances that were unknown in Newton's time.

Some theories are so complex and far reaching that exhaustive testing of it may never be complete, and they shall remain theories indefinitely, but anything discovered that invalidates the theory will doom it. Such is the case with Relativity, it has been proven correct in part a thousand times and never found to be wrong in any aspect, but it is so far reaching proof in its totality is almost impossible, it will remain a theory indefinitely.

Religious beliefs, matters of faith, are essentially unprovable, or testable, but there is nothing wrong with accepting a belief, unless it is conclusively disproven by new information. Anyone today that believes the Earth is flat, that the universe revolves around it, or that the universe is only 6000 years old, is a fanatic, and a fool to be pitied.

Shelly

God Denies Links to Pat Robertson
Cole Waters

WASHINGTON, DC—God denied having any links to conservative Christian boadcaster Pat Robertson yesterday after He received reports that Mr. Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected Him by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Earlier this year, God received reports that Mr. Robertson had called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Sources close to the Higher Being say that He is "tired" of Mr. Robertson and wants him to stop using His name.
Stop calling please
This is not the first time that God has apparently been displeased by remarks that Mr. Robertson has made in his telecasts.
"Frankly He’s a little bit tired of this guy and thinks his shtick is getting really old," says a source who works closely with the Higher Being. The source notes that God has even contacted a lawyer about sending Mr. Robertson a "cease and desist" letter, demanding that the conservative broadcaster stop using His name on the 700 Club, in speeches and in other correspondence.
A troubled relationship
This is not the first time that Mr. Robertson and the Higher Being for whom he supposedly works have fallen out. God was reportedly irritated by Mr. Robertson’s claim in 1988 that he had Divine backing in his quest for the Presidential nomination. Aids to God at the time insisted that He had yet to make a decision in that race and was decidedly queasy about backing a televangelist. "That was really the beginning of the end," says an advisor to God at the time. "He had no choice but to intervene and make sure that this guy didn’t make it past the primary."
More denunciations to come?
Some political observers are questioning, however, why God would make a public statement in response to one particular outrageous statement when it has become so commonplace in recent days for religious activists including Dr. James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Pastor Roy DeLong, to invoke His name in attacks on everything from activist judges to same-sex marriage.
No more anal sex please
But sources close to God say that this is likely only the first public appearances that He will make as He seeks to distance himself from US religious leaders. Aids to the Higher Being say that He was not a fan of either Justice Sunday I or II, calling them bad TV, and that He is tired of receiving prayers about sodomy. "He has a message for his American fans in particular," say sources close to Him. "If you're going to pray, lay off the dirty sex talk. He’s sick of hearing about it."

Just out of interest, are there any forum members who believe in "intelligent design"?

If there are, I doubt that they would admit it, but I could be wrong. So far, with one possible exception, no one has come forward to play "devil's advocate".

Jim.

I'm not for it, but I'm not going to go out of my way and tell people they can't or shouldn't.

I understand why its such a critical subject because it affects our children, which are the future and the hopes we leave behind.

Its my belief that schools should be a place of learning. Not to apply politics, religions, or beliefs. Learn about them, yes, but not apply them.

Where do/can we draw the line of what's healthy for a child to learn and destructive? Where do/can we draw the line that its protecting them from the ills of the world or teaching them to protect themselves?

>If there are, I doubt that they would admit it, but I could
>be wrong. So far, with one possible exception, no one has
>come forward to play "devil's advocate".
>
>Jim.

But don't you ever wonder how "Planet Earth" lucked out, having just the right stuff to make what we have around us possible? It took a lot of ducks in a row to get where we are today. All from science? Maybe, maybe not. Who's to really prove that things did or did not happen because a Higher Power wanted it that way?

Do I really care how it happened? Like many, I'm just here for the ride. Either way it was major construction project.

Nightly Reader

Thats some assumption. What makes you think Earth lucked out at all. You have things ass-backward and are placing effect before cause.

