I would really like to understand this argument. How does removing the formal teaching of religion violate the first admendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."




While there may be some examples of this, just as there may be some of evangelicals joining for the same reason, what source can you cite that justifies the use of "full of" as if the vast majority of priests were a member of that set?

I continue to repeat, how can one use the phrase "false teachings" unless in some gnostic fashion, one has a secret knowledge of what the TRUE teachings are.

Cheers,
John

quote from jgweed
"I would really like to understand this argument. How does removing the formal teaching of religion violate the first admendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...""

Simply put, it is a restriction being mandated by the federal government that limits the right to practice the religion of your choice where and when you want to ( pay attention to your own quote of the constitution "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I have gone on record as saying that religion should not be taken out of schools. it should be offered at all schools aselectives. That way no one is forced to take them if they don't want to (and I don't just mean christianity).

Now as to TRUE teachings of the scriptures. the bible clearly outlines how to spot false teachers (see 1st 2nd and 3rd John 1st and 2nd Peter among others). simply put. compare what a priest or preacher says aginst scripture and pray for guidance. If you are a follower of Christ, God's Holy Spirit will show you the truth. The false teachers that corrupted the catholic church did this by first forbidding the common person from having access to the scriptures. ONLY the priests were allowed to read the scriptures (this applyed even to those that could read that were not priests. Once that was done the rest of the corruption was easy as long as they didn't move too fast.


Now I know this is going to be a controvercial statement to some, but remember, this is out of the bible( for the full context read 1st Corinthians chapter 2). Here it is. Those that are not Christians do not understand God's Truth. It is foolishness to them (that is a paraphrase and summary).

To those of us that take the bible literally, evolution is a direct rejection of the biblical account of creation. It is an attempt to remove God from the origin of the universe. The teaching of it as fact in the schools when it is not proven and excluding the other points of view IS indoctrination. It also is Intolerant of those that do not agree with the theory of evolution (so much for keeping an open mind. Can we say hypocrisy? Yes I know and admit it happens on both sides and is not exclusive to one side or the other).

Just bear in mind that not all who say that they are Christians really are( see Matthew chapter 7 verses 15-23). It is when believers stop asking questions and stop examining the teachings of preachers that false teaching creeps in and you get things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Klu Klux Klan (a.k.a the Clan). according to scripture the number of false teachers is going to increase a lot as the end times draw near.
I hope this helps you understand the argument better.

Seafox14

Perhaps Science/Evolution is taught in schools simply because - for the most part - it makes 'sense' - and offers a great potential for learning and asking questions and developing thought processes that will be vital in a child's future?

And in reality, if religious beliefs about how the world came about were taught in schools, which religion and which set of beliefs re creation would the schools choose?

Buddhism
Christianity
Christian groups, denominations and families (Amish)
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Shinto
Taoism
Sikhism
Native American Spirituality
Unitarian-Universalism
Wicca

These are just a few of the religions practiced in our area alone - each with their own individual beliefs.

Perhaps one of the best ways to truly 'educate' children would be for parents to teach their children about all religions? Who's to say which is 'right' and which is 'wrong'?

Being a 'Pollyanna' once again, I suspect, but how I wish each and every religion could stop thinking 'their way' is the only way ---- how peaceful our lovely world could become. Gentle smile.

With respect,
Mara

Mara it is in my belife that my religion is the only way. Now if we would stop teaching that then our religion would not be valid. Now if it were quit that peace would not be true and people will only find more ways to hate eachother. It is in human kind to fight so there will be wars as long as man exists on the face of the world (and universe.)

I certantly agree that both sides should be taught. If both were taught then it would give everyone the chance to think for them selves. What I see is someone trying to convict the other without hearing the defendents side. How fair is that? Now what I want to know is this, is the big bang occured how did it start? Where did the material come from? If it was there and all it needed was something to get it started then what strted it? Now let me point out that the bible was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for creation Bara means to create from nothing. Now it is in my opinion that the Bible teaches the Big Bang Theory as a fact and it only supports Christianity more. (You will hear that quote in a couple of weeks when I get the time to make the new topic.) Genisis was written thousands of years before the Big Bang theory was developed. Then to explain the expansion of the universe it repeats multiple times that God stretches out the heavens (like when you take chocolate chip cookie dough and you spread it out they get farther away.)


Hope this clears thing up,
-Steve

I actually think that if there were no religion, there'd be LESS conflict in the world...


There are more than just 2 sides for this argument. So should every feasible idea, thought, version, and alteration be taught, or should we do like we've been doing for a while and stick to the single most plausible explanation?


