[Heath Sherratt]

Here's another for you to consider.

Why the Secular Left Despise the Christian Right
by Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson

Many people in the Evangelical Christian community fail to understand the true underlying cause of the Secular Left’s antagonism for the Christian Right of America. Many Christians assume it is because of our opposition to abortion, or the homosexual lifestyle, or our desire for alternative theories to evolution to be taught in the classroom; and while all of these are related to the Secular Left’s vitriol, none of them strike to the core of the matter. No, there is a much deeper and far less recognized cause for the Secular Left’s animosity for the Evangelical Christian community.

What lies at the heart of the division between the Secular Left and the Christian Right in America is a debate over the nature of truth. Evangelical Christians believe that truth is objective and universal, which means that there is absolute truth which applies to all people, in all cultures, for all times. Evangelicals recognize that this objective and absolute truth is found ultimately in the one true God of the universe and in His revelation given to us personally in Jesus Christ and in the Bible. As a result of God having revealed absolute truth to humanity, Evangelical Christians believe that lives and societies are best governed by adhering to the principles and guidelines that God has given. After all, when an omniscient (all-knowing) and loving God personally reveals Himself and the correct path for humans to follow, it only makes sense to hold fast to His guidance. And it is the Evangelical insistence on adhering to God’s absolute truth found in His word that stokes the Secular Left’s ire.

To the contrary, the Secular Left in America is guided by a far different understanding of truth. For them, truth is no more than a social construction of reality. This means that reality has no inherent structure or meaning and there is no objective truth that humanity can discover. Instead, the Secular Left in our world has adopted a postmodern view of truth that declares that individuals and societies impose their own meaning and truth onto reality. Thus, for them, truth is relative. Truth is relative to individuals, to social groups, to cultures, and to religions. And it is this postmodern view of truth that has created the wedge of animosity between the Secular Left and the Christian Right.

As a result of their denial of objective truth and their belief that truth is relative, the Secular Left has adopted a deconstructionist approach to history and traditional worldviews, and specifically towards the absolutes of Christianity. The common claim brought by the various proponents of the Secular Left’s agenda is that “Christianity” has historically led to violence, repression, and conquest; and they will list a long series of historical abuses as evidence*. As a result of these so-called “Christian” abuses towards non-Christian people and cultures, the Secular Left’s postmodern worldview has determined that we must now highlight and give preference to the historically marginalized and mistreated.

While highlighting marginalized people groups is a noble goal, the Secular Left does not stop here. Once again, as a result of their postmodern view of truth, the Secular Left makes an amazing leap at this point. They claim that not only should we recognize and highlight these historically marginalized people and cultures, but the leap that is made is that these marginalized people, cultures, lifestyles, and religions are actually equal to, or even preferable to the traditional Christian worldview. Thus, we see the Secular Left’s embrace of every non-Christian lifestyle, choice, and religion as normative: homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, even Muslim terrorists.

It all boils down to the nature of truth. The Christian Right has remained steadfast in our adherence to the objective truths and standards set forth in God’s word. Thus, we oppose homosexual marriage, we stand on the side of the unborn and we believe that Religions that promote the killing and suppression of those opposed to them are evil. Evangelicals are guided by God’s objective and absolute truths; and it is for this stance that the Secular Left despises us.

Christian brothers and sisters, we must be vigorously engaged in this cultural debate over the nature of truth. The future of our country and our world is at stake. Our engagement in this debate is a thoroughly Christian pursuit; in fact, God’s word admonishes us to contend for the faith, to contend for the truth (Jude 3). At the same time, while we debate passionately, we must do so with a Christ-like “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). The way of the Master is to stand for the truth in love. While we are right to defend the truth, point out sinfulness, and label right from wrong, we must do so with an attitude of humility and love. If we do this, we will be faithful to the truth and to the example of standing for the truth left to us by our Master, Jesus Christ.

*Everyone, even the Evangelical Christians with whom they most identify these abuses, readily acknowledges the fact that historical abuses have taken place in the name of Christianity. What they fail to recognize however, is that nowhere in God’s Word (once again, the “absolutes” for Christians) do you find the sanction for these historical abuses.

©2005 Christian Ministries International, Inc.
der...