The life forms that exist on earth are those that are able to exist in the environment that we have here at the moment. Many life forms, in fact most that have ever existed here, became extinct long before man appeared as the climate of the planet changed and was no longer favorable to them. 98% of all the life forms that we find in the fossil record no longer exist.

LIfe that may exist on other worlds, circling other stars, would be very different than that which evolved here, and that life would be no less valid than the life forms that we know. We might not even be able to recognize some other life forms as being alive. Life does not necessarily have to be a carbon based chemistry.

Shelly

>If there are, I doubt that they would admit it, but I could
>be wrong.

I'll admit it.



>So far, with one possible exception, no one has
>come forward to play "devil's advocate".
>

I don't think there is much point in playing "devil's advocate". Believing in Creationism means believing in something you cannot experience with the 5 senses or scientifically prove. That's why it's called Faith. You either believe in it or you don't.

__________________________
"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fever. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword; it both emboldens the blood just as it narrows the mind." -Julius Caesar

Your personal belief is one thing.

Teaching personal belief as scientific reality is another. Are you advocating this?

Jim.

>Your personal belief is one thing.
>
>Teaching personal belief as scientific reality is another.
>Are you advocating this?
>
>Jim.

Well let me put it this way. As has been already pointed out in this thread, the "spontaneous life" or "big bang" theory is so far unproven, yet it is still being taught in schools today. Even those who believe in evolution admit that there are still some "missing links", but that hasn't stopped anyone from teaching it. So if I advocate the teaching of creationism, even though it is "unproven", I hardly see how it is much different than the "unproven" ideas being taught already.

__________________________
"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fever. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword; it both emboldens the blood just as it narrows the mind." -Julius Caesar

DNA has parts of evolution proven enough to say that it's a working scientific theory.
DNA has creationism the way it is claimed to be proven to be bunk.

Sorry but evolution is a scientific theory not a hypothesis. Creationism is barely a hypothesis, it is a faith that no proof will change, therefore it has no place in a classroom unless it is a private classroom who wishes to teach that.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

I grimmaced when I saw you step in and stand up for your convictions. I admire your fortitude. You didn't get savaged as much as I thought. Hang tough.

>You didn't get savaged
>as much as I thought. Hang tough.

She didn't get "savaged" at all. I'm the only one who replied to her - if you think anything I wrote in response to her is savage, you've lost contact with reality.

Jim.

Well, I've found this to be the most enlightining discussion about the newly enlightened battle between Darwin's theory of evolution as science vs the latest Christian Fundamentalist "Intelligent Design" bullshit as science (which, try as they may, would not fly when labeled, "Creationism") since poor ole King Kong was discovered lurking among the dinos on Skull Island.

If you can't sneak Religion linked to State through the front door, past all the warnings of dire concequence issued by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and friends, there's always a back door -- or a keyhole or the crack under the door... And, as a last resort there's always Kansas, Auntie Em.

Or, maybe, the Supreme Court?

AND -- Even if we could prove there is a God, which we can't, some here would still not believe.

On the other hand, if we could prove evolution, which we can't, some here would still not believe.

Mexican standoff.

Bill K.

They are not exclusive!

Science does not require believe. Science has never been at odds with faith -- faith and science exist as do apples and oranges. Science does not attempt to examine, proove or disaproove the existance of a God or the moral code that supports He or She. Science does not endorse or reject a code of ethics or morality.

Science observes the happenings of the natural world and submits conclusions based on fact which are derivative, yet always open to question and revision.

Faith, on the other hand, is a gift -- a gift in moments of desperation I've often wished for. Faith is absolute and abides beyond question or reproach.

I hope, for the sake of generations to come, we use both, science and faith, wisely.

>On the other hand, if we could prove evolution, which we
>can't, some here would still not believe.

Large portions of evolution have been proven beyond any reasonable suggestion of doubt. Some portions may never be difinitively proven but are inferred by the portions for which evidence has been found, and new evidence supporting evolution is being found at a faster rate than ever before.

