PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Intelligent design should be taught



SnakebyteXX
08-01-2005, 09:47 PM
Bush: Intelligent design should be taught
August 1, 2005

WASHINGTON --President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives -- a substantial part of Bush's voting base -- have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.

On other topics during the group interview, the president:

--Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove or any other White House official leaked a CIA officer's identity, but he stood behind Rove. "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said.

--Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

--Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman.

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

web page (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/01/bush_intelligent_design_should_be_taught/)

JPB
08-02-2005, 09:48 AM
awful.

Rich R.
08-02-2005, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. <hr /></blockquote>
Don't you just love how the Christian Conservatives label their belief in creation as "intelligent design", implying that other views are not intelligent? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Now, what do you think they will say, when some scientist suggests that the "higher power" that helped in creation, on this planet, is a higher form of life on another planet, in a "galaxy far, far away"? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

catscradle
08-03-2005, 06:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. <hr /></blockquote>
Don't you just love how the Christian Conservatives label their belief in creation as "intelligent design", implying that other views are not intelligent? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Now, what do you think they will say, when some scientist suggests that the "higher power" that helped in creation, on this planet, is a higher form of life on another planet, in a "galaxy far, far away"? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif <hr /></blockquote>

No, the implication is that the process of creation (evolution) was not intelligent, ie. not by design. It implies nothing at all about whether or not other views of the development of life or the people that hold those views are intelligent.

BTW, for the record I am neither religious nor right and I don't think the "intelligent design" theory should be taught in our public schools. I just don't think we should be ascribing attributes to the religious right or anybody else that aren't justified by the facts.

That said I believe the scientific explainations of evolution in the development of life is the best approach to take. However, we should not make the mistake of assuming it is the "truth". One of my favorite quotes:

"The gods did not reveal, from the beginning,
All things to us, but in the course of time
Through seeking we may learn and know things better.
But as for certain truth, no man has known it,
Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods
Nor yet of all things of which I speak.
For even if by chance he were to utter
The final truth, he would himself not know it:
For all is but a woven web of guesses."
Xenophanes - sometime BC

Rich R.
08-03-2005, 06:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr> No, the implication is that the process of creation (evolution) was not intelligent, ie. not by design. It implies nothing at all about whether or not other views of the development of life or the people that hold those views are intelligent.<hr /></blockquote>
I guess it is all up to interpretation.
I just found the phrase, "intelligent design", to be a curious choice of words.

SnakebyteXX
08-03-2005, 07:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>
Don't you just love how the Christian Conservatives label their belief in creation as "intelligent design", implying that other views are not intelligent? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

IMHO: "Creationism" as many of us have known it all our lives has been cleverly re-packaged and re-branded as "Intelligent design". It's an ancient and cherished Christian belief with a new dress on.

It may be less important to note that many of those who hold this belief (including President Bush) feel that it is a concept worthy of being taught to ALL school children (regardless of their personal beliefs, Christian or non-Christian) than it is to grasp that inherent to this approach is an implied intolerance and exclusion of all other creation beliefs.

In other words, behind the press to teach Intelligent Design in public schools along side evolution is a rather large group of people who may fear that the teaching of evolution undermines their religious beliefs. The 'Christian lobby', so to speak, is intent on seeing that this aspect of their religious views are given equal time in the classroom.

The problem of course is that regardless of its prospective merits the teaching of 'Intelligent Design' in the classroom represents a form of religious favoritism and religious exclusion. In spite of what some may feel to the contrary, Christianity is not the ONLY religion on this planet. What about the rights of non-Christians to have their creation beliefs represented in the classroom?

If we are to open the door for religious beliefs about creation to compete side by side with the scientific view of evolution in the classroom shouldn't that door be opened for ALL religious beliefs and not just those shared by one rather vocal and politically active segment of the population?

One of my favorite quotes from H.L. Menchen:

"Mencken's Creed

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...

I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.

I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...

I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress.

I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

heater451
08-03-2005, 03:45 PM
Rich, I almost posted a similar response, to what catscradle did, when I read your post last night. Then I realized, that it was just a joke. . ..

Anyway, I think the "Intelligent Design" is similar to the philosophical, "Watchmaker Argument". The basic idea is, that if you were walking across a desert and you came across a pocketwatch, you would have to believe that someone had made the watch. I think the desert, being a virtually featureless area, is supposed to represent outer space/the Universe, and the watch and watchmaker would be the Earth and God, respectively.


===========================

Cueless Joey
08-04-2005, 08:34 AM
Jay Leno quipped last night, that was the way Bush felt about Algebra too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
08-08-2005, 12:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you just love how the Christian Conservatives label their belief in creation as "intelligent design", implying that other views are not intelligent? <hr /></blockquote> The implication is not that other views are "not" intelligent but rather the fact that there is no intelligence in their design. The other views believe creation happened by chance or an accident. That could hardly be considered intelligent which leads one to believe you just want to argue.

eg8r &lt;~~~back from vacation and not in the mood to argue, just pointing out senseless posts /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
08-08-2005, 12:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It may be less important to note that many of those who hold this belief (including President Bush) feel that it is a concept worthy of being taught to ALL school children (regardless of their personal beliefs, Christian or non-Christian) than it is to grasp that inherent to this approach is an implied intolerance and exclusion of all other creation beliefs.
<hr /></blockquote> Much the same as those who have bought into the evolution religion.

eg8r

eg8r
08-08-2005, 12:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I think the "Intelligent Design" is similar to the philosophical, "Watchmaker Argument". The basic idea is, that if you were walking across a desert and you came across a pocketwatch, you would have to believe that someone had made the watch. I think the desert, being a virtually featureless area, is supposed to represent outer space/the Universe, and the watch and watchmaker would be the Earth and God, respectively.
<hr /></blockquote> I had never heard of this Watchmaker Argument, interesting. Anyways, I am guessing the person walking the desert would come to the same conclusion they came to when questioning how the desert came to be, or themselves for that matter. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

heater451
08-08-2005, 01:42 PM
Here is a link (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm) to an argument about---I should have said "Watchmaker Analogy" instead of "Argument".

I think some of the arguments on this page are overly literal, and are used as Logical refutations, without allowing for the **idea** that is being attempted to pass (IMO). For example, one of the arguments brings up shoemakers, and extrapolates that other 'makers' must exist, if the watchmaker does. To me, this invalidates this refutation, because the analogy is not meant to convince anyone that a watchmaker in particular exists, but that the assumption would be made, that the watch was made, and did not just 'appear'.

I would guess that there are refutes to the arguments given on the linked page, but I just pulled the first one Google found. I am not trying to show it true or false, but linking it to present more detail of the analogy.



=============================

Big_Jon
08-08-2005, 02:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
It may be less important to note that many of those who hold this belief (including President Bush) feel that it is a concept worthy of being taught to ALL school children (regardless of their personal beliefs, Christian or non-Christian) than it is to grasp that inherent to this approach is an implied intolerance and exclusion of all other creation beliefs.
<hr /></blockquote> Much the same as those who have bought into the evolution religion.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Sounds like some people think it is O.K. for evolution to be shoved down everybody's throat, regardless of their personal beliefs, Christian or non-Christian...
/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Rich R.
08-08-2005, 07:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> That could hardly be considered intelligent which leads one to believe you just want to argue.<hr /></blockquote>
Prior to this, I made two short entries into this thread, concerning an observation, neither of which was argumentative. My last entry was 5 days ago. Now you join into this thread and you have made 3 entries within a few minutes, including this insulting post.
I believe, you are the one who wants to argue, as usual.

What a jerk.

eg8r
08-08-2005, 07:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Now you join into this thread and you have made 3 entries within a few minutes, including this insulting post.
<hr /></blockquote> I am sorry, it was insulting. It was unnecessary.

eg8r

eg8r
08-08-2005, 08:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like some people think it is O.K. for evolution to be shoved down everybody's throat, regardless of their personal beliefs, Christian or non-Christian...
<hr /></blockquote> That was the point I was trying to get across. Evolution is very much a religion. You cannot ask an evolutionist about the beginning because they will tell you they don't study that. Well, nothing they tell you really matters until they can explain how something came from nothing. How did life come from a rock. My issue with this is that they choose to ignore the difficult answers and try and base their proof on the fact that we have multiple species of dogs, so they all must have come from the same thing originally. Duh! No kidding. The question they cannot answer, is where is the example of a mixture inbetween to different species (a dogcat).

They "believe" that if two different animals have two eyes, then they have similar traits and that this is proof in their eyes that they have evolved from the same thing millions of years ago. This is belief/religion, it really does not matter how they argue it. They cannot prove something and are relying on faith that the proof is out there, they just have not found it yet.

eg8r

Rich R.
08-08-2005, 08:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>It was unnecessary.<hr /></blockquote>
As are 99% of your posts.

JPB
08-08-2005, 09:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;

<hr /></blockquote> That was the point I was trying to get across. Evolution is very much a religion.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


And your point is totally wrong.

Qtec
08-08-2005, 09:49 PM
August 9, 2005
Independently, Two Frogs Blaze the Same Venomous Path
By NATALIE ANGIER
Among frogs and New Yorkers alike, those wearing loud colors are assumed to have very poor taste. As researchers have long observed, the brightest frog species in nature are often the most poisonous, and for good reason.

Why else would a creature coveted by everything from snakes and birds to Jacques Pépin evolve an extravagantly colored skin, except to warn any would-be predators of bitter toxins embedded therein?

Now it turns out that it is no mean feat for a frog to earn its mean feet, and that one of the surest routes to optimal toxicity is through a highly specialized form of ant eating.

Writing in the current issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report that poison frogs in Africa and the Neotropics of Central and South America appear to have converged on the same difficult method of harvesting the toxic chemicals they need to defend themselves against predators.

Both the famed poison-dart frogs of the New World and the Mantella poison frogs of Madagascar dine largely though not exclusively on ants, and many of those ants, the researchers have determined, contain toxic chemicals called alkaloids.

Through entirely independent pathways, it seems, the two unrelated groups of frogs evolved a similar capacity to store, or sequester, the ingested alkaloids in their skin sacs without being harmed by the pungent substances themselves. And once the unrelated amphibian clans had succeeded in caching the ant bane in their glands, they autonomously evolved bright coloration to broadcast to potential frog-eaters their possession of distasteful alkaloids.

The evolution of chemical protection and concomitant advertising gave the poison frogs a considerable leg up on the competition. Whereas most frogs dare only emerge at night to feed and will skitter for cover at the slightest breeze, a majority of poison frogs are diurnal, brazenly hopping around the sunlit forest floor like scattered gems on pogo sticks.

The new work offers a striking example of convergent evolution, of different species confronting a similar challenge or opportunity and taking such a similar stepwise approach to the task that, despite their distinct genetic backgrounds, they end up looking like close kin.

More significant still, the scientists said, the convergence in this case did not begin with the frogs. The ants, too, in both Africa and the Neotropics, seem to have independently evolved their possession of alkaloid chemicals, which they either synthesize directly, or somehow wrest from plants they eat.

Most of the 4,500 known ant species are not thought to traffic in alkaloids, and the scientists are still unsure whether the endowed insects under study use the chemicals for defense, communication or something else.