 

[DRB]

Did you even read it?

Its an article about debunking intelligent design. I could careless how to do that.

You mentioned scientific fact in support of intelligent design. I asked for those facts. Still haven't seen those.

So I guess what you are saying is that you can't produce these scientific facts you mentioned.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Its an article about debunking intelligent design. I could careless how to do that.

You mentioned scientific fact in support of intelligent design. I asked for those facts. Still haven't seen those.

So I guess what you are saying is that you can't produce these scientific facts you mentioned.

It would do you some good to actually read the responses to your questions.

 

[Transcend]

Um you still haven't provided a single fact, just basic editorial drivel by highly motivated religious nutters. There are no references, no sources and least of all, no scientific fact. Quoting the bible BTW, doesn't count. It isn't a verifiable source.

ID is NOT scientifically test-able (is that a word?). Period.

If you want to teach it, fine. I for one, support expanding the minds of today's youth.

Teach it in a religion class at MD mentioned, along with Bhuddism, Islam and the rest of the world's religions. You do NOT teach it as scientific fact, as it isn't. Chemistry is science, religion is not.

Let the youth of America decide what is Bs and what is not, or is that too dangerous for the religious right to consider?

 

[DRB]

It would do you some good to actually read the responses to your questions.

My one and only question is where are your scientific facts in support of intelligent design. None of the cut and pasting you did provide any of those facts.

 

[sanjuro]

I think the discussion of absolute truths is what bother me. The secular left in some ways are making it up as we go along. Things change, and our society should reflect that.

Christian values are not the same values as Jews, Muslims, or Catholics. I respect them all, which might make me a heretic in the Christian "absolute value" world.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Science is observation and experimentation. If I can observe the Bible and experiment and find it is one hundred percent acurate historicaly, geographically, Factualy. Then it would concur, scientifically that it is a fact. By experimentation and by observation.
Scientific. Fact. Scientific fact.

DRB...you missed this one.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

“One of the absurdities of materialism [the belief that nothing exists except the material] is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms.” Phillip E. Johnson, “The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: Its History, Strategy, and Agenda,” Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 5.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

“Behind Darwin’s discomfiture [on how the human brain evolved] was the dawning realization that the evolution of the brain vastly exceeded the needs of prehistoric man. This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use.” Richard M. Restak, The Brain: The Last Frontier (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979), p. 59.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

“But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 313.

 

[DRB]

DRB...you missed this one.

No I didn't miss it. It just doesn't make any sense in regards to ID.

It's interesting that you bring up the Bible as a source for Intelligent Design. I'm pretty familar with the Bible. I've even have it sitting right here because something puzzles me. Exactly where in the Bible does it mention Intelligent Design? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved.a One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their 139 known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false.b [See Figure 21.] According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards.c

Backward Orbits. All 139 moons in the solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense, but more than 30 have backward orbits.d Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits. The orbit of each of these 139 moons should lie in the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits.e

Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun.f

 

[Heath Sherratt]

No I didn't miss it. It just doesn't make any sense in regards to ID.

It's interesting that you bring up the Bible as a source for Intelligent Design. I'm pretty familar with the Bible. I've even have it sitting right here because something puzzles me. Exactly where in the Bible does it mention Intelligent Design? I'm not seeing it.

The same as a drug addict can't see the damage doing drugs does. They don't want to see it. The Bible is filled from the first page to the final with the reports of a loving and devoted God that created us in His image. Interestingly enough, Christ says"those who have ears to hear let them hear. And those who have eyes to see will see."

 

[DRB]

The same as a drug addict can't see the damage doing drugs does. They don't want to see it. The Bible is filled from the first page to the final with the reports of a loving and devoted God that created us in His image. Interestingly enough, Christ says"those who have ears to hear let them hear. And those who have eyes to see will see."

It says he did it but nowhere does he say how he created any of it.

It seems to me that you don't even believe in Intelligent Design.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?



Figure 137: Causes and Effects. Each arrow’s tail represents a cause, and each yellow circle represents an effect. The arrow itself is the cause-to-effect relationship. Yellow circles also represent scientific evidence that to most people suggests a creation and a global flood. All of us, including students, should be free to reach our own conclusions about origins after learning the evidence and all reasonable explanations. Withholding that information in schools or misrepresenting it in the media is inexcusable.