Refer to my post above. What if everyone thought that THEIR views should be the correct one, and everyone thought THEIR views shouldn't be ignored. Hellooooooo alchemy, phrenology, astrology, and hell, why not voodoo?


"The defendents side" has been heard for years and years. However, evolution still has so much over creationism and almost every other religious view. If creationists were able to provide as much evidence and scientific support as evolution, then i agree, it should be taught along-side, or even over, evolution. Until that point comes (if it ever does), children should be taught the idea that can be supported the most through objective observations and evidence.


The same can be said about your god. Where did he come from? It's funny to me that people can say "god has always existed", yet laugh histerically and cry foul when others say "matter/energy has always existed".


Yet there is really no natural evidence to point to an all powerful deity. As i've said before, anyone can interpret almost anything to mean what they want it to. Saying that "Gen(e)sis was written thousands of years before the big bang theory" really doesn't mean anything. Cavemen drew animals on walls long before the bible mentions noah


Interesting bit of contradiction here:

I still don't understand why people think god created everything. Taken literally, as most of you LOVE to do, it clearly states the EARTH brought forth plants and animals, and god merely told the earth to do it. As i've stated before, if your teacher tells you to write an essay, SHE shouldn't get credit for the essay. So why's god getting credit for the earth's work?

Conclusion: In order to teach creationism, it would be REQUIRED for children to carry around the christian's bible, which is DEFINATELY against the "establishment" clause in the constitution.

QUOTE
Now let me point out that the bible was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for creation Bara means to create from nothing. Now it is in my opinion that the Bible teaches the Big Bang Theory as a fact and it only supports Christianity more. (You will hear that quote in a couple of weeks when I get the time to make the new topic.) Genisis was written thousands of years before the Big Bang theory was developed. Then to explain the expansion of the universe it repeats multiple times that God stretches out the heavens (like when you take chocolate chip cookie dough and you spread it out they get farther away.)

Yet there is really no natural evidence to point to an all powerful deity. As i've said before, anyone can interpret almost anything to mean what they want it to. Saying that "Gen(e)sis was written thousands of years before the big bang theory" really doesn't mean anything. Cavemen drew animals on walls long before the bible mentions noah

What are you getting at about Cavemen drew animals on walls long before the bible metions noah? That make no sence to me. Since man was created long before noah existed. What I am saying isnt it odd that the BIG Bang theory is presented in the Bible long before man came up with the idea?

-Steve

(Quote) " Mara it is in my belife that my religion is the only way" (unquote) by Need TOS


Oh dear, I hope I don't offend you by saying that your above words are what scares me the most about some organized religions.

So many people feel exactly the same way - which would work if everyone on this planet believed in exactly the same religion.

But we don't - we are a diversified human race full of beliefs differing from one another.

I wonder if there are - right this moment - parents saying to their children, "You must grow up strong and brave and kill all infidels, children included" . The reason? - they truly believe their religion and teachings are the ONLY way too.

I'm feel a kinship with Heretic Monkey re science ... and while I can't speak for SeaFox either, in our discussions here I suspect he may believe "It is my belief that my religion is the only way for ME", perhaps. (Tolerance is such a lovely thing). Maybe I have misunderstood your above quote, Need TOS, and perhaps you meant something similar too?

With respect,
Mara

Well Mara those words do scare alot of people but I want to make this clear for you. True Christians like my self do not teach their children (i am only 15 so i got no children lol) to go out and kill all of the people that do not belive the things we do. What we teach is to respect the others belife and politely show them the evidence of ours and allow them to interpret and handle the situation them selves. We more like guide them in the right direction and pray to God that they find him. The people that teach their kids to just go kill those who oppose their religion are wrong and I do not tolerate that idea. I do not respect it at all. It is one thing to respect and idea but one that teaches people to kill does not deserve respect or pity so I do not give it to them.

hope this clears thing up for you,

-Steve

Hi Steve,

I never intended my words to mean that you or other Christians teach children to kill those that don't share the same beliefs or faith. Nope, I only meant my words to explain why I feel religion is perhaps best not taught within our school systems.

For example, a person who does not believe in any religion may find it offensive that other people's religions (Christian or not) are being taught to their children - contrary to everything they, as the child's parents, believe in.

And if Chistianity was being taught, what about all the parents that belong to any of the above mentioned religions who would then object because it wasn't their particular Faith being taught instead.