Whatever the incentives, said Valerie C. Clark, a graduate student in chemistry at Cornell and the lead author on the new report, the autonomous advance in antly alkaloid management on each continent very likely served as the requisite precursor to the emergence of the far-flung families of flamboyant amphibians.

"Without the presence of the alkaloid ants," she said, "that nice little evolutionary niche of becoming diurnal and colorful would very likely never have opened up for the frogs."

The power of convergent evolution has fascinated naturalists from Charles Darwin onward, and it helps explain the appearance of the many aesthetic and functional déjà-vus that abound throughout nature: the sleekly hydrodynamic silhouettes of sharks and dolphins, the spindly wings of bats, birds and pterosaurs.

As evolutionary biologists see it, the underlying principle of evolutionary convergence - that often there is one right tool for the job, and that selective pressures will reinvent the bio-utensil whenever the need arises - exemplifies just how non-random and ostensibly purposeful natural selection can be, and how readily it may be mistaken for evidence of supernatural "design."

In the case of poison frogs, specific palettes and patterns seem to be so useful for warning off predators that they pop up again and again. On both continents can be found frogs of pure bold Velveeta gold, frogs with glaring spots of red on black.

"Sometimes the resemblance really is striking," said Christopher J. Raxworthy, a curator of herpetology at the American Museum of Natural History and an author on the report. "You'll see two unrelated species of frog, one Madagascan, one Neotropical, and they'll be almost the same size and shape, they'll move in a similar style, and they'll have the same vivid markings in virtually the same place on the body."




The Bible apart, what proof is there of ID?




Q

SnakebyteXX
08-08-2005, 09:55 PM
Bush is backing junk science

By Bill Press

TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES


Government-sponsored religion should be taught in all public schools." It's an edict you expect from an ayatollah of Iran: the kind of top-down, force-fed religion from which Americans traditionally recoil.

This time, however, the edict came from the president of the United States. Which makes it all the more shocking, and all the more repulsive.

Bush has already racked up more vacation days than Ronald Reagan did in eight years - and he still has three-and-a-half years to go! That distinguishes him as not only the worst, but also the laziest president in our lifetime. Yet his latest pronouncement makes you wish he spent even more time clearing brush and less time wrecking public policy.

Before leaving for another five weeks on his Texas ranchette, Bush told a clutch of Texas reporters that he believes the so-called theory of "intelligent design" should be taught in public school science classes, right up there alongside evolution. Demonstrating what little intelligence he has himself, Bush said: "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

No, Mr. President. What education is all about is teaching students the facts, and teaching them the truth. It is not about confusing fact with fiction. Nor is it about mixing science with religion. And make no mistake about it, the bogus doctrine called "intelligent design" has nothing to do with science. It is nothing but poorly disguised religion.

According to intelligent-design backers, certain higher forms of life - like cell structure, molecular design or the human eye - are too complex for us to understand. They couldn't have just evolved that way. They must have been set in motion ahead of time by some intelligent designer: namely, God (unless you believe in space aliens).

This is, first of all, a ridiculous theory. There are a lot of things we don't understand. I don't know how my Tivo works, but that doesn't mean God made it. Besides, throughout history, our understanding and knowledge have grown with the advance of science - which is one good reason for not derailing science by replacing or confusing it with fairy tales.

Intelligent design is simply junk science, or what someone has called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." It's the latest attempt by the American Taliban to force religion into our public schools. They can't do so directly, because the Supreme Court, in 1987, rejected a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism, in addition to evolution, as a violation of the wall of separation between church and state.

So religious zealots have repackaged creationism and given it a fancy new name. Any doubt about what they're really up to was resolved by of Dover, Pa., School Board member William Buckingham, arguing for forcing intelligent design into local schools. "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross," he told the board. "Can't someone take a stand for him?" Well, yes, but not in science class.

The main argument made by intelligent-design proponents is that evolution is still not 100-percent proven. Which is ridiculous. Maybe we haven't yet discovered physical evidence linking every single step in the growth from slime to slug to sloth to sleuth. But there is zero physical evidence for intelligent design. It's just a zany theory. Period. I'll take 98 percent over zero any day.

And that's no put-down of religion. We are a God-loving people. Of course, kids should be taught religion: to believe in God and to read the Bible as a manifestation of God's power and love. But religion should be taught at home and in church. Because not all Americans believe in the same God, or in any God at all, the teaching of religion does not belong in the public classroom.

Not only that, forcing public schools to water down science is the last thing this country needs right now. We're already struggling to keep up with advanced scientific standards of other countries. We already have to import scientists because we're not producing enough. Mixing science with religion will be bad for students, bad for schools, and put America even further behind in the race for scientific achievement.

Before he starts spouting off about educational philosophy, President Bush should go back to learning his ABC's. Religion is not science. Public school is not Sunday school. America is not Iran.


web page (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/12314160.htm)

Big_Jon
08-09-2005, 12:33 AM
This isn't really a reply to SnakebyteXX, just some random observations...

Ok...
So some people are "offended" by "Intelligent Design" because it incorporates some form of "religion".
What about the people that are offended by the "theory of evolution"?
When in my High School Biology class, i brought up the fact that i really didn't care to "study evolution", and the teacher said that he really didn't care to teach it.
IMHO, it is a "doctrine" that is forced on students and teachers alike.
How can something that is known as the "THEORY of evolution" be considered "fact" and therefore THAT is what should be taught in our schools?
I think it is a violation of my civil rights as an American.
I would call up the ACLU, but they are just a bunch of atheists/morons who enjoy suppressing fundamental American values.
Don't mind me, i just felt like a rant at a quarter till 4 in the morning...

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
08-09-2005, 04:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As are 99% of your posts. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, well you know the saying, Opinion are like buttholes...

eg8r

eg8r
08-09-2005, 04:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As evolutionary biologists see it, the underlying principle of evolutionary convergence - that often there is one right tool for the job, and that selective pressures will reinvent the bio-utensil whenever the need arises - exemplifies just how non-random and ostensibly purposeful natural selection can be, and how readily it may be mistaken for evidence of supernatural "design." <hr /></blockquote> Not sure why you bolded this and not other parts. Anyways, if this is your proof of an example of a species that is inbetween two other species then you are sadly mistaken. What you have is still a frog, it does not matter that this one in particular is poisonous, it is still a frog.

Like I said before, Creationist do not argue that there are many many different types of dogs (or frogs in your case) and that they all came from a dog. The evolutionists believe the many different types of dogs (and frogs for that matter) came from a rock. There is where I have the problem and that is when evolution becomes religion.

Keep on Googling Q.

eg8r

eg8r
08-09-2005, 04:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And your point is totally wrong. <hr /></blockquote> So profound. Thanks for stopping by.

eg8r

JPB
08-09-2005, 08:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
And your point is totally wrong. <hr /></blockquote> So profound. Thanks for stopping by.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


And I have posted before why I don't get much more profound in these "debates". The problem is that a religious person can be confronted with 2o million facts and reject them with some answer that invokes their particular god. Or simply subsume the facts into their religion by saying their particular god made it that way.

You are welcome for me stopping by, by the way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

JPB
08-09-2005, 08:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Big_Jon:</font><hr> This isn't really a reply to SnakebyteXX, just some random observations...

Ok...
So some people are "offended" by "Intelligent Design" because it incorporates some form of "religion".
What about the people that are offended by the "theory of evolution"?
When in my High School Biology class, i brought up the fact that i really didn't care to "study evolution", and the teacher said that he really didn't care to teach it.
IMHO, it is a "doctrine" that is forced on students and teachers alike.
How can something that is known as the "THEORY of evolution" be considered "fact" and therefore THAT is what should be taught in our schools?
I think it is a violation of my civil rights as an American.
I would call up the ACLU, but they are just a bunch of atheists/morons who enjoy suppressing fundamental American values.
Don't mind me, i just felt like a rant at a quarter till 4 in the morning...

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>


So how can the theory of relativity be science? Isn't it just a religion? The problem is your definition of "theory" isn't right. Evolution is scientific fact. I.E. it is what scientists came up with after studying facts. Creationism is just a fairy tale. Believe it or don't, but never think it is based on any observable, provable fact. Evolution is. The fact religious people undermine it by saying it just isn't so is simply religion, not science.

As to whether you wanted to study it. It is your choice whether to be ignorant or not. That does not mean others should be forced to be equally ignorant to even things out and not offend you. If you don't like evolution, go to a private school that teaches creationism. In biology class, science should be taught. Not religion. Creationism is religion, not science. So complaining that you had to study evolution in biology is like complaining that the Spanish class should be English. It just isn't the subject. It is really sad that people are corrupting science with their religious beliefs out of their fear. it is consigning their children to ignorance.

Know this for those of you with kids or who will have them. The biggest discoveries in science in terms of how we live our day to day lives will probably be the discoveries in biology. The ones arising from the study of evolution, DNA, the human genome, stem cells, etc... I am not a biologist. I am ignorant of the details. But Darwin, Watson, Crick, etc... are the revolutionaries. We are looking at huge wonderful breakthroughs that will help us lead long, healthy, happy lives. I know this scares many religious people. But a lot is going to happen in the next 50 years that scares some people.

SnakebyteXX
08-09-2005, 10:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr>

As to whether you wanted to study it. It is your choice whether to be ignorant or not. That does not mean others should be forced to be equally ignorant to even things out and not offend you. If you don't like evolution, go to a private school that teaches creationism. In biology class, science should be taught. Not religion. Creationism is religion, not science. So complaining that you had to study evolution in biology is like complaining that the Spanish class should be English. It just isn't the subject. It is really sad that people are corrupting science with their religious beliefs out of their fear. it is consigning their children to ignorance.

Know this for those of you with kids or who will have them. The biggest discoveries in science in terms of how we live our day to day lives will probably be the discoveries in biology. The ones arising from the study of evolution, DNA, the human genome, stem cells, etc... I am not a biologist. I am ignorant of the details. But Darwin, Watson, Crick, etc... are the revolutionaries. We are looking at huge wonderful breakthroughs that will help us lead long, healthy, happy lives. I know this scares many religious people. But a lot is going to happen in the next 50 years that scares some people. <hr /></blockquote>

History is rife with examples of conflicts between Christian doctrine and science. Consider the uproar that ocurred when Copernicus published his scientific observations that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and that it revolved around the sun rather than the other way around. Such an observation while ultimately proven to be completely accurate flew in the face of existing dogma and was not welcomed by the Church. The works of Kepler, Gallileo and Newton built on this theory leading us toward our current understanding of the universe.

Imagine how that original conflict might play out in current day America? Can you picture politically active Earth centric minded Christians arguing that 'Earth Centricity' should be taught in our schools alongside Coperincan 'theories' of astronomy? Can you also imagine the President of the United States throwing his support behind the effort?
Pretty absurd when you stop and think about it.

For yet another example of Church vs. science consider Benjamin Franklin's invention of the lightning rod and the controversy that surrounded it.
.........................................


