International opinions: USA on science!

Welcome to EvC forum. Let me start off by stating that your post was inoffensive. You've done a great job of stating your opinion without being overtly offensive. However, I am a creationist and an American. I'm also a Christian, white, male, and therefore I'm the scourge of the earth by default. That's the worst thing on earth according to popular concensus. How fortunate for me, eh? I think in spite of these faults, most of which were beyond my control, perhaps you and I can establish a dialogue to help understand why creationists believe as they do.I guess I'd have to first ask why creationism poses such a menacing threat to you. The way you made it sound was as if creationism is worse than a neutron bomb exploding in Oslo. You see the growing popularity in creationism as going backwards. Backwards in what regards? In science? In the belief that there just might be a Creator? Is it an inherent aversion towards religion? Is religion an archaic thing to you only worthy of ignorant and/or less evolved simians, such as creationist-christian-white-American-males? Oh, I'm also a Republican too. Man, its just getting worse for me. I'm slightly higher than a paramecium in some peoples eyes.... but not by much.Anyway, I have to first ask those questions in order to establish a dialogue worth having. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

First let me to thank you for a prompt and thorough response. As am I. I think there are only a handful of acting scientists on EvC. Most people are simply enraptured with the sciences but are outside of currently working in the field. I assume that was a jab at Michael Behe and all the proponents who belive that bacterial flagellum is indicative of something being, as he calls, "irreducibly complex." I happen to agree with Behe being that it would certainly seem that nature manifests the design of a preexistent cognizance. Just with flagella alone we would have to consider all of its contrivances and how they are harmoniously configured towards a central function. I feel that a purely naturalistic explanation demonizes intuition and balks progress. Naturalism alone is an obscurant which stands in the way of science, in my opinion. Perhaps we can speak more in depth about that in a more relevant topic. Well, it sounds as if your bone to pick with religion is man and his penchant for doing the wrong the thing. I happen to share your belief in this regard, but extend it a bit further to say that, religiosity gets in the way of legitimate worship. But I can't seem to make the connection from religion and war. I seem to make a much broader connection that cuts to the heart of man. I find this connection especially easy to make in light of the existance of such monsters as Stalin, Lenin, Tse-Tung, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc... {all athiests}. How would know either way what was going through anyone's mind thousands of years ago? Aren't you simply assuming what you think they might have surmised? I mean, at the end of the day, more than half of biological history is supported by mere inference. "Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race."

​

In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man." -TacitusI think you need to re-research history and understand that it isn't religion that causes people to persecute other people, its man's sinful and fallen nature. And whether it comes under the guise of religion or of science or of any other attempted justification, only God will judge us on those actions. Odly enough, in the middle ages Jews seemed to be immune to such things like the black plague that swept through Europe. Consequently, they were demonized by pagans over it as if they had made a pact with some evil spirit, when in reality, it was their cleanliness and their observance to the dietary laws that prevented them from getting sick. They were largely unharmed because they followed God's law. We know now how much medicinal benefit there is in that. So I suppose it goes both ways. Science itself is neutral, but most unfortunately, it isn't so for the ones interpreting it. The polarization is clear that on one side we have a group who seeks to explain the natural world around them through the magnificence of God, and on the other end of the spectrum, we have group of people who seek to eradicate the notion of God by the natural world around them. Darwin did nothing of the sort. Most of Charles' work was an extrapolation off the works of his grandfather, Erasmus. In any case, even the Greeks dabbled with the notion of evoluton, however, after being rejected by Aristotle it faded into obscurity. The point being that man has always had a tendency to shy away from the notion or the need for a Creator to necessitate and oversee all of the physical world. You don't have to apologize for your opinions, but i appreciate your candor. I think the theory of evolution is nonsense and I think its an affront to force children to study something without any alternative, especially when so much of the theory lacks any real substance. the entire theory is built upon inference. I think that any child should be exposed to many different possible explanations and have them draw their own conclusion based upon the evidence, or lack thereof. That's interesting that you mention that because I have to ask how much exposure you have had with ID. Have you made an honest inquiry on the matter or have you heard from second and thirdhand sources that proponents of ID want to read from Genesis? In other words, do you really understand what ID in order for you to make honest assessment? Being that ID has now achieved parity with ToE in the mainstream, it obviously has gained its success through science. Why you think that ID'ers want to eradicate science is beyond me. This apparent belief you hold to is what makes me question what you know about it. For as impossible some that seems to you, it is equally, if not more impossible for me to believe that everything derives from nothing, and that complex organisms and ecosystems can arrive and propagate successfully via mutation and natural selection. Its absolutely absurd to me when looking at all of what life is from a holistic point of view. I suspect that some part of you knows that there is something existentially cognizant, but perhaps you are aware that if such a Being exists, then you are actually going to be accountable for your actions. I think this is more than obvious for some of your contemporaries. Being that people talk about God whether good or bad is a fact that its an important topic. On some level, some of this sinking in. People don't talk about that which is boring and nonsensical. This forum is devoted to such topics. So, on some level you'd have to admit that creation theory has some merit, otherwise, why would there be such an outpouring over nothing at all? I couldn't agree more. You are one of few to actually admit that to yourself. Whether we are atheistic or theistic, religious notions obviously has some sort of significance that has yet to have been explained by any naturalistic explanations. This begs the question, if there is no greater purpose to life, then why or how do humans have notions of morality? What about Darwin's theory is worth living? Why not just "be"? Why can't humans just exist without any cares? Why do we feel the sting of despair or feel overjoyed with a sense of adulation if there was not something beyond the act of feeling it, itself? You know, I used to be an athiest... well, an Agnostic. After resisting for 24 years, I finally was bestowed some revelation, an epiphany of sorts. Any attempt to rationalize it would just not suffice. But this prompted me to reexamine the questions I had asked before. The point being, I've been on both sides of the coin and I truly do understand the athiestic mind. Believe me, I get it. I really do. You asked me about trusting an athiest. I don't adherently distrust athiests. So many friends and coworkers are athiests. I don't flmae them over this. I don't preach to them. I let them be until they ask specific questions. But one has to ask what worth there is "trusting" a person who has absolutely no moral compass to traverse life. If lying is wrong, then why? If there is such a thing as morals, then who sets the standard?You also stated that you don't recieve information from ancient manuscripts who wrote it before they knew nothing about anything. Um, that's just ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people 5,000 years ago were somehow less intelligent? I hope that isn't the case because you'd fail miserably in trying to prove your case. But, you do have treasured tomes, most notably, "Origins." That is the cherished athiestic manual, as well as the Humanist Manifesto, among others.Oh well... That was my rather messy and lengthy rant on that. Come to think of it, many scientists say the "debate" about ID should not waste intellectual resources, it should rather be ignored. After gettin emotional on the issue myselfe, I see their point. You're just asserting your point of view. I hope I was able to convey my message to you that it might prompt you to investigate why creationists feel justified for their beliefs, both scientifically and theologically.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Jar, if I'm misrepresenting that evolution is at the base level an atheistic excuse, then you must misrepresenting that creationism represents a religious view. Look at how many proponents of evolution are atheists as opposed to thiests. The numbers don't lie, but rather, attest to this fact very well.Here are the first 10 clauses in the Humanist Manifesto. Take particular notice to the first.FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