And sadly enough, I honestly suspect that even though mothers and fathers who teach their children to hate 'infidels' - are, in their own minds, following their own beliefs and faiths that this is right - after all, even though we don't agree with it, they too truly believe that their Faith is the one and only.

Anyway, back to the topic of 'Why is Evolution Taught As Fact?' - luckily, apparently many of the Science teachers not only teach Evolution but also believe that 'this is what we believe right now' - and leave room for future discoveries to be found as Science evolves and expands.

Religion/Evolution can - and does - coexist in many schools. For instance, many private Catholic schools here teach both (cynics claim it's because without teaching Evolution too, no funds from Government would be forthcoming to the schools ... I like to think it's because even some deeply religious people can 'unite' both ideas without loosing their curiousity to learn nor their Faith).

On a personal note, I admire your deep faith, Steve - and how wonderful to be 15 years old! That was my very favourite stage when raising our girls - their teens!

Kind respect,
Mara

Hello MaraM. I do thank you for not trying to speak for me.

Quote: " while I can't speak for SeaFox either, in our discussions here I suspect he may believe "It is my belief that my religion is the only way for ME". Quote from MaraM.

My actual point of view is " Christianity is the only way to heaven". Now this does not mean that I think forced conversion is right. Forced conversion would be condemed by Jesus just as he condemed the human traditions of the Pharisees and the Sadducees that were being taught as being as important as Gods Law. Jesus NEVER (extreme emphasis) forced anyone to follow his teaching. He layed out what God's pathway to heaven was and let people decide for themselves. This is the model I follow. I will share my beliefs with those that will bother to listen. I will explain why I believe this way. Then I let the listeners make up their own mind. It is a Christians job to plant the seeds of God's truth in people's hearts. It is God's responsibility to make those seeds grow, but He will not do this against a persons will. He wans people to choose Him. He does not want slaves.

BTW. Heretic, I have said on may ocations that science is not the problem. It is the people that are using it to push an anti-christian agenda that ARE the problem.The theory of evolution, in and of itself, has many holes in it. That is why it has never made it out of the category of theoretical science and into the category of Hard Science. My problem is when people try to shove it down the students throughts as Hard Science. That is happening in public schools, and it needs to stop. Go ahead and teach evolution. I'm not afraid of it. Just don't teach it as Hard Science when it is not.

Seafox14

Excuse me seafox14, you said what you said above!!!
If you said this, it's because you think that the Bible has not any holes, am I correct?
With respect,
Darthy

jgweed, if you would like to see examples of how the church was corrupted by false teaching read Revelation Unveiled by Tim Lahaye. In specific , Dr Lahaye's disscusion of the letters to the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira. See also Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner 1962. Revelation Unveiled has a very extensive bibliography in it siting his sources.

Now some good news on the education front

Continuing the momentum to impact society

Darthy, you might find this link to be an interesting read: Search Answers in Genesis: evolution taught as fact

Here is another: Refuting Evolution

As I have said many times, If evolution is taught then also at least discuss the other origin views as well. Then let the students make up their own mind.

Seafox 14

I prefer to get my history from accredited historians, just as I prefer to get my science from accredited scientitists.
It appears that Dr Lahaye's scholarly credentials include receiving a BA from Bob Jones University, a Doctor of Ministry degree from Western Theological Seminary, a DLitt from Liberty University. None of these qualify him to discuss history with reference to the original sources or scholarly literature. Attributed to him in the Wikipedia is this kind of historcial conclusion:
"I myself have been a forty-five year student of the centuries-old conspiracy to use government, education, and media to destroy every vestige of Christianity within our society and establish a new world order. Having read at least fifty books on the Illuminati, I am convinced that it exists and can be blamed for many of man's inhumane actions against his fellow man during the past two hundred years."

Loraine Boettner has somewhat better credentials, since he at least attended Princeton in the 1920s, although his degrees were limited to a Masters in Theology. But neither is enshrined by illustrious articles in learned historical journals, nor does either enjoy the respect of those who have training in historiography.

Now I have not attended, alas!, Princeton, but I did learn enough at university to understand how to judge the credibility of sources, both original and secondary, in the discipline of history. And this judgement would not lead me to give either author any credibility in their rather odd views of "what really happened."

Since we are recommending books, I would urge you to read:

Jacques Barzun & Henry F. Graff. The Modern Researcher. Harcourt, 1970

Carraghan & Delanglez. A Guide to Historical Method. Fordham UP, 1946



Regards,
John

Interesting. I'll look up those references.