Franklin's Unholy Lightning Rod
Written by Al Seckel and John Edwards, 1984

It is well-known that the Catholic and Protestant churches opposed the scientific theories of Galileo and Copernicus, but did you know they also opposed Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod ?

Biblical Meteorology
For centuries, Protestant and Catholic churches, basing their teachings on various texts in the Bible, taught that the air was filled with devils, demons and witches. The great Christian scholar St. Augustine held this belief to be beyond controversy.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated in his Summa Theologica, "Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven."

Martin Luther asserted that the winds themselves are good or evil spirits. He declared that a stone thrown into a certain pond in his native city would cause a dreadful storm because of the devils kept prisoners there.

Christian churches tried to ward off the damaging effects of storms and lightning by saying prayers, consecrating church bells, sprinkling holy water and burning witches. Lengthy rites were said for the consecration of bells, and priests prayed that their sound might "temper the destruction of hail and cyclones and the force of tempests and lightning; check hostile thunders and great winds; and cast down the spirits of storms and the powers of the air."

Unfortunately, these efforts were to no avail. The priest ought to have prayed for the bell ringer, who was frequently electrocuted while ringing the blessed bells. The church tower, usually the highest structure in the village or town, was the building most often hit, while the brothels and gambling houses next door were left untouched.

One eyewitness to the damaging effects of lightning recorded, "Little by little we took in what happened. A bolt of lightning had struck the tower, partly melting the bell and electrocuting the priest; afterwards, continuing, it had shattered a great part of the ceiling, had passed behind the mistress, whom it deprived of sensibility, and after destroying a picture of the Savior hanging upon the wall, had disappeared through the floor . . ."

Peter Ahlwardts, the author of Reasonable and Theological Considerations about Thunder and Lightning (1745), accordingly advised his readers to seek refuge from storms anywhere except in or around a church. Had not lightning struck only the churches ringing bells during the terrific storm in lower Brittany on Good Friday, 1718?

In 1786, the Parliament of Paris finally signed an edict "to make the custom of ringing church bells during storms illegal on account of the many deaths it caused to those pulling the ropes."

The Heretical Rod
The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians-"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them"-could finally be answered rationally.

Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.

In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.

In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.

In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.

In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."

It took many years for scientists to convince the priests to attach a lightning rod to the spire of St. Bride's Church in London, even though it had been destroyed by lightning several times.

The priests' refusals prompted the following letter from the president of Harvard University to Franklin: "How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free inquiry. It is amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you have given . . . they should even think of repairing that steeple without such conductors."

In Austria, the Church of Rosenburg was struck so frequently and with such loss of life that the peasants feared to attend services. Several times the spire had to be rebuilt. It was not until 1778, 26 years after Franklin's discovery, that church authorities finally permitted a rod to be attached. Then all trouble ceased.

A typical case was the tower of St. Mark's in Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit, the bells consecrated to ward off devils and witches in the air, the holy relics in the church below, and the Processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently damaged or destroyed by lightning. It was not until 1766 that a lightning rod was placed upon it-and the tower has never been struck since.

Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the "heretical rod."

The Rod Spared
Such examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The ecclesiastical formulas for preventing storms and consecrating bells to protect against lightning and tempests were still practiced in the Churches, but the lightning rod carried the day. Christian Churches were finally obliged to confess its practicality. The few theologians who stuck to the old theories and fumed against Franklin's attempts to "control the artillery of heaven" were finally silenced, like the lightning, by Franklin's lighting rod and the supremacy of the scientific method. "

web page (http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.htm)
------------------------------------

Just my dos centavos.

Snake &lt;--- believes in keeping science in the science class and theology out.

heater451
08-09-2005, 04:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>. . .Like I said before, Creationist do not argue that there are many many different types of dogs (or frogs in your case) and that they all came from a dog. The evolutionists believe the many different types of dogs (and frogs for that matter) came from a rock. There is where I have the problem and that is when evolution becomes religion. . . .<hr /></blockquote>Do you have an example of the rock-to-life belief? I don't remember being taught any leap in that range. . . .Unless you count "Spontaneous Generation"--if I have that right, where people once believed things simply appeared, like woodpiles creating rats.

As for animals. . . .Let's see, IIRC, the taxonomy(Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species) on (domesticated) cats and dogs are, respectively:

Animalia/Chordata/Mammalia/Carnivora/Felidae/Felis/familiaris OR domestica
and
Animalia/Chordata/Mammalia/Carnivora/Canidae/Canis/familiaris OR domestica

The reason that you wouldn't find a cat-dog (other than in the cartoon), is because their lines diverge at the Family level. And, within genuses, it's usually not possible to cross species.

Keep in mind, these are just labels--much as you could begin classifying automobiles, from being "transportation" on down to 4x4 pick-ups, or SUVs. I do not see evidence that contradicts that God created animals (I forget which Day it was), however, there is certainly less detail in the Bible, as to how God separates His animals--except for the bits about not eating those with cloven hoofs, and that man is separate from the animals. (Actually, that part is contradictory: the Bible declares man different from the animals, whereas the TOE (Theory of Evolution) considers him one of them (Animalia/Chordata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/Homo (erectus)) [ More hominids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Homo_heidelbergensis), if you are interested.]

What's really funny to me is, even if one throws out the literal description of Creation from the Bible, and believed in evolution through 'natural selection', then there is still nothing that proves or disproves that a/the God started it all. It's a question of faith.

Going on tangent: What about the other stories of Creation, as told by non-Christian religions? What's the Torah have to say--isn't it similar to the Bible, just withouth the Jesus parts?--showing my ignorance here. . . /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif What about the "native american" stories of creation, or those of the Australian aboriginals. Or stories from Africa, which probably pre-date that of the Bible? Is there a Doctor of (All) Relgious Studies in the house?

hondo
08-09-2005, 06:27 PM
Wow! I'm impressed, Eg! I've NEVER seen you apologize
before. You should take more vacations.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Now you join into this thread and you have made 3 entries within a few minutes, including this insulting post.
<hr /></blockquote> I am sorry, it was insulting. It was unnecessary.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
08-09-2005, 06:40 PM
Evolution goes only so far. At some point in the
evolutionary process we were inhabited by intelligent
beings from another planet whose leader was named
Yahwah or Jehova or Elohim or something like that.
After Atlantis was destroyed the survivors mated
with those in the evolutionary process giving us
the interesting mish-mash we have today. Jesus was
sent by God to point out that Yahwah wasn't all he
was cracked up to be. Geesh! Didn't you guys know
this stuff?

eg8r
08-10-2005, 08:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wow! I'm impressed, Eg! I've NEVER seen you apologize
before. You should take more vacations.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, maybe it made me soft. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~has apologized in the past

eg8r
08-10-2005, 09:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What's really funny to me is, even if one throws out the literal description of Creation from the Bible, and believed in evolution through 'natural selection', then there is still nothing that proves or disproves that a/the God started it all. It's a question of faith.
<hr /></blockquote> No argument there. It is faith. Just like believing in the Big Bang and believing that everything in the universe came from those gases that were all balled up in the "period at the end of the sentence".

[ QUOTE ]
What about the other stories of Creation, as told by non-Christian religions? What's the Torah have to say--isn't it similar to the Bible, just withouth the Jesus parts?-- <hr /></blockquote> I don't know what the torah has to say, as I don't read it. When I am discussing my beliefs it is based on the Christian beliefs. As highsea has pointed out a thousand times, there are many many different religions that have their own beliefs on creation. He has referenced some that were really funny. This tangent merely points out that there are many more beliefs other than the religions of evolution and Christianity.

eg8r

eg8r
08-10-2005, 09:46 AM
Thank you for clarifying it all for us. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
08-10-2005, 09:57 AM
As usual, you missed the point. The text in bold says that evolution or the force of Nature that drives evolution, is not random! Two frogs on different Continents independently developed the same method of protection! Coincidence?

Quote eg8r,
"The evolutionists believe the many different types of dogs (and frogs for that matter) came from a rock."

[ QUOTE ]
Q. What Are the Elements in the Human Body?

A.
Most of the human body is made up of water, H2O, with cells consisting of 65-90% water by weight. Therefore, it isn't surprising that most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon, the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)
<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, we are made of rocks/elements. Amino acids, the building blocks for life, have already been reproduced in the Lab!


What the Creationists cant accept is that Homo Sapien is the product of millions of years of Evolution and a number of extinction level events. 95% of the worlds species was wiped out at least 5 times before we showed up.
Genesis/the Bible was written in a way that people of that time could understand it. It could hardly say that stars are formed by Gravity, when nobody knew what Gravity was! Dont forget that at this time, the Universe still revloved around the Earth and the stars were fixed in the sky!
Today, with the Hubble, we can see starts forming and Galaxy's coliding! We have found water on Mars and the moon Europa may have an ocean beneath its surface of ice.
If just one living organism is found on another planet, the Creationists will finally have to shut up with their religious science/ mumbo-jumbo and it wont be a moment too soon.

Q

JPB
08-10-2005, 10:30 AM
[What's the Torah have to say--isn't it similar to the Bible, just withouth the Jesus parts?-- <hr /></blockquote> I don't know what the torah has to say, as I don't read it. When I am discussing my beliefs it is based on the Christian beliefs. quote]



Ummmm, Genesis is in the Torah.

Rich R.
08-10-2005, 10:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> What the Creationists cant accept is that Homo Sapien is the product of millions of years of Evolution and a number of extinction level events. <hr /></blockquote>
Or the product of a child's science project on a distant, more advanced, planet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> If just one living organism is found on another planet, the Creationists will finally have to shut up with their religious science/ mumbo-jumbo and it wont be a moment too soon. <hr /></blockquote>
And the Creationist won't claim that "God" made that organism too.
Right!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SnakebyteXX
08-10-2005, 10:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
When I am discussing my beliefs it is based on the Christian beliefs.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Is there such a thing as 'the Christian beliefs'? Would that be Catholic 'Christian beliefs' or Protestant 'Christian beliefs'? And if it's beliefs of the Protestant kind which flavor? Methodist? Baptist? Lutheran? Episcopal? Seventh Day Adventist? Jehovah's Witness? Mormon? Etc. Etc. Etc. Seems like there's a pretty broad range of Christian beliefs and not all are in agreement by any stretch of the imagination.

Snake

eg8r
08-10-2005, 12:34 PM
I did not miss the point, as you cleverly point out it is not a point anyways. Whether they are on different continents or not, half way around the world or not, does not matter. If they are subject to the same environments, then they evolve to survive. Thus, your "point" is as weak as your understanding of this subject. Keep on googling.[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we are made of rocks/elements. Amino acids, the building blocks for life, have already been reproduced in the Lab!
<hr /></blockquote> Q, don't play stupid for stupid sense. C'mon, talk about missing the point. You have avoided every point since your first post. No lab, ever, has produced something living from items that were non-living.

[ QUOTE ]
What the Creationists cant accept is that Homo Sapien is the product of millions of years of Evolution and a number of extinction level events. 95% of the worlds species was wiped out at least 5 times before we showed up.
<hr /></blockquote> What we cannot understand is why those like yourself try to describe what we don't understand when it is those like yourself with too thick of a head to ever try to understand us in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
Genesis/the Bible was written in a way that people of that time could understand it. <hr /></blockquote> I really don't think you know anything about the way the Bible was written, so your description here is moot.