Creationism and intelligent design are forever untestable or verifiable, and thus can never be considered scientific. It must either be accepted or rejected purely on faith. You can not simply voice an opinion and call it a science, it remains an opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Shelly

What is it (briefly) that believers in "intelligent design" and "creationism" actually believe?

The Bible

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

If that was too brief,
About 7000-8000 years ago there was nothing. One day JHVH created all the suns and planets. On this one planet he decided to create oceans and animals, then man. He seemed to have figured out that animals needed mates but not man so he had to go back to the workbench and create woman.

Carbon dating has been wrong so carbon dating is always wrong.
Dinosaurs either walked the earth with man and weren't important enough to bother putting into the Bible or their bones are recent bones from known animals assembled to invent a history of the planet that never existed.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Funamentalists believe that the bible is the revaled word of God and absolutely correct in every detail, and if some things seem to be contradicting others, it is because we are unable to understsnd it.

Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, declared, as a result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/bday.html

Shelly

"man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."

Was that Daylight Saving Time?

DavyWavy -

There was no DST in the 18th century.

Shelly

How do you know that?

Oh, yeah. You were there, I forgot.

Bill K.

I have no problem with what others believe ! However i have found many times that others have a problem with what i believe . Some time ago there was a lot of religious letters to the editor in the Huntsville Times ,in Huntsville Alabama !i saved this one. After it appeared, the letters on religion stopped . As it appeared in the paper.


What God
Every day I wonder how man has made it this far, and still finds it necessary to believe in some stupid religion .
I guess they don't have enough faith in themselves ,or enough intellegence ,to realize their own greatness or potential.
All the so called holy books" they base their beliefs on are full of misconceptions, inaccuarcies, mistakes and contradictions . Yet they will argue with passion that these are works of their paticular God.
But all are written by men . No God out there has a book for you to read, and since God is a concept devised by men to explain things men could not, i don't think there will be a best seller by any God anytime soon.
Man has created about 2,500 Gods during his existence here on this planet ,yet none has ever spoken,appeared ,or held congress with all humans and told them anything.
Sure you have the zealots that say God talked to them,prove it! If God wanted us to know something ,why tell one guy ? You are God ;Just speak the words and all should hear.
Until anybody can prove the existence of God without using one of your Bibles ,Korans,or Torahs . "Im just going to ignore the ignorance of people judging other people based on their interpretation of some book of folklore.

K.C. Houck
Tony

Reference is to: Tony Alabama ! A small community ,about 15 miles from where i live.

As to my personal beliefs ! They are just that,personal . I have no use for, or need of Religion.

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

the biggest mistake in our mandatory public education system is to allow the different theories that try to explain our existence to mix with science.

The part of science that tries to explain why we are what we are, along with all the religious and philosophical theories should be taught optionally and separately from the regular science classes.

>”all the religious and philosophical theories should be taught optionally and separately from the regular science classes.”<

Already is. It’s called Sunday School.

Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

There was a reply somewhere (Slashdot, I think), that argued that we should take ID at it's word for a second. Let's examine the evidence as if some intelligence was designing the features. If we look at the eye, then we see that there are a LOT of different types of eyes with different capabilities. So the conclusion we draw here is that there was more than one designer. Why weren't features that one designer made up included in another designer's design? Perhaps they were rival designers.

Next, we notice that the "designed features" are flawed. Why can't human eyes see in the dark as well as a cats? Obviously a design flaw. So the designer wasn't perfect in their specs.

So we have a grouping of imperfect designers at odds with each other. This sounds very similar to the ancient Greek gods to me. I hereby propose that we teach this version of ID in science class next to evolution. I wonder how many ID proponents would back me.

If humans were designed in God's likeness, I hope God doesn't get the Bird-Flu.


I'm FreddieVee-Learning all the Time!!