Now I would think it strange to say that someone with his degrees was not able to speak authoritatively on, and provide examples of, what constitutes false teaching in the Christian faith. After all the pursuit of those degrees would not only involve scriptural studies but also the study of church history.

This is another book from the bibliography in Revelation Unveiled. It is online at the following link.
HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH by Pillip Schaff

I recommend taking a look at Revelation Unveiled and at the notes and bibliography in the back section of the book. I think you will find many sources sited that qualify to "discuss history with reference to the original sources or scholarly literature".

With respect from one reasoned thinker to another one

Seafox14

My problem with the sources you kindly provided is that while they may speak with "authority" on matters of faith and dogma, they are not qualified to speak with the same authority on matters of historiography, or to provide an unbiased interpretation, no matter what or and how many, materials they may or may NOT have used.

The bias of Schaff is notable from almost the first paragraphs:
"...history is the biography of the human race, and the gradual development, both normal and abnormal, of all its physical, intellectual, and moral forces to the final consummation at the general judgment, with its eternal rewards and punishments," he writes, and then continues somewhat later with:"The central current and ultimate aim of universal history is the Kingdom of God established by Jesus Christ."

Again, while the Schaff work is perhaps more solid and candid than others, it is somewhat dated and his effort would suffer from not having the last 100 years of studies and discoveries to consult. Certainly it is no longer possible- - -in scholarly circles at least - - - to talk of any "ultimate aim of history" as was the case with Hegel, Croce, or Spengler.

I also want to add here, that one expects that the audience of "genuine" historical research is aimed at other historians and hence subject to peer review of their explanation and interpretation that would validate their conclusions.
However, the contemporary works that have been cited, seem to be aimed at an entirely different audience, that is to say the general public. These writers do not produce evidence and warrants for their theories to those capable and experienced enough to judge, as much as they appeaar to produce propaganda.
I myself would be more trusting of their efforts and ideas were they to conduct conventional scientific and historical research or indeed attempt to publish their findings in conventional scientific and scholarly journals rather than writing broadsides to the lay public with scientific-sounding- - - but nevertheless imprecise- - - terminology and rely on emotive use of words and phrases that are absent from the writings of a researcher.

Regards,
John

Respectfully, I must disagree. Just because someone does not have a piece of paper saying that they studied History, does not mean that they have no knowledge on the subject. As for peer review, Dr Lahaye's work is subject to reviews by his peers including catholic historians. As for bias, there are many who say that bias is only determined by what side of the argument you are on. After all, Many evolutionist would say that the teaching of evolution as fact when it still has yet to be proven is not biased. Many Christians do think that the teaching of evolution as fact when it still has yet to be proven is biased. If you want to do a review of Dr Lahaye's work, then by all means do so. You may be suprised at what you find. You may also find the book: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, an interesting read. here is what wikipedia has to say on Lee Strobel.

Lee Strobel

With Respect
Seafox14

Were I interested in the least in Christian Apologetics written by a journalist wanting to sell his books to the general public, I would certainly read Strobel. Reading the entry in Wikipedia does not indicate that he has any historical credentials- - -in fact, just the opposite.

Tim LaHaye: I was unable to find any bibliographical information either about the articles he has published in historical journals/ or the books from scholarly presses---two forums where he would be subject to peer review as historical research as opposed to fiction or theology.

As for bias, I would assume that historians are biased, because they follow generally accepted rules and methodology. When we say of someone that he is a trained historian, we do not mean that he knows a great many facts, but that he knows and applies the right, proven by use, technique in searching out the facts, and that he attempts to bracket preconceived notions from his analysis to arrive a conclusion, much as if one were to claim a logician is "biased" when he follows the rules of logic.

"As for bias, there are many who say that bias is only determined by what side of the argument you are on." Yes of course- - - but the whole IDEA of historical research is simply not about being on a side of an argument at all. Historical discussion generally hinges on whether an interpretation includes all relevant facts and whether the facts are indeed facts. To call following a scientific discipline being biased certainly stretches the meaning of bias far beyond the sense of being objective or neutral.

What we normally mean by bias is that it leads a person to accept or deny the truth of a claim, not on the strength of the supporting arguments themselves or that the claim attempts to counterfeit argumentation with sophistry, but rather solely because it fails to correspond with one's own preconceived opinions.

Regards,
John

Point well made and explained John.