[ QUOTE ]
If just one living organism is found on another planet, the Creationists will finally have to shut up with their religious science/ mumbo-jumbo and it wont be a moment too soon.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, so I guess for now people like youself can shut-up until that oh-so-soon-moment happens.

eg8r

eg8r
08-10-2005, 12:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Is there such a thing as 'the Christian beliefs'? Would that be Catholic 'Christian beliefs' or Protestant 'Christian beliefs'? <hr /></blockquote> Christian beliefs would include those that are bound by Christianity. This would not include islam or other religions outside the Christian world (including 7th Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, etc.).

eg8r

eg8r
08-10-2005, 12:44 PM
LOL, my mistake, when I read Torah, I was thinking Koran. You are correct, the Torah is in the Bible. It is considered the first 5 books.

I am not sure what you were meaning when you stated it was "similar to the Bible, just without the Jesus parts". No kidding, Jesus does not show up in the Bible until the New Testament. This is why I misread your post.

eg8r

heater451
08-10-2005, 04:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> LOL, my mistake, when I read Torah, I was thinking Koran. You are correct, the Torah is in the Bible. It is considered the first 5 books.

I am not sure what you were meaning when you stated it was "similar to the Bible, just without the Jesus parts". No kidding, Jesus does not show up in the Bible until the New Testament. This is why I misread your post.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>I almost added the Koran/Quran, but I know even less about it than the Torah, although I thought that there were some similarities--I'll have to Google some, I guess. . . .

I think I was trying to do some comparisons with the religions, and maybe get to a point about the divergence of Christianity from Judaism, and how one could choose one religion over the other--since it would still come down to those that believe Jesus appeared, and those who didn't. I don't recall, exactly, as I was rushed at the end, and just decided to post, instead of possibly losing what I had (I had to leave).

Anyway, whatever I was getting too is lost now, and it's been so long since I've been in a Bible-study class (Sunday School), that I don't recall the New Testament transition (other than Joseph, Mary, the Wise Men and all. . . .).

No big deal.



===================================

Qtec
08-10-2005, 09:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I did not miss the point, <font color="blue"> believe me, you missed it. </font color> as you cleverly point out it is not a point anyways. Whether they are on different continents or not, half way around the world or not, does not matter. If they are subject to the same environments, then they evolve to survive. <font color="blue">See! </font color> Thus, your "point" is as weak as your understanding of this subject. Keep on googling. <font color="blue">The article was from the SAME day NYTimes! Some of us do read the news! No Googling required to counter your lame arguments. </font color>

" Yes, we are made of rocks/elements. Amino acids, the building blocks for life, have already been reproduced in the Lab!"

<hr /></blockquote> Q, don't play stupid for stupid sense. C'mon, talk about missing the point. You have avoided every point since your first post. No lab, ever, has produced something living from items that were non-living. <font color="blue"> They might do if you could wait a billion years or so! Gasp!!!!!!!!!!!! </font color>

" What the Creationists cant accept is that Homo Sapien is the product of millions of years of Evolution and a number of extinction level events. 95% of the worlds species was wiped out at least 5 times before we showed up."

<hr /></blockquote> What we cannot understand is why those like yourself try to describe what we don't understand when it is those like yourself with too thick of a head to ever try to understand us in the first place. <font color="blue"> I understand you perfectly. You take the Bible literally- thats the big mistake. </font color>

" Genesis/the Bible was written in a way that people of that time could understand it. <hr /></blockquote> I really don't think you know anything about the way the Bible was written, <font color="blue"> And you do? How vain.</font color> so your description here is moot."

" If just one living organism is found on another planet, the Creationists will finally have to shut up with their religious science/ mumbo-jumbo and it wont be a moment too soon."
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, so I guess for now people like youself can shut-up until that oh-so-soon-moment happens. <font color="blue"> Its the Creationists that are making the noise. You believe what you believe and nobody has a problem with that. Its when you try to force your ideas on others and present belief as fact that the scientists are forced to respond. </font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Some of the theories the Creationists are using to back-up their beliefs are outrageous and in the long run, this will produce less believers. IMO
The Bible/Koran etc wre never meant to be taken word for word.

If the US is a Christian country and GW says he is, why didnt it/he "turn the other cheek" after 9/11?

Q........ /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif There are Christians and there are people who say they are Christians.

Chopstick
08-11-2005, 07:02 AM
Actually, Q did make a point and a very good one I might add.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
The Bible apart, what proof is there of ID?

Q

<hr /></blockquote>

Why would he say that? Think about it for a second. The generally accepted image of God is that of a giant ID or some other manifestation of a human personality, that created and controls every aspect of the universe. They ascribe human attributes to it. Hate, love, jealousy, revenge. They put a human face on it. Eyes, nose, mouth, beard.

Well, hold on a second. If you were a omnipotent super being that could create and control a universe, why would you have any human attributes at all? Why would you need a nose if you don't breath air? Bear with me, I'm getting to it.

If such a being does exist, it's bound to be pretty big and as such difficult to hide. In fact, evidence of it's existence should be laying around everywhere, even inside your own mind. Let's see if it left any foot prints. This can be tested with a simple logical syllogism.

If God is infinite and all powerful, can he then create a weight so heavy that he himself cannot lift it.

Don't be so quick to dismiss this statement with of course he can. Use your mind to follow it to resolution. What happens? A process loop. It won't resolve.

Deconstruct it. "If God is infinite". What is the definition of infinity? How about a sphere with an inside and no outside? Therefore if God is infinite, there is nothing outside of God. Therefore a weight that is separate, apart and outside of God cannot exist for him to lift. The notion of a God that "does" things appears to be a fallacy. It implies that there is an actor and something that is being acted upon. This is merely a reflection of dualistic thinking. I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that "Man created God in his own image".

The notion that things need intention or purpose is a purely human attribute. It does not neccessarily have to apply to God. There is no evidence of it in nature. Did the sun intend to come up today? Does rain intend to fall? Do trees intend to grow? Things seem to get along perfectly well with no intention at all. Could this be closer to the true nature of God? There is certainly plenty of evidence to indicate that it is. Just look around.

I can talk about this philosophy stuff all day. If you like I can show you how to take this conceptual framework and shoot the best pool of your life.

eg8r
08-11-2005, 12:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If the US is a Christian country and GW says he is, why didnt it/he "turn the other cheek" after 9/11?
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think the Bible says to turn your cheek till you are beat senseless, does it? Clinton turned the other cheek time and time again. Now was the time for action.

eg8r

Big_Jon
08-11-2005, 07:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If the US is a Christian country and GW says he is, why didnt it/he "turn the other cheek" after 9/11?
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think the Bible says to turn your cheek till you are beat senseless, does it? Clinton turned the other cheek time and time again. Now was the time for action.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Tap Tap Tap eg8r.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
08-12-2005, 08:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If the US is a Christian country and GW says he is, why didnt it/he "turn the other cheek" after 9/11?
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think the Bible says to turn your cheek till you are beat senseless, does it? Clinton turned the other cheek time and time again. Now was the time for action.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I Googled 'turn the other cheek' and this was the FIRST link.


[ QUOTE ]
TURN THE OTHER CHEEK
The pacifist ethic to bear insults without complaint and to turn the other cheek is related to the ethic to love one's enemy. Here the emphasis is as much on the individual's internal attitude as it is upon the other's welfare. If a person responds to evil in anger or self-defense, he becomes attached to the evil and it can dominate him. The anger and hatred of his attacker is transmuted into his own anger and resentment at being a victim, and he loses his balance and spiritual strength. But by bearing and accepting insults and abuse without diminution of his own goodwill and mental concentration, he can stay above the hatred and preserve a foundation of spiritual independence and self-possession. Ultimately, it is only by preserving his spiritual subjectivity in the midst of the insults that a person can have the strength to love his enemy and win him over. We include several striking examples: from the Lotus Sutra of a monk who is victorious through never disparaging his abusers, and the prophet Isaiah's servant of the Lord.
The concluding passages also deal with the justice of turning the other cheek. They assume an inexorable principle of Divine Justice, pp. 183-91, which will set things right and even vindicate the victim's passivity. Paul argues that worldly retribution would mitigate the punishment of God, hence, by not acting, the believer will heap burning coals upon the head of his adversary. The Sutra of Forty-two Sections likewise speaks to the demerit which will come to the evildoer when his insult is accepted without responding. The victim, on the other hand, gains merit through enduring persecution and building the virtue of patience.


Let there be no injury and no requital.


1.Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 32

One should choose to be among the persecuted, rather than the persecutors.


2.Judaism. Talmud, Baba Kamma 93a

Victory breeds hatred, for the defeated live in pain. Happily live the peaceful, giving up victory and defeat.


3.Buddhism. Dhammapada 201

For behold, they had rather sacrifice their lives than even to take the life of their enemy; and they have buried their weapons of war deep in the earth, because of their love towards their brethren.


4.Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Book of Mormon, Alma 26.32

In wars to gain land, the dead fill the plains; in wars to gain cities, the dead fill the cities. This is known as showing the land the way to devour human flesh. Death is too light a punishment for such men who wage war. Hence those skilled in war should suffer the most severe punishments.


5.Confucianism. Mencius IV.A.14

Those who beat you with fists,
Do not pay them in the same coin,
But go to their house and kiss their feet.


6.Sikhism. Adi Granth, Shalok, Farid, p. 1378

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.


7.Christianity. Matthew 5.38-41
<hr /></blockquote>


All religions are open to interpretation- thats why we have extremists.

Ghandi took over India without throwing a punch!


Quote eg8r, "Now was the time for action."
I agree,in Afgahnistan but not in IRAQ!!!! Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.




Q

Fran Crimi
08-12-2005, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr>
So how can the theory of relativity be science? Isn't it just a religion? The problem is your definition of "theory" isn't right. Evolution is scientific fact. I.E. it is what scientists came up with after studying facts. Creationism is just a fairy tale. Believe it or don't, but never think it is based on any observable, provable fact. Evolution is. The fact religious people undermine it by saying it just isn't so is simply religion, not science.

As to whether you wanted to study it. It is your choice whether to be ignorant or not. That does not mean others should be forced to be equally ignorant to even things out and not offend you. If you don't like evolution, go to a private school that teaches creationism. In biology class, science should be taught. Not religion. Creationism is religion, not science. So complaining that you had to study evolution in biology is like complaining that the Spanish class should be English. It just isn't the subject. It is really sad that people are corrupting science with their religious beliefs out of their fear. it is consigning their children to ignorance.

Know this for those of you with kids or who will have them. The biggest discoveries in science in terms of how we live our day to day lives will probably be the discoveries in biology. The ones arising from the study of evolution, DNA, the human genome, stem cells, etc... I am not a biologist. I am ignorant of the details. But Darwin, Watson, Crick, etc... are the revolutionaries. We are looking at huge wonderful breakthroughs that will help us lead long, healthy, happy lives. I know this scares many religious people. But a lot is going to happen in the next 50 years that scares some people. <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry for jumping in this thread so late....but...I have an example of something factual that isn't taught in schools because it can't be scientifically proven:

I have experienced living through 4 fairly substantial earthquakes. Approx 2 weeks prior to each quake, I had a very specific dream about the quake, where I was, what I was doing and how I reacted to it. At the end of each dream I would wake up (why, I don't know) and vividly recall the dream. Two weeks later I would experience the quake and live through it exactly as my dream played out.