I could back that version

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

"If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction."
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism

If you take the ID proponents at their word (and ignore the not-so-subtle implication that ID is just creationism in a pseudo-scientific lab coat), then they believe that there are some components in nature that are so complicated that they could not have possibly occurred by chance. Therefore someone intelligent must have designed them.

It's basically a "We don't know how this happened so a wizard did it" explanation. (Of course, we likely know -- or have a general idea of -- how the features ID proponents point to developed, but the evolution-based explanations are dismissed out of hand.)

I wonder how they account for the colour of "white" peoples' skin. I understand that it came about due to the need for more vitamin D from the reduced amount of sunlight in northern climates, so lighter skins were favoured by natural selection, also the reason why darker skinned people in northern climates can suffer from rickets (vitamin D deficiency). But that is evolution in action and they don't believe in that.

And I always thought dark-skin came about just before God said, Oops, burned another one!"

Bill K.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clark

Shelly

So it wasn't a wizard. We were all created by a highly advanced alien race!

>So it wasn't a wizard. We were all created by a highly
>advanced alien race!

I see the humor here ! However, i have trouble getting past who ,or what, may have created the so called God that created us !

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

>Just out of interest, are there any forum members who believe
>in "intelligent design"?

I believe in intelligent design, but not as expressed in creationism. I surely believe in God, and am Roman Catholic. I certainly believe that Earth is older than 6000 +/- years. I am not bothered by the hows or whys - I just know that one day I will have the answers I seek.

For now, God Bless Science.

Do I believe in Intelligent Design? Yes and no. I think that the scientific theory of evolution is correct (although it might need tweaking here and there as more evidence comes to light). However, the religious side to me believes that God was behind all of it. This is my personal belief, however. I have no proof that I can point to and I don't need any since faith doesn't demand proof.

Science, however, does demand proof. That's why I don't think that ID belongs anywhere near a science class. It could be included in a religion class or perhaps a philosophy class, but ID is faith, not science. Unfortunately, there's a small group of people who are trying to turn their own personal faith-based beliefs into a national teaching system. Or rather they have realized that they can't get their real faith-based beliefs (Christian-based Creationism) into science class instead of Evolution. Therefore, they have settled for the next best thing, teaching Evolution as if there was a debate going on as to its validity and as if an unnamed Intelligent Designer (*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*) would solve those problems.

I've been following this thread and have made a decision, i.e. Intelligent Design should be taught in school,... Sunday school!! NEVER in public schools.

Not aimed at you, Bobbo. Your link was closest.

Got this e-mail recently
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

To: Friends

From: Bill Johnson

Re: Rejecting God's moral absolutes - doesn't get rid of them.

Date: November 4, 2005

In 1987, in my early years of standing against pornography, I had the privilege of visiting in the chambers of Richard Halverson, then Chaplain of the United States Senate.

Truly, he was a man of God serving with a heart of love for His God and for the members of the U.S. Senate on both sides of the aisle. That was clear.

Richard Halverson wrote the following short piece entitled "Insights".

Without a physical order in the universe, there could be no science.

Much of the genius of our space program involves achieving the most precise knowledge and conformity to this order. Failure means disaster

Tens of thousands of man-hours, the most sophisticated technology, and the latest advances in space science are involved… But all of it is helpless without an orderly universe to count on, and conform to.

God, who ordained physical order, also ordained moral and spiritual order.

Conformity guarantees fulfillment. Disobedience spells destruction…

One can reject God’s moral absolutes. But that does not get rid of them. The law of sin and death is just as inviolable as the law of gravity. Morality isn’t arbitrary. It’s part of the natural law of the universe. God’s law stands whether we like it or not.

We ignore this fact to our doom. Violating God’s physical law is destructive, but violating His moral law is infinitely more serious – for it has eternal consequences.

Every malfunction of the social order in America derives from our transgression of God’s moral law. If we refuse to turn to God for mercy and grace, we condemn ourselves to His inexorable justice and judgment.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."- Patrick Henry (1776)