The first cause appears to be supernatural, or beyond the natural (blue area). Evolutionists often say the yellow circles and their scientific implications cannot be presented in science classrooms, because the first cause (red circle) is supernatural. Subjects outside the natural (including biblical descriptions of creation and the flood that are so consistent with the physical evidence) are inappropriate for publicly financed science education. However, excluding what is observable and verifiable in nature, along with possible causes, is bad science, misleading, and censorship. Creation science, then, is the study of this scientific evidence.



Let me define science.

science: A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide great insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. [See Items 53 and 55 beginning on page 27.]

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.

scientific evidence: Something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena.

All evidence in Part I of this book is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. [See Part II.]

Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists’ refusal to debate this subject (see page 341) and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations.

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.” Of course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. [See Figure 154 on page 334 and the paragraph preceding that figure.] Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of the flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood (given on page 110), but in science, all starting points are available. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science. Please.

 

[DRB]

Wow you have done a lot research. How many books have you written? I assume that since you aren't sourcing any of this that you must be the author of them.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

It says he did it but nowhere does he say how he created any of it.

It seems to me that you don't even believe in Intelligent Design.

Actually it says He spoke it into being and used the dust of the earth.
Which by the way has every element in it the Human body does.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Wow you have done a lot research. How many books have you written? I assume that since you aren't sourcing any of this that you must be the author of them.

Way to detract from the content.
Here's your sources. www.creationscience.com

 

[Transcend]

Actually it says He spoke it into being and used the dust of the earth.
Which by the way has every element in it the Human body does.

And the dust ended up here, how? And the Earth ended up here, how?

Sorry, quoting religious texts does NOT constitute fact. Quoting recreateable, scientific experiments/research and phenomenons does. I could have quoted mary poppins in my political dissertations for school, I would have failed miserably.

The bible is a bastardized text translated umpteen times into many different languages, from various authors of questionable authenticity. It doesn't count either.

Find a nice peer reviewed journal, that shows, in a recreateable manner (at least theoretically) how ID created everything. Then I will believe you and agree it should be taught in science class, the same way chemistry and physics can be.

Until then, go back to religion class.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

And the dust ended up here, how? And the Earth ended up here, how?

Sorry, quoting religious texts does NOT constitute fact. Quoting recreateable, scientific experiments/research and phenomenons does. I could have quoted mary poppins in my political dissertations for school, I would have failed miserably.

The bible is a bastardized text translated umpteen times into many different languages, from various authors of questionable authenticity. It doesn't count either.

Find a nice peer reviewed journal, that shows, in a recreateable manner (at least theoretically) how ID created everything. Then I will believe you and agree it should be taught in science class, the same way chemistry and physics can be.

Until then, go back to religion class.

I read your posts, why don't you read mine?

 

[Transcend]

I read your posts, why don't you read mine?

Oh I read them - the funny part about ID is that it's "scientists" don't attempt to prove their own theories, they attempt to disprove others.

Trying to say that you have a proper scientific theory, where the initial cause can't be studied scientifically is garbage. Sorry, that is the religious right grasping at straws because they know full well they don't stand a chance.

At least evolutionary theory is based on facts (albeit still a theory). Creationism and the like is based on fairy tales and pixie dust.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Wow, you are ignorant. Not only are you ignoring the posts, you continue to bash and speak negatively towards me. You have not "proven" anything you believe or even contributed to this post. You have simply criticized and spouted opinion. The thread is here to talk about why Creation should be taught in schools along with evolution. I am not bashing evolution, just stating why i believe what I believe and asking otheres to refute my evidence with something arguable at least and possibly even with their own beliefs. I am not here to be talked down to or to get in school yard name calling. Ebully, Appropriate.

 

[Transcend]

Wow, you are ignorant.

Ha, nice try, pal.

You should, however, mention that to most of the right wing religious zealous who want ID taught in science class.

Again; Pot, meet kettle.

 

[GumbaFish]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Give me evidence of one species turning into another.