Now back to the question of evolution taught as fact when it has yet to be proven and moved into the realm of Hard Science. It is important to understand the difference between hard science and theoretical science. Here are the definitions

Hard science

This is the closest that wikipedia has on theoretical science

some thing that is still in the theoretical stage should not be taught as fact. Can it be discussed in the classroom? Absolutely! It should not, however, be given the same weight as hard science or Observational science. Now I am not saying that creationism should be taught as fact either. I do however think that it should be discussed, and can be discussed in a manner that does not violate the so called "separation of church and state", all tho some still claim that it does. Here is what wikipedia has to say on Intelligent design

Let the reasoned and polite debate continue!

Respectfully
Seafox14

The correct opposite of "hard science" is "soft science" not "theoretical science." In fact, the Wikipedia entry you cite makes that distinction plain, and also indicates that the dichtomony between the two kinds of sciences, is not all that clear and is not universally accepted. Perhaps that explains the absence of anything like a special division of science as "theoretical science."
The distinction between "hard" and "theoretical" science, then, is not appropriate. One could also make a very strong case that all science (hard and soft) is in part theoretical; this is precisely what the entry about "theory" indicates:

"...a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

Moreover, the entry at "hard science" indicates that biology is considered as a "hard science." And it seems to me that the theory of evolution is taught in biology and should be given the "same weight" since it is a part of "observational" science.

Given the definition of "theory" as used in science, does Creationism as a theory fit that definition? And if it does not, then why should it even be mentioned in a science class?

Regards,
John

Hey guys, you need to take a look at this.

Kansas schools take step against evolution

The article does have an obvious slant against the decision, but at least one state will be giving equal time to origin theories that are competing against Darwin. Those arguing against evolution are no longer being silenced in Kansas schools!

Respectfully
Seafox14

I myself am always saddened when ignorance is matched with political power. This action does, at least in my opinion, no credit to the good people of Kansas or to their public school system. Forcing theological or philosophical viewpoints into science classes is a disservice to Kansas students.
Regards,
John

Well John, it looks like we are going to have to " Agree to disagree" on this one. As always, I respect your right to your opinion.

Respectfully
Seafox14

So if they were to start teaching ID, or even creationism, wouldn't that mean that one of the textbooks students would HAVE to carry around would be the bible, or at least large passages from it?

Wow, making it mandatory to carry around and read the christian's holy text doesn't sound like establishment to me

no mention was made of mandatory carrying of bibles. I don't hear you complaining that christian students that disagree with evolution are required to carry around text books that are pro-evolution. That is a double standard. It also ignores all of the scientific papers and materials on ID that have nothing to do with the bible.

Seafox14

I've never seen a standardized textbook explicitly for evolution. The books you're probably speaking of are "Biology" text books, that include the theory of evolution to try and explain how life came about the way it is today.

Another thing that you seemingly still fail to recognize is that science is not a religion. The majority of people that put their trust in science also recognize when things should/shouldn't be taken as facts. If science claims something as a fact, it better well be able to be PROVEN. Anyone you meet that claims everything in every facet of scientific study is a fact is just as whacko as most of the christian extremists the public gets to deal with.

To quote jgweed from another thread:

This man really does have a way with words

evolution does not deny Chriatianinty it is vise versa i guess. according to bible whole world is 5 000 or 6 000 years old, AND sciences as chemistry, physics, biology proves earth is "a bit" older. if evolution is poved, why can't it be taught as a fact?

Well, considering the fact that there's almost no way to prove ANY theory or idea regarding how the earth came to be or where life came from (we weren't there, and it'd be kinda hard to replicate experiments), it'd take a lot to "prove" evolution. It hasn't been done yet, but if/until it is, it should continue to be taught as the most objective, logical explanation for the subject in question.

Besides, even if it WAS proven without a shadow of a doubt, with no way of denying it, do you think religious people would accept it?

The argument above leads to some questions.

1.1 Given than evolutionary theory is a valid in the sense of generally accepted, scientific explanation, then it is not something about which one can disagree with, in the sense that one can disagree with someone who thinks the Cubs are the best baseball team in the US. One is not in a priviledged position to "disagree" with science, in other words.
1.2 If one studies biology, one must presumably carry around (at some time) textbooks that include evolution. It is not at all that these textbooks are PRO-evolution, or that a chemistry textbook is PRO-valence; it is that, whether one "agrees" with the theory or not, it is nevertheless an accepted scientific "fact." We do not have a show of hands to determine if the periodic table of elements is true, or atomic theory is true, and it would be a "double-standard" to ask for one about evolution. What makes evolutionary theory different <u>in kind</u> from atomic theory? Is the concept of "double standard" given these condiserations correctly applied in this example?
2.1 If there were a preponderance of "scientific papers" that significantly put evolution into question (i.e., that evolution could be repudiated on scientific grounds), then would it not cease to be a scientific "fact?" But just the opposite appears to be true, in that it scientifically accounts for more and more data in ever-widening areas of research and discovery, and has proved to be one of the more fruitful discoveries of the last 200 years.
2.2 Isn't to posit that science "ignores all of the scientific papers..." a contradiction? If these papers were published in scientific journals, which is the definition of "scientific papers," then it follows almost immediately from the definition that the community of scientists is obviously not ignoring them.