The 4th dream was 2 weeks prior to a meeting in Las Vegas with other fellow BCA Instructors. When we gathered in Vegas, I decided to warn them of my dream, knowing full well that they would probably laugh at me. I did tell them and you can ask any of the following people: Bruce Baker, Bob Radford, Leslie Rogers (yes, of Randy's school), Roger Glen (BCA Head Referee at the time) and Richard Rhorer. That night at 3AM, a 7.1 quake hit 70 miles west of Las Vegas and my dream played out again. The building was swaying madly, I jumped out of bed, immediately fell down and crawled to the doorway. It felt like the building was going to crash into the pool, just as in my dream.

According to science, this does not exist because it can't be calculated. My experience was not religious. It was every bit as scientific as an ameoba, however it is rejected as fact over and over again. It will be accepted as fact someday, when someone can calculate it.

Evolution is the closest that scientists can come to in calculating our origin. Yet, scientists know that it is not exact. It can not be absolutely proven as the only answer to our creation. Yet it is taught in schools as scientific fact.

If we really want to do our children a service, then we should tell them the truth, which is that evolution of mankind is a theory supported by SOME scientific facts.

They should also be made aware that there are other possibilities. No one knows better than a scientist that evolution is not the only possibility.

Fran

SnakebyteXX
08-12-2005, 09:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>
Sorry for jumping in this thread so late....but...I have an example of something factual that isn't taught in schools because it can't be scientifically proven:

I have experienced living through 4 fairly substantial earthquakes. Approx 2 weeks prior to each quake, I had a very specific dream about the quake, where I was, what I was doing and how I reacted to it. At the end of each dream I would wake up (why, I don't know) and vividly recall the dream. Two weeks later I would experience the quake and live through it exactly as my dream played out.


According to science, this does not exist because it can't be calculated. My experience was not religious. It was every bit as scientific as an ameoba, however it is rejected as fact over and over again. It will be accepted as fact someday, when someone can calculate it.

Evolution is the closest that scientists can come to in calculating our origin. Yet, scientists know that it is not exact. It can not be absolutely proven as the only answer to our creation. Yet it is taught in schools as scientific fact.

If we really want to do our children a service, then we should tell them the truth, which is that evolution of mankind is a theory supported by SOME scientific facts.

They should also be made aware that there are other possibilities. No one knows better than a scientist that evolution is not the only possibility.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

First off I want to invite you to move to my neck of the woods (Northern California) as soon as possible. As you well know one of the primary differences between earth quakes, tornados and hurricanes is that the former comes with little or no warning. We have been told to expect a monster quake on the San Andreas fault within the next thirty years. Sounds like you could narrow that warning time down considerably... Please consider my invitation.

All kidding aside, what you're talking about is prescience, a form of extra-sensory perception. You're absolutely correct - currently there's not much available in terms of scientific validation for claims of ESP. OTOH: I'm fairly certain that should your special 'talent' become known to certain members of the scientific community there would be lots of interest in setting up a control situation and putting it to the test. Imagine what it might have meant to the victims of the recent Tsunami catastrophe to have had two weeks to prepare?

Prescience has many implications. One would be that the 'future' as we humans conceive it is a known quantity. Does that mean that it's been 'pre-ordained' and that we can not change it? Were you helpless to alter the future as foretold in your dreams? Could you have sought safety? Stayed the hell out of Las Vegas?

Perhaps the present time that we consider to be 'live' and unfolding moment to moment is in fact a 3-dimensional recording and your dreams of future events are a form of fast-forwarding a couple weeks ahead?

I fully agree with you that at this time science does not know all the answers. But then, considering what a young species we are and just how few centuries of civilization we've had to develop our scientific understandings it comes as no surprise.

As to evolution? Dating from the time of Darwin to the present there's not really been much time to fully explore all the possibilities. This does not mean that more and better data is not being gathered or that our technological means of gathering that data isn't constantly improving. Or that the data isn't being thoroughly examined for consistency. It simply means that we are still at a very early stage of understanding the process and that there are still many gaps to fill. Give the scientists that study evolution another hundred years or two (three, four, five?) and the picture will become much clearer than it is now.

In the interim the fact remains: the scientific community has uncovered a great deal of data that consistently confirms the theory of evolution and little if any that disputes it.

What also remains true is that as in myriad times past, influential representatives of organized religion continue to do their level best to impede the teaching of certain aspects of scientific discovery. Largely in the interest of maintaining their cherished theological beliefs. Bible based religion by its nature tends to be resistant to change - science in its pursuit of research and acquisition of previously unknown information tends to precipitate change. The clash between those who do not wish to change and those whose research efforts tend to bring about change is inevitable.

So too is the ultimate outcome – for better or worse, and like it or not, change occurs.

Snake

JPB
08-12-2005, 10:24 AM
Re: Fran Crimi's earthquake post.



big difference between your situation and teaching creationism, as I think you point out in your post. There very well could be a rational explanation to your precience. If there is, science would embrace it. For instance, it is often noted that animals can sense when natural disasters will happen. people might also have a biological mechanism. Or maybe not. Or maybe neurology will someday explain dreams. As you point out, science can't explain yet. So a lot depends on how you go about finding out. If you do it in a rational way - a way looking at facts or doing experiments, etc..., you are going about it scientifically. If you say "My particular God gave me an earthquake vision in my head..." you are not. There is no argument that science is complete or knows everything. But scientific theory is based on facts and the best deductions, etc... we can make from them. Not unprovable faith. That is the difference. And why creationism must not ruin science to the extent actual science is even taught in our public schools.

eg8r
08-12-2005, 10:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
big difference between your situation and teaching creationism, as I think you point out in your post. <hr /></blockquote> I think you miss the point. She is not advocating the teaching of creationism in her post, she is just asking the science books and the educational system to be truthful to the students, which they are not.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2005, 10:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree,in Afgahnistan but not in IRAQ!!!! Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. <hr /></blockquote> I hope you read this text and chew on it for a minute before you allow your thoughts to get in the way...I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

eg8r

JPB
08-12-2005, 12:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
big difference between your situation and teaching creationism, as I think you point out in your post. <hr /></blockquote> I think you miss the point. She is not advocating the teaching of creationism in her post, she is just asking the science books and the educational system to be truthful to the students, which they are not.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Re-read what you quoted from me. I did not miss her point. When you say schools aren't truthful with students, do you mean because they dumb down the science and soften it, or that they alledgedly overvalue science? I would agree if you mean the former, because I don't think American public schools can be blamed for promoting too much rationality.

SnakebyteXX
08-12-2005, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> Re: Fran Crimi's earthquake post.

...it is often noted that animals can sense when natural disasters will happen.

<hr /></blockquote>
Years ago when the Loma Priata earthquake hit the Bay Area I was just sitting down to watch the World Series. The quake hit south of SF first and then rolled north. We live about sixty miles north of the Golden Gate. As the quake hit the City, the TV suddenly lost it's signal. Seconds later I saw what we've come to consider one of our best early warning indicators: nearby hanging house plants and a bird cage were all suddenly swinging back and forth - although no one had touched them. I yelled, "Earthquake!" and we exited our home in a preplanned march to a place on our property where no trees or power lines could fall on us.

It was very hot and dead calm. Across from our ranch cattle grazed contentedly on a hillside . The only thing out of the ordinary was a massive three hundred year old Oak tree thirty yards away that was bending all the way over like a huge pendulum touching the ground on the right side and then all the way back over to touch the ground on the left. It was an impressive sight.

As I stood there staring at the Oak tree doing something I'd never in my life seen it do before my wife turned to me and said,”Honey, are you sure this is an earthquake? I thought animals were supposed to know about these things in advance? Those cows over there aren't doing a damned thing but munching grass."

Apparently the frantic dance of the Oak tree alone wasn't enough to convince her - she wanted the animals to live up to their expected reputations as early warners and they weren't.

I clearly remember turning to her and saying,” It’s an earthquake alright! Forget about the cows. Look at the f---ing tree!"

Sometimes faith in what we've been told is not enough - it's what our eyes can see that tells us what we need to know.

Snake

Fran Crimi
08-12-2005, 12:54 PM
Well, I think many people go ballistic at the thought of intelligent design being presented in classrooms as a possibility because they wrongfully equate it with religion. Intelligent design is not solely in itself a religious belief. The main difference between ID and the religious belief of creationism are the concepts of worship as well as taking things, such as the Bible, literally. That's not what intelligent design is.

No one is being asked to worship nor are they being asked to accept any particular teachings literally.

The only thing being proposed here is the possibility of intelligence behind our creation. That's all. Nothing else.

In fact, isn't that just what we're doing today by implanting stem cells into another human in order to create a change in that person? How about animal cloning and mutations? That's all intelligent design.

It would be ridiculous to state that we can be authors of intelligent design to other living things, yet in the same breath refuse to accept the possibility that it may have been done with us.

IMO, in order to refuse the possibility of ID, you would have to refuse the possibility that there may be other intelligent life in our universe or beyond, in our dimension or beyond, that may have had contact with our planet at some point during it's history. I doubt you'd find a scientist willing to make a statement like that.

Fran

JPB
08-12-2005, 05:08 PM
"Well, I think many people go ballistic at the thought of intelligent design being presented in classrooms as a possibility because they wrongfully equate it with religion"


no, the ID movement is a definite religious movement. The people pushing it do not talk about things like you do in your post. they are mystics who refuse to accept science and have a plan to teach religious stuff in our schools. The lunatics ruining schools in Kansas don't talk about the possibility of multi-dimensional existence or intelligent life elsewhere, they talk about creationism.

Fran Crimi
08-12-2005, 08:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> "Well, I think many people go ballistic at the thought of intelligent design being presented in classrooms as a possibility because they wrongfully equate it with religion"


no, the ID movement is a definite religious movement. The people pushing it do not talk about things like you do in your post. they are mystics who refuse to accept science and have a plan to teach religious stuff in our schools. The lunatics ruining schools in Kansas don't talk about the possibility of multi-dimensional existence or intelligent life elsewhere, they talk about creationism. <hr /></blockquote>

Well, they're obviously limiting their scope to suit their own agendas, not unlike evolutionists who have yet to state that evolution is a theory supported by only SOME scientific facts.

Creationism is one possibility of intelligent design, but only one possibility of a list of several.