I think that is outlined pretty clearly in the Origin of Species, you might want to re-read it..then again "those without eyes can not see"
Have you ever studied any kind of population ecology or dynamics? Do you believe dinosaurs existed, or do they call those Jesus horses in the Bible..or are they not mentioned at all in the Bible. Why can we find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old but we cant positively find the burial place of Jesus? There is too much to even mention so I guess I am done.

 

[MikeD]

Finally, a third strategy used by the Secularists to write off Intelligent Design is the tactic of stating that Intelligent Design is a philosophical or faith position and therefore does not belong in the realm of scientific debate and inquiry. This strategy contains the same flaws of the two false strategy’s mentioned above, but includes the additional flaw of failing to recognize the philosophical nature of their own, Secularist position. Secularism and its theory of naturalistic evolution are just as much of a philosophical or faith position as is Intelligent Design. No matter how “scientific” Secularists claim naturalistic evolution to be, the fact remains that when we are dealing with the question of origins, we are dealing with philosophical propositions. Science is based on observation and experimentation; and since nobody was around to observe the origin of life, and since it has not and cannot be replicated in experimentation, we are therefore dealing in the realm of philosophical speculation, not science.

Heath, no one's denying the speculative or philosophical nature of science. What we're saying is that ID is outside the framework of the particular philosophical framework that's self-declared by science to be science.

Science is inherently self-defined.

As to your other point about you 'observing and experimenting on' the bible, I'd like to see some concrete examples of how you'd do that. Heck, I'd like to see some concrete examples of how you observe and experiment on any text using the (self-defined) scientific method to prove their scientific veracity.

Finally, in terms of there being things science can't explain [in a separate post]...yeah, there are lots. Science is always changing, learning, refining and redefining itself and the way it constructs our world. And it's inherently accepting of its own shortcomings and never claims to know all the answers if it's practiced properly. It's a search, not a static document or blueprint or singular answer to everything. (which is how some people would like to use the Bible, no?)

To use oddities which science has failed to explain as some sort of proof ID is correct is totally bizarre. "Because some planets spin in the opposite direction than one would expect using current scientific wisdom [an unsubstantiated claim, btw], the universe must have been designed by an intelligent creator..." What kind of sense does that make? Just because some science is wrong or incomplete doesn't mean ID is right...this isn't a polar relationship. How is it that shortcomings in human knowledge prove the existence of an intelligent designer?


And science isn't a search for absolute truth, as much as some scientists would like to think otherwise. (much like any religion isn't an absolute truth; they're conventions of man...we as limited beings simply can't comprehend an infinite concept using logic, which is what God and any sort of truth are and I personally think enlightenment consists of a visceral, non-intellectual understanding of this limitation which opens us to experience the absolute...not understand it, mind you...but that's a different debate, sorry.)

Science is a search for particular answers to particular questions through a particular and limited framework, and it's useful and produces bridges that don't fall down (at least too often) and products we can use and aircraft we can fly in...things for which I'm quite thankful...but it's not a spiritual endeavor much as spiritual endeavors aren't science. Those who search for meaning in it instead of utility are going to have problems. Then again, those who search for utility in their religion can have problems, too.

Are some religious people so threatened by science that they have to fight it at every turn? Must they seek to infuse their belief into all public discourse? Can they not abide the existence of other ways of thinking or coexist with them?

And Heath, as you're a smart guy, it'd be nice to hear some original thoughts instead of N8-and-pastes from some (seemingly misinformed) websites.

MD

 

[MikeD]

Oh I read them - the funny part about ID is that it's "scientists" don't attempt to prove their own theories, they attempt to disprove others.

This is sort of a point I was trying to make...simply because one thing has holes doesn't necessarily prove another.

Science is based on positive concepts.

 

[H8R]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Give me evidence of one species turning into another.

It's called "mutation"...look it up.

 

[jaydee]

Science is observation and experimentation. If I can observe the Bible and experiment and find it is one hundred percent acurate historicaly, geographically, Factualy. Then it would concur, scientifically that it is a fact. By experimentation and by observation.
Scientific. Fact. Scientific fact.

That is facile pseudo-scientific gibberish. The bible is an artifact (i.e. man-made). The only provable fact about it is that it does exist. Why not observe "The Origin of Species"? It is historically, geographically, and factually much more accurate than the bible. Darwin did back up his hypotheses with observation and fact. The fact that some ancient pre-scientific age shamans wrote that god created man in his own image and that he cooked up the universe in 6 days does not offer any proof to the statements.