Regards,
John

The following was in my mailbox today... thought it may fit in here somewhere.

Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers."

"The f irst recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart."

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent."

"I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:"

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!


"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts."

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!"

"My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

Interesting news on the creation vs evolution front.

News to Note 1.2

Where are all the human fossils?


Neanderthal children's fossils

The book mentioned in the first link titled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is a secular book by a non creationist scientist. It is not just creationists that have a proplem with the theory of evolution.

Seafox14

Some things I've always wondered:

Why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs?
On which day did God create Neanderthal's?
...How about the Cro Magnon?
If God is all-powerful, why did it take him six whole days to make everything?
What was God smoking when he made the duck-billed platypus?
How does one reconcile Biblical Creationism with the fossil record?
Why did God bother to make such an impossibly immense universe to hold just one planet? Did he make other planets? Did Jesus die for their sins?


And also, if we teach Christian Creationism, why not other creation myths? Shouldn't our little ones learn about the great turtle upon whom the (flat) world rode after the crane smeared mud on his back?

I'm Glad you asked that question. take a look at these links

Fossils Questions and Answers
Dinosaurs and the Bible
Dinosaur Questions and Answers
Neanderthal search pageGenesis Questions and Answers

This is just a start. I recommend looking at the video on demand section.

Perhaps another way of looking at it, is SHOULD the Bible provide answers of the type of questions you pose? Are these essential, in other words, to the central message (s) which we are told the Bible gives?

Cheers,
John

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,

See the review below, which leads me to believe that the author of the work cited is discussing evolution (or some form of it) from a philosophical point of view external to the actual science involved.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm

See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

Now, one swallow does not make a summer. One would expect, if there were serious scientific problems with evolutionary theory, a veritable flood (and not of 60 days) of scientific specialists poking holes in it.

Regards,
John

Evolution theory is ridiculous. It would be a plausible theory if there was an astounding amount of evidence to support even the IDEA. One mis-shaped skull and suddenly we're from primates....

Why did everything stop evolving in such neat little species sets... like monkeys.. and humans... and fish... etc etc.... Where's the middle men?

Actually, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of primate skulls that aren't from any species existing today, but bare (is that the right form?) resemblances to current apes and homo sapiens.


Um.... neaderthals maybe? Whatever the Lucy skeleton was?

Dead. Long dead.

you missed my point and proved it at the same time. There should be not dozens.. or even hundreds of "mis-shaped skulls and bones".. there should be millions . There should be thousands upon thousands of "Lucy Skeletons"... Compared to the amount of life that is on the planet, the evidence supporting evolution is zilch.

Besides that.... there are numerous KNOWN diseases which cause the mis-shaping of bones and tissue... why don't they suggest that possibility with these "neandrathals"? Here's ONE example of many!


Besides all of THAT, why did all the "middle-men" die? Why don't there exist today millions upon millions of half-men, half monkey? Why are there no half-plants, half animals... millions of them? Why are there no half-EVERYTHING? Why isn't there half-ANYTHING?

Besides even all of THAT... if we evolved from some random speck millions of years ago.. where did the speck come from? Until you've answered that... evolution is entirely unscientific. A big bang? are you serious? What caused a bang from absolutely nothing? If something went bang... what was it? And where did IT come from?

Everyone has their opinions.. but it is wrong to teach in schools something so misguided and theoretical, and yet that is what is suggested and "taught". That is part of the reason for this delusion that scientists have it all figured out.

Have you ever checked out carbon dating? If you really research it, you will find out that scientists are way off on a lot of their dates. They used to think some things were millions of years old and they are finding out that they were wrong.

Besides THAT, scientists and very smart men used to think the world was flat. Wrong again.

Charles Darwin, the "father of evolution", retracted his own popularization of evolution before he died! But you won't see that in the history books either. Ask other countries how true our history books are! Compare the history books of the nations? Are they the same? Not even close! How than can we blindly believe everything we are "taught" in school?