Fran

DickLeonard
08-13-2005, 02:53 PM
I don't Think Your allowed to ADvertise on this Board. Kindly remove Lindberger from your posts.####

DickLeonard
08-13-2005, 03:04 PM
Big Jon talking about turning the other cheek or giving the blind eye. We all know that Rush Bimbaugh committed a felony with his prescrition drugs. He doesn't even get arrested. If he was black or hispanic he would be in Jail Now. This Democrazy STinks it is only for the connected. The Intelligent Design.####

Stretch
08-14-2005, 02:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Big Jon talking about turning the other cheek or giving the blind eye. We all know that Rush Bimbaugh committed a felony with his prescrition drugs. He doesn't even get arrested. If he was black or hispanic he would be in Jail Now. This Democrazy STinks it is only for the connected. The Intelligent Design.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Hey Dick, get set to pay more for EVERYTHING with the rise in the price of gas. We're liveing with that now. As you know everything we consume now rolls on rubber. If the trucks stop rolling your grocery stores, department stores, corner stores EVERYTHING would be empty in 2 days. The drastic rise in the cost of moveing this is always past to the consumer. It hits you at the gas pump, and every time you buy something after that. St.

Gayle in MD
08-14-2005, 05:50 PM
I'd like to know you. Good post.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-14-2005, 06:00 PM
Tap Tap Tap!

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
08-15-2005, 07:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Creationism is one possibility of intelligent design, but only one possibility of a list of several. <hr /></blockquote>
That might be what an objective person might think but,.......
..the Creationists believe that God created life on Earth.
The ID proponents only want to show that it could be a possibility that there is a creator.

Its the same movement, financed by the same people. ID [ as most people understand it] is an attempt to introduce Creationism by the back door! They cant contest Evolution so they are now just trying to around it.
They dont have one single fact to support their case, not one.!
Q



ID Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)

Fran Crimi
08-15-2005, 08:58 AM
You're all in a panic over nothing. It'll be a cold day in hell (pardon the pun) before this country forces anyone to accept a particular religious GOD as the sole creator. It simply will not happen.

Sure, people will try to press their religious agendas in schools, but it will be stopped. Fanatics will always try to force their opinions on others and they're no different from those who force the issue without adequate proof that we evolved from fish.

You may not feel that logic is a science, however, it is. It is a form of mathematics and if you do some research, you'll find that the Jesuits, who are famous for philosophical studies and the sciences of psychology and math, have proven through logic that God must exist. That proof has yet to be broken by other scientists. I have two biographies of Albert Einstein and although I don't understand most of what was written, I did understand that part that stated that even Einstein believed in the existence of a greater power or "God" that may very well have been our Intelligent Designer.

That's no less of a possibility than the limited scientific proof that we evolved from a fish. Of course, I believe the word they use is 'ape' but their studies take it back to fish.

Fran

Qtec
08-15-2005, 10:03 AM
No panic Fran.
Here is an example of ID logic. If you check out their sites and do a search on 'evidence', you find nothing.

This guy has a PHD!
[ QUOTE ]
The complexity of such systems—and these are just two of many—within both the tiny enzyme and the huge yeast reflect a mind-boggling quantity, not to mention quality, of information. Where did that information come from? Who structured these molecules and taught them to perform their functions? Did blind chance and random process? Are they simply self-programmed? Does anything in reality self-program without intelligent input?

I see these discoveries as a formidable challenge to the assumption that life arose on its own over a few million years.4 Perhaps at least some scientists will be prompted by the new data to reconsider their conclusion, to accept the possibility—more accurately, the probability—that living molecules and all living creatures evidence the matchless brilliance and power of a Supreme Creator.

Sound objective to you?

I,m not saying there isnt a God, I just cant go with their explinations for how this planet and everything on it ,evolved.

Q

<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
08-15-2005, 10:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Here is an example of ID logic. If you check out their sites and do a search on 'evidence', you find nothing.
<hr /></blockquote> Q, the evolutionists have no evidence, not one single piece of evidence of the beginning of living things. All the books tell you everything began with gases, so if you are an evolutionist then common sense would tell you, living matter had to evolve from non-living matter. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. So from this point forward no matter what you say, you are discounted because of your own failed logic, you have no evidence.

eg8r

SPetty
08-15-2005, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> You may not feel that logic is a science, however, it is. It is a form of mathematics and if you do some research, you'll find that the Jesuits, who are famous for philosophical studies and the sciences of psychology and math, have proven through logic that God must exist. That proof has yet to be broken by other scientists. <hr /></blockquote>I googled and couldn't find anything on this. I've never heard this before. Can anyone send me to a web page or two with more info?

wolfdancer
08-15-2005, 12:01 PM
I thought little girls were made of sugar and spice, and everything nice????

heater451
08-15-2005, 04:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Sure, people will try to press their religious agendas in schools, but it will be stopped. Fanatics will always try to force their opinions on others and they're no different from those who force the issue without adequate proof that we evolved from fish. &lt;snip&gt; That's no less of a possibility than the limited scientific proof that we evolved from a fish. Of course, I believe the word they use is 'ape' but their studies take it back to fish.<hr /></blockquote>The burden of proof always lays on the shoulders of the asserter. . . .There is evidence given, used to show that we evolved from fish, such as the similarities in bone structures in the fins of some fish, and how a fetus develops and then loses it's gills. . . .And, there is also the link where the Cetaceans diverge--not fish, but water-going mammals (dolphins and whales). However, I don't think anyone is able to claim absolute "proof", since there aren't any examples of "half-steps"--like a dolphin-man. Then again, there is the intervention of a huge span of time, which separates the DNA at this point. . . .Don't forget the "missing link" either--no one has truly connected us to monkeys, other than saying we share 99% of DNA with chimpanzees, yet humans and chimps can't have viable offspring (not that I'd want to witness that experiment /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif ).

And, while I'm thinking about it. Maybe the problem is that the half-step beings simply weren't viable either. Much like how mules can't breed mules, but are themselves crossbreeds of horses and donkeys. (Or, is that the other way around? . . .Depending on which is male, and which is female, the offspring is either a mule, or a hinny, which is also sterile, IIRC.)

Anyway, on the Creationist side of the argument, there's still no proof that God didn't create the whole creature feature--the Book of Genesis just wasnt' written as a Bio 101 text. . . .

--I wish I could remember the label of the group that tries to link Creationism and Science/Evolutionism--You know, like how "Let there be light!" could be what caused the Big Bang. . . ?


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>You may not feel that logic is a science, however, it is. It is a form of mathematics and if you do some research, you'll find that the Jesuits, who are famous for philosophical studies and the sciences of psychology and math, have proven through logic that God must exist. That proof has yet to be broken by other scientists. I have two biographies of Albert Einstein and although I don't understand most of what was written, I did understand that part that stated that even Einstein believed in the existence of a greater power or "God" that may very well have been our Intelligent Designer.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>**Interesting** I'm going to have to look some of that Jesuit writing up. . . .I seem to recall some syllogisms about how God could be proven to be all-powerful, or all-knowing, but not both--or something like that. I wonder if that's found in the Jesuit stuff.

BTW, I may have the same biographies on Einstein that you have. I recall that Einstein believed that science was not counter to religion, with the reasoning that a scientist operates with a certain faith, in whatever s/he is researching. A hypothesis is created, with the faith that all or part of it is true, and then the scientist sets about finding "proof".


======================

theinel
08-16-2005, 04:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Sure, people will try to press their religious agendas in schools, but it will be stopped.<hr /></blockquote>
Not if they aren't strenuously confronted they wont. There are textbooks all over the country right now teaching Intelligent design because its much harder to stop something that it is to start it.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>You'll find that the Jesuits, who are famous for philosophical studies and the sciences of psychology and math, have proven through logic that God must exist. That proof has yet to be broken by other scientists.<hr /></blockquote>
No "proof of god" exists. How could it? Proofs are irrefutable, absolute positive conclusions. They are based on evidence. They are tested and attacked from very possible point and never broken. God is a belief and not a theory or even a hypothesis. The only proof of a god could come when that god presents itself and passes the tests of a proof.

What you are referring to is a bunch of smart yet blinded people who have been trained/imprinted/brainwashed into believing something who then seek to "prove" it.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>That's no less of a possibility than the limited scientific proof that we evolved from a fish. Of course, I believe the word they use is 'ape' but their studies take it back to fish.<hr /></blockquote>

We didn't evolve from fish or apes. All current life evolved from common ancestors. Any two individuals or species can, or could, with a complete record, be traced back to a common ancestor. Ultimately the first piece of life, likely a strand of RNA, followed by DNA strands, and then single celled organisms, is the father and mother of all other life on this planet.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>I have two biographies of Albert Einstein and although I don't understand most of what was written, I did understand that part that stated that even Einstein believed in the existence of a greater power or "God" that may very well have been our Intelligent Designer.<hr /></blockquote>
Einstein's troubles were not with the specific bio-chemical origins of life but with the origins of the Universe/God. The universe exists so it had to be created but who created it and who created it/them? It's a catch 22 (chicken/egg scenario) that can never be answered. By anyone. Not you or me or God.

Lets all get along, not throw religion at one another, and live together with respect (and agree that we will deal with people that can't respect those few simple principles). I'd say call me a dreamer but I'm too much of a realist. The world will likely forever tear itself apart because religions and governments demand it. Power corrupts...

Sorry for running on but this stuff really bothers me.

SnakebyteXX
08-16-2005, 05:34 AM
Intelligent design is not a theory

by Nicholas DiGiacomo
Telluride

<font color="blue"> Contrary to the claims of some of our political leaders, intelligent design is not an alternative theory to evolution. It's a belief, and maybe - on a really good day - a hypothesis. But it is not a theory.

To become a scientific theory, a hypothesis has to be developed into principles that not only explain what we see around us, but make specific predictions that differentiate it from other explanations. It's not enough to simply sound like a reasonable alternative; a theory has to take a stand and risk being proven wrong. A philosopher named Karl Popper observed that a theory is only a theory when it is "falsifiable."

Intelligent design can't be falsified because it doesn't as yet predict anything that we can go out and check. And that, quite simply, is why intelligent design shouldn't appear in textbooks next to evolution as a scientific explanation of the fossil and genetic record of life on earth.

To be serious scientific players, the advocates of intelligent design have to develop their hypothesis into a theory that can be falsified, and then put at least as much effort into testing it as they do courting school boards and state legislatures.

That said, it would help immensely if scientists and educators were more careful when talking to the general public about evolution in particular, and scientific theories in general.

For example, it confuses people when evolution is referred to as a "fact." In general usage, a fact is something like "The sun set in the west today." A theory is, in the sunset case, celestial mechanics, a set of principles and equations that explains the movement of the planets, and makes precise predictions about where things will go when they're shot into space. The fact that the sun set in the west today is undeniably true, but doesn't do us much good if we want to land a spacecraft on Mars. The theory of celestial mechanics does.

Theories weave facts, observations, ideas and hypotheses into coherent explanations by a painstaking process of analysis and synthesis. They are fluid - always subject to revision as more is learned about the world. In everyday life, however, people expect facts to be true and final.

To avoid confusion on this important point, scientists and educators should stop calling evolution a fact, and take the time to explain just what it means for something to be a theory.

Another dangerous assertion is that scientists have proven the theory of evolution. This is misleading, because we can't absolutely prove a theory correct; we can only prove it wrong. A philosopher by the name of David Hume summed it up nicely with his "black swan" example. If we claim all swans are white, we can prove it only by examining every single swan - past, present and future. But if we find just one black swan, we've proven the theory wrong.