You may need to get off the party line and put some serious thought of your own into these matters. I'm quite happy to see people that have faith in their beliefs, faith being defined as belief in the total absence of evidence. But I don't like to see them claiming that there is a factual basis to these beliefs and injecting them into the minds of children, who are not yet able to determine which information is valid and make informed decisions. This preaching just recreates people who can't/won't/are scared to look beyond the catechism for ideas and guidance. Pardon my rudeness, but I was brought up in Catholic schools and had to make a colossal effort to maintain my own mind throughout the attempted indoctrination process.

 

[H8R]

Actually you use something in science called deductive reasoning.
I.E. If you have a lawnmower, you probably have a lawn. If you have a lawn you probably have a house. If you have a house you probably have a mortgage. If you have a mortgage you probably have a wife. If you have no lawnmower you are probably gay.

...and if I find an egg, there IS an Easter Bunny.

or,

If I get a present, there IS a Santa Claus.


No one has the answers. NO ONE. We are alone on this rock in our ignorance. It's all amazing, yes, it all looks really cool to us from here. So amazing in fact, that in our typical human egotistical way, we say, "This must be the work of a higher being, one that we are made in the image of..."

It makes us feel better to think that all this chaos was created by some big guy who loves us.

I don't buy it. As much as I don't buy alot of what science is telling us that is "real". But it makes alot more sense that just believing for the sake of belief.

So...SHOW US THE SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT BACKS UP WHAT ID CLAIMS.

 

[H8R]

BTW I have a push mower. No wimpy gas or electric here.

 

[Transcend]

Nice, personally I stick with scissors.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

I think that is outlined pretty clearly in the Origin of Species, you might want to re-read it..then again "those without eyes can not see"
Have you ever studied any kind of population ecology or dynamics? Do you believe dinosaurs existed, or do they call those Jesus horses in the Bible..or are they not mentioned at all in the Bible. Why can we find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old but we cant positively find the burial place of Jesus? There is too much to even mention so I guess I am done.

Actually dinosaurs may have a place in the scheme of things. Lizrds never stop growing. Common knowledge. But what is not common is that the earths atmosphere used to be incredibly thick and it never rained until Noahs day. the plants were watered by springs and condensation, like the effect of a greehouse. If that is true then it would also be true that the length of life would be longer because the negative aging effects of the sun would be negated. Thus allowing lizards to live tens, maybe hundreds of years longer allowing them to grow into "terrible lizards". It is also written throughout this time in the bible that men did live hundreds of years so this does line up with scripture and with dinosaurs. Why were they never mentioned past Genesis? neither were elephants, they simply weren't relevant to the message.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

It's called "mutation"...look it up.

Please do...and then show me where and when and I'll be glad to read it. As for all the studying I have done to prove evolution, I was left wanting. But when I set out to disprove the existence of God and that Christ was a phony I found I was wrong. Why don't you give it a shot?

 

[Heath Sherratt]

That is facile pseudo-scientific gibberish. The bible is an artifact (i.e. man-made). The only provable fact about it is that it does exist. Why not observe "The Origin of Species"? It is historically, geographically, and factually much more accurate than the bible. Darwin did back up his hypotheses with observation and fact. The fact that some ancient pre-scientific age shamans wrote that god created man in his own image and that he cooked up the universe in 6 days does not offer any proof to the statements.

You may need to get off the party line and put some serious thought of your own into these matters. I'm quite happy to see people that have faith in their beliefs, faith being defined as belief in the total absence of evidence. But I don't like to see them claiming that there is a factual basis to these beliefs and injecting them into the minds of children, who are not yet able to determine which information is valid and make informed decisions. This preaching just recreates people who can't/won't/are scared to look beyond the catechism for ideas and guidance. Pardon my rudeness, but I was brought up in Catholic schools and had to make a colossal effort to maintain my own mind throughout the attempted indoctrination process.