Scientists only want us believing they have an explanation... when the defacto evidence isn't even there.

Ever hear of something called "decay"? Your argument makes about as much sense as saying "There are only a few mummies from the Cleopatra's days, so that means that there were very few humans back then!"


Maybe because the bones were dated from a long time ago, and the numerous skulls found contained no evidence of a disfiguring disease?


Interesting bit of information: you can't really argue AGAINST evolution until you UNDERSTAND evolution...


That's a pretty broad statement, considering the bones of "evolution" doesn't describe how life started, but merely why it is the way it is today. See above statement about "understanding before arguing".


Alternatives? Lemme guess..... god, right? Where did god come from? If your answer is, like every OTHER christian's answer, "god has always existed", then why is it erroneous to say that some form of matter hasn't always existed?


Scientists don't have it all figured out, and never CLAIM to have it all figured out. And, this is just an assumption, correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm guessing you're a proponent of creationism in school. If this is correct, you really think creationism is more "scientific" than evolution?


You know there are numerous other forms of dating besides just using carbon. Also, please enlighten us on some of these dates in which scientists were millions off...

A short article for your "research":
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
By: Michael Benton, Ph.D.

Actually, those that thought the world was flat were on the same level as "scientists" that thought alchemy was a legitimate branch of chemistry.


Source please? If you won't find it "in the history books", where did you get that information? AnswersinGenesis.com, perhaps?


More "facts" without sources or examples to back it up. For anything you say to be considered factual and/or credible, PLEASE post sources.

BTW: I trust scientific, scholarly, peer-reviewed journals over text books any day.


We shouldn't "blindly" believe ANYTHING said ANYWHERE. However, if we do not accept information supported by numerous experiments, and if we are reduced to finding everything out for ourselves as individuals, we'd be nothing but morons.


And religion (the only real "alternative" currently in discussion) is different

Scientists try to explain why and how certain things happen/have happened. There's plenty of evidence for evolution, it just seems like you're checking all the wrong sources, or popping stuff out of nowhere. It sounds like this is another follower of the "Science is a conspiracy" faction...

But what are the odds that two or more specimens would have the same disfigurment?, or that said disfigurments would be symmetrical?


Because that assumes that two species became one. Evolution states that over time one species, or more commonly members of a species from a specific area, will change into another, new species. Humans, for example, aren't descended from apes as the common interpretation of evolution states. Rather, modern apes and modern humans evolved from a common ancestor. The greater the differences between two species, the farther back one must go to find a comman ancestor. There are no half animal/plant creatures today but billions of years ago there existed a creature which could not be definitively classified as either plant or animal. Even today, similarities between plants, bacteria, and vertibrate animals can be found on the microscopic level.

The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that the enivironment on Earth billions of years ago was conducive to the creation of biological compunds. Though it's true that this is also a theory.

So we should teach only that which is unequivically true? Looks like the school day will be cut back to about 3 minutes.

That's interesting since radio-carbon dating is effective only to about 60,000 years ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, I preesent an example of the "bad company" logical fallacy.

I'm not about to get into a quote war. It would solve nothing. This has been argued too long over the centuries... it all comes down to what we believe I suppose... and I have to believe the thing that makes the most sense to me.. as do you. It is the age old question with no definitive answer (otherwise people would stop arguing about it)

Already I can sense the hostility and it's not a fire I care to fan.

I just want to make these simple points: the reasons I believe how I believe. Take it or leave it.. my last post in this thread.

Evolution explains how we got to where we are? No it doesn't. If it can't explain where everything started.. then what is its foundation? Christians believe that God always was.. that's correct. But they also believe that he is a divine being.. of a divine understanding.. and we are his simple human creations.. not meant to have the capability of wrapping our minds around infinity. It is much more believable to me that we aren't as smart as we think we are. It is much more believable to me that this world hasn't been around for millions of years, nor has its inhabitants. It is much more believable to me that prophecy will carry its course.. the world will tumult perilously as predicted.. eventually.. on a divine time table.. not a human one. You've heard it before, but you can't deny the possibility. This world will eventually tear itself apart. Humans can't get along with each other even in a forum, let alone a global, political scale. Hatred runs rampant, and it will eventually catch up to us. Standards are being lowered, desensitizing of our youth is happening, morals are being thrown out the window in favor of the quick fix.. the pleasures of the flesh... the happiness of the moment, rathar than the future.