That's why the history of science is one of fits and starts - sometimes revolutions. It's rare for a theory to survive tens of years - let alone 100 - without being radically modified or superseded.

Scientists and educators should avoid saying that we've proven the theory of evolution, and patiently explain how remarkably well evolution has held up to everything that's been thrown at it.

A little more attention to the profound differences in meaning between fact, theory and belief might help lower the level of rhetoric in the evolution debate. It will also more clearly put the burden on advocates of intelligent design to meet the standards to which we hold all those who aspire to do science. </font color>

web page (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_2934344)

Fran Crimi
08-16-2005, 10:03 AM
IMO, very good commentary. A few points: I agree that more work needs to be done to officially map out ID as a legitimate theory and I have no doubt that it can and will be done, particularly in light of our own experiences in ID with stem cell research, cloning and mutations.

I wholeheartedly agree that evolution needs to be presented as a theory rather than a fact. It's about time.

Thanks for posting that.

Fran

Fran Crimi
08-16-2005, 10:49 AM
I understand your frustration, but ID is not a religious concept. Yes, religious groups may stake claim to it and they may even support it and even try to control it, however, that's not how it will be played out in the end. It will be presented and taught as a legitimate scientific theory.

As for the Jesuits, they're no different than other scientists where everyone begins a proof with a hypothesis, and then sets out to prove it. The proof was not that God should be worshiped, or whether it was the God of Abraham or Buddah...only that a superior entitiy exists.

As for logic, if you've ever done those little logic puzzles you'd know that you can deduce the result without having all the facts, through the combined processes of inclusion and elimination.

Einstein: "Science can only be created by those who are throughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This souce of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


Fran

wolfdancer
08-16-2005, 01:50 PM
I'm hoping that there ain't no God...at least not the one depicted....After breaking 9 of the ten commendments.....it'll be pretty warm where I'm going and it'll stay warm for a long time....and God knows, I hate the heat.
Next guy that complains about the rack ad nauseum....I may just go ahead and go for a perfect 10 for 10

Big_Jon
08-16-2005, 05:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr>Ultimately the first piece of life, likely a strand of RNA, followed by DNA strands, and then single celled organisms, is the father and mother of all other life on this planet.
<hr /></blockquote>
Just one question (this really bugs me.)
Where would the RNA/DNA come from?
Did it just appear out of nowhere?
Take a look at how complex RNA/DNA strands are.
Can't you stop and think that maybe, just maybe those "building blocks" were created, by someone/something?
JMHO...

hondo
08-16-2005, 07:05 PM
Amen, Big Jon, for once you and I are in agreement.

Just one question (this really bugs me.)
Where would the RNA/DNA come from?
Did it just appear out of nowhere?
Take a look at how complex RNA/DNA strands are.
Can't you stop and think that maybe, just maybe those "building blocks" were created, by someone/something?
JMHO...

<hr /></blockquote>

theinel
08-17-2005, 12:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Big_Jon:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr>Ultimately the first piece of life, likely a strand of RNA, followed by DNA strands, and then single celled organisms, is the father and mother of all other life on this planet.
<hr /></blockquote>
Just one question (this really bugs me.)
Where would the RNA/DNA come from?
Did it just appear out of nowhere?
Take a look at how complex RNA/DNA strands are.
Can't you stop and think that maybe, just maybe those "building blocks" were created, by someone/something?
JMHO...<hr /></blockquote>
Big_Jon, yes I can stop and think, and have many times, and the same problem always presents itself. If there is an intelligent designer (I.E. God) responsible for life then where did that intelligent designer come from? Who intelligently designed the intelligent designer? If you are convinced of an intelligent designers existence do you think it pondered its own origin? This problem can never be solved and a "solution" like ID is fundamentally flawed because it purports to solve the need for intelligence with an extant intelligence and therefor offers no solution at all. Flawed logic is no logic at all. Things exist. People exist. The Universe exists. The Universe is very complex, possibly infintely complex. If you want to posit the Universe is god show me where to sign but you will never get my support, or the support of any truely rational being for ID.

There is no comparison between ID and Evolution. ID is a hope/wish/belief that seeks to satisfy an unsolvable problem. Evolution makes no attempt to solve anything more than how species change. It will forever be a theory because there are very few Laws due to a harsh requirement of Lawdom, proof. It is, however, practically undeniable based on current observations, much like gravity is still a theory yet equally undeniable.

Big_Jon
08-17-2005, 01:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Big_Jon:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr>Ultimately the first piece of life, likely a strand of RNA, followed by DNA strands, and then single celled organisms, is the father and mother of all other life on this planet.
<hr /></blockquote>
Just one question (this really bugs me.)
Where would the RNA/DNA come from?
Did it just appear out of nowhere?
Take a look at how complex RNA/DNA strands are.
Can't you stop and think that maybe, just maybe those "building blocks" were created, by someone/something?
JMHO...<hr /></blockquote>
Big_Jon, yes I can stop and think, and have many times, and the same problem always presents itself. If there is an intelligent designer (I.E. God) responsible for life then where did that intelligent designer come from? Who intelligently designed the intelligent designer? If you are convinced of an intelligent designers existence do you think it pondered its own origin? This problem can never be solved and a "solution" like ID is fundamentally flawed because it purports to solve the need for intelligence with an extant intelligence and therefor offers no solution at all. Flawed logic is no logic at all. Things exist. People exist. The Universe exists. The Universe is very complex, possibly infintely complex. If you want to posit the Universe is god show me where to sign but you will never get my support, or the support of any truely rational being for ID.

There is no comparison between ID and Evolution. ID is a hope/wish/belief that seeks to satisfy an unsolvable problem. Evolution makes no attempt to solve anything more than how species change. It will forever be a theory because there are very few Laws due to a harsh requirement of Lawdom, proof. It is, however, practically undeniable based on current observations, much like gravity is still a theory yet equally undeniable. <hr /></blockquote>
Using your logic, where did these "building blocks" come from?
Where did the Universe come from?
Let me guess... it just appeared out of nowhere?
Some cosmic dust just decided that it would get together and make a planet.
Then out of that came life?
Where did it all come from?

Gayle in MD
08-17-2005, 04:29 AM
LMAO! You always make me laugh! Pretty close to my own feelings.

When I was in school, no teacher ever referred to evolution as anything BUT a theory. It was always called, The Theory Of Evolution, so I can't see what all the fuss is about. If people want their kids to be brainwashed into thinking as they do regarding religion, and God, let them send their kids to a school of their own denomimation, and leave the public schools alone.

It really irritates me the way religion is always threatened by science, and seeks to punish and supress those who break through religious beliefs with scientific theory. What are they (Religious leaders) afraid of? I'll tell you what, they're afraid the basket will come up empty on Sunday, and they'll have to give up their cushy lifestyle.

Organized Religion is a business, and encompasses as great a capacity for corruption as any other financial endeavor, not to mention the historical link between religion and war and human suffering.

Schools should teach the Theory Of Evolution, as they always have, and leave Intelligent Design out of the discussion entirely. Until and unless organized religion can come up with some kind of viable reasonable facts, that can withstand microscopic scrutiny, it has no place in our educational arena, IMHO. All this I.D. movement to force the discussion of I.D. into our school system, is just more proof that the religious right in this country is out of hand, and in a very dangerous way. How can people protest that the Theory of Evolution is presented as fact, when the word Theory is always part of the title?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-17-2005, 04:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Schools should teach the Theory Of Evolution, as they always have, and leave Intelligent Design out of the discussion entirely. Until and unless organized religion can come up with some kind of viable reasonable facts, that can withstand microscopic scrutiny, it has no place in our educational arena, <hr /></blockquote> This is exactly what is being said about the Theory of Evolution. They ignore the beginning because they don't have facts and cannot withstand microscopic scrutiny (whatever that is). The theory of evolution as taught in schools is a guess. They include the Big Bang theory (biggest guess in the universe) as the beginnings of evolution. In the real world, evolutionists do not go back that far. The reason is because there is no fact.

I am sorry but you offer no proof, and neither does the scientific community. If you want to talk about evolution, go back to the beginning and describe how we evolved to what we are. There are no facts and their guesses cannot live up to the scrutiny.

You guys have been arguing for evolution and your basis is that ID or Creationism cannot prove their ideas with facts. I guess you got drunk on the kool aid, because evolutionists do not offer facts either, but don't let that fact get in your way. No ma'am, you keep preaching about evolution because just maybe, one day, they will find the bones of a dogcat. Don't hold your breath on them making a living organism from something non-living, they have been trying for ever, but they will feed it to the sheep in government schooling and pray the majority will believe it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Fran Crimi
08-17-2005, 07:25 AM
I studied physical anthropology in college. I remember very clearly, the chapter on evolution titled: "The Evolutionary Process of Humanoids." There was no mention of a "theory" and there was also that classic chart showing the various levels of apes with the last one on the chart being 'modern man.'

I remember thinking that it posed more questions than answers.

Fran

SPetty
08-17-2005, 05:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> ...that classic chart showing the various levels of apes with the last one on the chart being 'modern man.'<hr /></blockquote>Like this?
http://newmysticjourney.org/ape-man-line-up.gif

heater451
08-18-2005, 03:44 PM
Or this?

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/2.jpg



=========================

Gayle in MD
08-19-2005, 05:25 AM
Hi Fran,
Are you saying that in general, when you were in college, you were taught that Evolution was a proven fact. Did the teachers call it a fact, or did they refer to the Terory of evolution? A chapter title doesn't tell me how the discussion was presented to you by your professors.

Mankind has never wanted to face his mortality. Since the beginning of time, man has looked to the skies, observed the violence of nature, and the resulting loss of life, and assigned many mythological stories to everything that could not be explained. Now if we want to talk about heresay, and mythology, which is entirely what the bible is based on, we might want to discuss people living inside whales, walking on water, building arks on which two of every species on earth could fit without sinking.

If facts are what we seek, Intelligent Design doesn't even have a scientific theory involved in its philosophy as far as I know.

I personally think that religion has no place in our public schools, although I don't think the mention of God should bring about law suits and such. Being basically a libertarian, I think we should allow and respect the right for each to think as they wish, but religious philosophy should not be taught as a scientific theory, IMO.

Gayle in Md.



Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
08-19-2005, 07:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hi Fran,
Are you saying that in general, when you were in college, you were taught that Evolution was a proven fact. Did the teachers call it a fact, or did they refer to the Terory of evolution? A chapter title doesn't tell me how the discussion was presented to you by your professors. <font color="blue">No, the professor never said, "Now class, this is a fact." He also never used the word 'theory' or criticized the textbook for not stating "theory" in the text. </font color>

Mankind has never wanted to face his mortality. Since the beginning of time, man has looked to the skies, observed the violence of nature, and the resulting loss of life, and assigned many mythological stories to everything that could not be explained.
<font color="blue"> How do you know this? Are you saying they never witnessed anything and that it was all made up? </font color>


Now if we want to talk about heresay, and mythology, which is entirely what the bible is based on, we might want to discuss people living inside whales, walking on water, building arks on which two of every species on earth could fit without sinking. <font color="blue"> Hideous, isn't it? I know... and people having dreams about things to come. Can you imagine someone dreaming about something that's going to happen in the future? Impossible!</font color>

If facts are what we seek, Intelligent Design doesn't even have a scientific theory involved in its philosophy as far as I know. <font color="blue"> It's a ways from being an "official" theory, but it will be, as far as I know. </font color>

I personally think that religion has no place in our public schools, although I don't think the mention of God should bring about law suits and such.
<font color="blue">"One nation under God" is not just a "mention" of God. It's significant. </font color>

Being basically a libertarian, I think we should allow and respect the right for each to think as they wish, but religious philosophy should not be taught as a scientific theory, IMO. <font color="blue"> Then you should be against forcing students to learn anything they don't want to learn, correct? No so with the theory of evolution. I had to study it and be tested on it. First lobby to get the problem with teaching evolution corrected, then focus on your issues with ID. Hey, it's only fair.</font color>

Gayle in Md.



Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

SnakebyteXX
08-19-2005, 07:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I don't think the mention of God should bring about law suits and such.
<font color="blue">"One nation under God" is not just a "mention" of God. It's significant. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

The Pledge of Allegiance

Why we're not one nation "under God."

By David Greenberg

Poor Alfred Goodwin! So torrential was the flood of condemnation that followed his opinion—which held that it's unconstitutional for public schools to require students to recite "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance—that the beleaguered appellate-court judge suspended his own ruling until the whole 9th Circuit Court has a chance to review the case.

Not one major political figure summoned the courage to rebut the spurious claims that America's founders wished to make God a part of public life. It's an old shibboleth of those who want to inject religion into public life that they're honoring the spirit of the nation's founders. In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions. That the founders made erecting a church-state wall their first priority when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution reveals the importance they placed on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have called a "godless Constitution." When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.

<font color="blue">Given this tradition, it's not surprising that the original Pledge of Allegiance—meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith—also made no mention of God.</font color> The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, a cousin of the famous radical writer Edward Bellamy. He devised it for the popular magazine Youth's Companion on the occasion of the nation's first celebration of Columbus Day. Its wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the United States:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The key words for Bellamy were "indivisible," which recalled the Civil War and the triumph of federal union over states' rights, and "liberty and justice for all," which was supposed to strike a balance between equality and individual freedom. By the 1920s, reciting the pledge had become a ritual in many public schools.

Since the founding, critics of America's secularism have repeatedly sought to break down the church-state wall. After the Civil War, for example, some clergymen argued that the war's carnage was divine retribution for the founders' refusal to declare the United States a Christian nation, and tried to amend the Constitution to do so.

The efforts to bring God into the state reached their peak during the so-called "religious revival" of the 1950s. It was a time when Norman Vincent Peale grafted religion onto the era's feel-good consumerism in his best-selling The Power of Positive Thinking; when Billy Graham rose to fame as a Red-baiter who warned that Americans would perish in a nuclear holocaust unless they embraced Jesus Christ; when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles believed that the United States should oppose communism not because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime but because its leaders were atheists.

Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

The "under God" movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by the Rev. George M. Docherty, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon—with the president in the pew before him—arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites [sic] repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States.

The ensuing congressional speechifying—debate would be a misnomer, given the near-unanimity of opinion—offered more proof that the point of the bill was to promote religion. The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." That the nation, constitutionally speaking, was in fact dedicated to the opposite proposition seemed to escape the president.

In recent times, controversies over the pledge have centered on the wisdom of enforcing patriotism more than on its corruption from a secular oath into a religious one. In the 1988 presidential race, as many readers will recall, George Bush bludgeoned Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for vetoing a mandatory-pledge bill when he was governor of Massachusetts, even though the state Supreme Court had ruled the bill unconstitutional. Surely one reason for the current cravenness of Democratic leaders is a fear of undergoing Dukakis' fate in 2002 or 2004 at the hands of another Bush.

The history of the pledge supports Goodwin's decision. The record of the 1954 act shows that, far from a "de minimis" reference or a mere "backdrop" devoid of meaning, the words "under God" were inserted in the pledge for the express purpose of endorsing religion—which the U.S. Supreme Court itself ruled in 1971 was unconstitutional. Also according to the Supreme Court's own rulings, it doesn't matter that students are allowed to refrain from saying the pledge; a 2000 high court opinion held that voluntary, student-led prayers at school football games are unconstitutionally "coercive," because they force students into an unacceptable position of either proclaiming religious beliefs they don't share or publicly protesting.

The appeals court decision came almost 40 years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the court ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to allow prayer, even though the prayer was non-denominational and students were allowed abstain from the exercise. When asked about the unpopular decision, President John F. Kennedy replied coolly that he knew many people were angry, but that the decisions of the court had to be respected. He added that there was "a very easy remedy"—not a constitutional amendment but a renewed commitment by Americans to pray at home, in their churches, and with their families.

David Greenberg writes the "History Lesson" column and teaches at Rutgers University. He is the author of Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image.

web page (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499)

wolfdancer
08-19-2005, 08:07 AM
an interesting read, thanks!

Qtec
08-19-2005, 09:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
All the books tell you everything began with gases, so if you are an evolutionist then common sense would tell you, living matter had to evolve from non-living matter. <hr /></blockquote>

Ed, every living thing is made of non-living matter!
Q

Qtec
08-19-2005, 09:50 AM
Evolution in action.

[ QUOTE ]

Giant mice eat rare seabirds alive
By Mark Henderson, Correspondent



GIANT mice are causing an ecological disaster on a South Atlantic island by eating the chicks of the endangered sea birds that nest there.
More than a million albatross, shearwater and petrel chicks are being killed each year on Gough Island, eaten alive by overgrown rodents, scientists said yesterday.



Though the mice are three times larger than their European cousins, weighing as much as 1.41oz (40g), they are dwarfed by the fledgeling sea birds that have become their prey. An albatross chick weighs up to 22lb, some 250 times the weight of the rodents.

The birds, however, are virtually immobile and must be protected from attack by adults, who spend many hours away fishing for food. The mice gnaw the live chicks, their wounds become infected and they die. “It is like a tabby cat attacking a hippopotamus,” said Geoff Hilton, a senior research biologist with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

“We think there are about 700,000 mice, which have somehow learnt to eat chicks alive — much like blue tits learned to peck [through] milk bottle tops.

“Gough Island hosts an astonishing community of seabirds and this catastrophe could make many extinct within decades.”


<hr /></blockquote>

In a short space of time, these mice have grown to 3 times their normal size and have becomes carniverous !

It just goes to show how finely balanced Nature is.

Q

eg8r
08-19-2005, 11:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, every living thing is made of non-living matter!
<hr /></blockquote> Since you are struggling to grasp the concept or are just wanting to argue, let me clear up this childish game for you...Until scientists are able to assemble a complex group of non-living matter and make it living they will have no proof. If they cannot prove it can be done, then it is a guess, a religion. Apparently you have bought into it.

eg8r

eg8r
08-19-2005, 12:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In a short space of time, these mice have grown to 3 times their normal size and have becomes carniverous !

It just goes to show how finely balanced Nature is. <hr /></blockquote> Maybe this is a good time for you to google up the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Once you get a good understand of the two you will probably find that Creationism and ID agree with microevolution. Macroevolution is what evolutionists have a tough time proving.

Surely, once you have an understanding of the not-so-subtle differences you will refrain from referring to things both sides agree on as those references do nothing for your defense.

I always thoughts rats were carnivorous, or more appropriately without preference. I thought they just ate whatever was around, plants, garbage, and whatever else might be crawling around with them. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-19-2005, 07:55 PM
Hi again Fran,

Obviously, your professor made a huge mistake. Evolution is a theory, and in my experience, is presented as a theory, but it is a theory which is widely accepted by the scientific community.

I am saying that religious teachings are based in heresay, there is no proof. The bible is nothing more than a record of what people have said. People once said that the world was flat.

Fran, I too have had premonitions which later came true. I call that instinct. There was a time in Salem Mass., when we would have been burned at the stake for our premonitions, and denounced by the religious folks there as being witches. I don't have an explanation for such occurances. I also don't assign religious overtones to events which I can't explain. The book, "The Power Of Myth" by Joseph Campbell is a great read, BTW, and addresses the ways in which man, in his need to explain the unexplainable, assigns religious overtones to mythology.

LOL, no, I'm not against forcing students to learn things they don't want to learn, in fact, we should force them to learn a lot more than they already have to learn.

I don't think that teaching the theory of evolution to students should be a problem for people. The question is why is it a problem for Some people. If people want their kids to be taught from their own religious perspective, there are religious schools where they can send their kids. Our public educational system, on the other hand, must address the fact that not all people believe in the same God, or any God. You weren't forced in college to Believe in the Theory Of Evolution, only expected to understand it. You were there of your own free will, right? You were expected, I am sure, to learn about quite a number of things which you didn't want to have to learn about, so what's the reason why learning about evolution offended you? The answer can only be that it offended you because it threatened your religious belief system, correct? How do we as a society design our educational system so that it takes into account every single students' religious belief system. It is impossible. When science contradicts religion, must we ignore science in order not to offend religion?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-19-2005, 08:07 PM
Ditto!

Sid_Vicious
08-19-2005, 08:52 PM
That is the most balanced presentation concerning each of our "intended reasoning skills" I believe that I've ever heard Gayle. JM2C and I'm stickin' to it.

Qtec
08-19-2005, 10:04 PM
Maybe you should Google up the difference between Creationism and ID.

[ QUOTE ]
"Creation science seeks to validate a literal interpretation of creation as contained in the book of Genesis," they explained. "An ID proponent recognizes that ID theory may be disproved by new evidence. ID is like a large tent under which many religious and nonreligious origins theories may find a home. ID proposes nothing more than that life and its diversity were the product of an intelligence with power to manipulate matter and energy."
<hr /></blockquote>

What they are really saying is that humans are 'special' and the only reason they are saying this is because of religous beliefs, nothing else.

[ QUOTE ]
Macroevolution is what evolutionists have a tough time proving <hr /></blockquote>
Of course they do. How can you prove something that happened billions of years ago! Before man landed on the moon, it would be difficult to prove that it was not made of cheese! The fact is, the IDists cant prove that the T of E is wrong. In fact, they cant prove ANY of their claims.

Q

Qtec
08-19-2005, 10:12 PM
What its really all about.

The Wedge Strategy.
[ QUOTE ]
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

<hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html)
Q

Fran Crimi
08-19-2005, 10:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
You weren't forced in college to Believe in the Theory Of Evolution, only expected to understand it. You were there of your own free will, right? You were expected, I am sure, to learn about quite a number of things which you didn't want to have to learn about, so what's the reason why learning about evolution offended you? The answer can only be that it offended you because it threatened your religious belief system, correct?
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> ....well I'll be a monkey's uncle...


Fran </font color>

Gayle in MD
08-20-2005, 06:41 AM
LOL, I always enjoy a debate with you, friend. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
08-20-2005, 06:50 AM
Thanks kiddo, glad you liked it....How's it going friend??

Gayle