Hi jaydee, I think you meant to say something else but you really said that the Bible is not historically correct? or geographically? what are you basing this on?...I think I know what you meant but just to clarify...
The Bible is actually 66 books, written by 40 different authors from 3 different continents, over a period of 4000 years. There were 300 prophecies made about the coming messiah-Jesus Christ-also known as Yeshua Bon Joseph. Mathematically, if you were to have him fulfill even just 8 of those prophecies you would have the same chance as someone filling the state of Texas with silver dollars so that the ground was covered three feet thick. Then you take one silver dollar, mark it with an x and throw it randomly into the sea of dollars and then blindfoldong the guy, spinning him around and dropping him somewhere in the mess and having him finding it on the first try. That's just eight of them, Yeshua fulfilled all 300. Some of them before he could even walk. Oh, and by the way, catholics aren't Christian.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

...and if I find an egg, there IS an Easter Bunny.

or,

If I get a present, there IS a Santa Claus.


No one has the answers. NO ONE. We are alone on this rock in our ignorance. It's all amazing, yes, it all looks really cool to us from here. So amazing in fact, that in our typical human egotistical way, we say, "This must be the work of a higher being, one that we are made in the image of..."

It makes us feel better to think that all this chaos was created by some big guy who loves us.

I don't buy it. As much as I don't buy alot of what science is telling us that is "real". But it makes alot more sense that just believing for the sake of belief.

So...SHOW US THE SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT BACKS UP WHAT ID CLAIMS.

Hi hater, this thread isn't here to prove anything. Just to debate about why one theory should be exalted over the other. I have stated my beliefs and why I belive them. You have not, nor anyone else on the side of evolution. Nor has anyone explained the reason evolution should be taught at all.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

I think that is outlined pretty clearly in the Origin of Species, you might want to re-read it..then again "those without eyes can not see"
Have you ever studied any kind of population ecology or dynamics? Do you believe dinosaurs existed, or do they call those Jesus horses in the Bible..or are they not mentioned at all in the Bible. Why can we find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old but we cant positively find the burial place of Jesus? There is too much to even mention so I guess I am done.

Actually in Life:Origin and evolution Dr. Wald winner of the Nobel Prize wrote "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaeous generation of a living organism is impossible." He also wrote that Louis Pateur disproved spontaneous generation in 1860. Wald is the profeesor of Biology at Harvard. Biogenisi is the basic axiom of biology. Biogenisis means that life only arises from life. It does not come from non-living matter! So technically, the evolutionist must have faith that, contrary to proven laws of biology, somehow it still occured!.

 

[H8R]

Nice, personally I stick with scissors.

Pvssy.

:nuts:

 

[H8R]

When will you heathens get it right?

I missed this post.

Heath, you're an ass.

I'm outta the discussion, and you're on "ignore" Mr. High N Mighty.




"God, please save us all from your followers..."

 

[Toshi]

Actually in Life:Origin and evolution Dr. Wald winner of the Nobel Prize wrote "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaeous generation of a living organism is impossible." He also wrote that Louis Pateur disproved spontaneous generation in 1860. Wald is the profeesor of Biology at Harvard. Biogenisi is the basic axiom of biology. Biogenisis means that life only arises from life. It does not come from non-living matter! So technically, the evolutionist must have faith that, contrary to proven laws of biology, somehow it still occured!.

1) one smart person does not truth make
2) Dr. Wald was a professor of biology at harvard until 1977 (source here), not "the professor of Biology at Harvard". it's little things like this that aren't quite true that the religious right seem to abuse
3) don't conflate the unresolved question of how life arose with that of the validity of evolution.

i think that needs repeating:

don't conflate the unresolved question of how life arose with that of the validity of evolution. or, in other words, stop bringing up irrelevant stuff and address the issue directly: what evidence is there outside of human-produced texts such as the bible -- let alone propaganda websites -- that supports intelligent design rather than points out (whether correctly or not) holes in the current scientific understanding of the world?

 

[Transcend]

Haven't you guys realized yet? I don't normally make broad generalizations, but the fanatical religious right is 90% the same...when faced with facts, they start name calling, grasping at straws and trying to PROVE their theory by DISPROVING others...this isn't how science works.

You absolutely cannot reason with them, so I just bide my time and try and infuriate them. It is great fun, and is the only reason heath isn't on my ignore list yet.