I could go on and on and on.. and so could you... but you would no doubt fall asleep.. as would I when the link wars begin... people will start posting links to things they searched for in google only seconds before
... and tons of information.. real or otherwise ... will be brought to the table... it is a great hamster wheel.. and we are all the hamsters if we continue this way.. everyone will find out the answer when they die anyway... either you will feel nothing and just be biologically dead... or you will go on in some form or fashion... plain and simple.. if I am the one who is wrong.. then I don't lose anything.. I just die... if YOU are wrong... then there is an everlasting price to pay.

Follow my signature's link if you wish to discuss this further with me personally..

[quote name='Amazing Andrew' date='Aug 11 2006, 12:05 AM' post='337344']
[quote]The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that the enivironment on Earth billions of years ago was conducive to the creation of biological compunds. Though it's true that this is also a theory.
[quote]

Actually, there are major flaws in the Miller-Urey experiment that go against the molicule to men evolution argument
Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis

As to radiometric dating systems and their accuracy?
Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers

"pre-human fossiles"
Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?
‘Lucy’ isn’t the ‘Missing Link’!
Skull wars: new ‘Homo erectus’ skull in Ethiopia

More answers to follow as the questions are asked

Seafox14

Ah seafox, more links from the same christian site from the same "credible" experts.

When these articles cite "information" from Creation Research Society Quarterly and Institute for Creation Research, it seems pretty clear they aren't using real scientific sources for real scientific articles. How do you try to disprove or discredit a scientific process without getting the information from unbiased scientific sources?

While i do agree that the Miller-Urey experiment had some flaws, i don't think that it is completely useless.


Actually, when it comes to what's being taught in schools, it shouldn't be "what is believed", but "what can be supported". People can believe what they want when they hear the information, but students SHOULD be taught evolution in school and, if the churches want to, creationism in church. This way, the non-religious don't have to listen to the theories that are less scientific if they don't want to. However, those christian students will be exposed to the SCIENTIFIC aspect of the biology equation.

And science is not biased? Many times there have been suggestions to point out that evolution is a theory and is not to be taught as fact. Case in point, Macon County Georgia. As I sighted in a previous post, all that was on the text book stickers was a message that "Evolution is an as yet to be proven theory. the material should be viewed with an open mind." There was no mention of religion. No mention of creationism. no mention of Intelligent Design. Yet the Macon County was sued to remove the sticker. Tolerant and unbiased? I think not (btw, the law suit was overturned on appeal. Thank you 11th circuit court of appeals). Besides, Why should you be the only one setting the rules of acceptable information and that constitutes unbiased information. All information is slanted by the person that is providing it.

I prefer using the information from the AIG website because there are scientists with legitimate crudentials working with them and I have also personally talked with one of their astronomers and found him quite knowledgable in his field. They Are also not afraid to list inacurate arguments that some creationist's use. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
They are upfront about being creationists and don't try to claim otherwise. They also are not filing law suits when someone disputes their views. So no offense HM, but I'll use the sources I trust. Just as you will use yours. That is why this is called a discussion. I will not tell you not to use information from sources that I don' agree with.

Seafox14

A little aside to lighten the moment.

Cheers

I would like to say that this experiment has been proven false since they used what was thought to be the atmosphere of the early earth. It was later proved that the Earths Atmosphere had no Amonia in it.With out this ingredient they would not have made that single protien.

Correct me if I am wrong in saying that.

-Steve

Darwin's Theory of Evolution (actually The Origin of the Species) is a theory in the same way that Newton's Law of Gravity is actually a theory. Newton supported his case for gravity with evidence and lots of equations to show how gravity affected everything. He did not define exactly what gravity was - it's still a bit iffy - just how it acted. His theory was used to make predictions which he could use to prove that he was right so he called it a law as gravity was predictable.

Darwin did pretty much the same thing for evolution but evolution is governed by random events and the changing of species based on those events. You cannot predict how things will change but you can track the changes, which Darwin did. There is a mass of supporting evidence for evolution and it is a fabulous subject to study. Evolution is not predictable.

The fact that we do not know exactly what causes gravity does not stop you from falling to Earth... no matter how strong your faith.

Neither gravity nor evolution are at odds with the concept of creationism. They do contradict the Bible, which was written by people a long time before these theories were.

This is a little off subject, but nonetheless I found it rather interesting.

FWIW Galaxies

Cheers

GOD bless the crusaders !!

Things are heating up in education again. Take a look at this.

Belief in evolution required for college admit ion?

What next? No homeschooling allowed?


Seafox14