​

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

​

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

​

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

​

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

​

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

​

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation ” all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

​

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

​

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

​

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.What need is there of God when the entire theory subverts the neccesity of their even needing one? It goes all the way back to the beginning, allegedly 4.5 bilion years ago. After the failure of the Miller-Urey experiments and the continued failure of any kind abiogenesis event taking place, this was the one bone that athiests threw towards theists, because the First Cause is still as unexplanable now as it was then. According to ToE, there is no need for God to do anything. And to be sure, Karl Marx stated that his goal in life was destroy Capitalism and Christanity. In the next breath, he writes of Darwin, "Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views." And as Richard Dawkins once stated, "Darwin provided us the basis for being intellectually fulfilled atheist." Evolution is at enmity with God. Period. There is no ambiguity when it comes to that.I also feel that you continue to misrepresent Christianity by tying together Catholicism. To you, (and this is understandable), you think Christians and Catholics are the same thing. They aren't. And in my opinion they have posed the greatest detriment to Christ. They have compromised the Word of God throughout its misguided existence, causing far worse a damage than any atheist could do. So, if the "Church" (another mischaracterization of what the word acually means) supports evolution, its because they have conceded to popular opinion and not to the plea of scientific analysis. There are alot of denominations (which is the silliest thing I've heard of) who reinvent scriptures contained in the Bible to support their own agenda. For instance, by and large, the Methodist church is as liberal and leftist as a NARAL or a NAMbLA rally. You have to understand that saying, "I think Jesus is real" is as meaningless as saying, "I like the taste of tacos" if you pervert the truth of who Jesus actually is and what He actually taught in the scriptures.In other words, their testimony in support of this or that means squat to me. Furthermore, you don't want me to base my scientific beliefs with my religious ones because it taints the integrity of the tests. I agree fully. Whenever possible I avoid that like the plaugue. I'm only interested in the truth, whatever that may be. Currently, I feel that a mere naturalistic explanation lacks the substance for creating and sustaining life.I just scrolled through the list of suporters. Virtually all of them were the typical 3 offenders (Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal). Again, that means nothing to me.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to addEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Hang on Chiro, lets think about this from another context. Some people gained a belief in a Creator because of the evidence for this or that. You are assuming that most people only believe in Creationism because of their religious affinities. But the same could be said of evolution. some people lost their faith in God because of the evidence presented in favor of evolution. It goes both ways. But what should be very evident is that evolution and God are as much polar opposites than the north and the south pole. Creationism is simply the belief that an Artificer created all life simply by looking at the big picture, and weighing odds between what is in the realm of possibility and what is not. Taken a step further, most creationists happen to believe that the evidence attests for what the Bible says. However, evidence should NOT attempt to fit the Bible. Evidence should be evidence, and if it happens to point to an infallibility for the bible's sake, then more to it.But as you said, evolution is independant of any mainstream religion. Surely, however, you realize that it is in itself a religious belief, similar to Druidic belief. The whole point is that its independance comes not from a religion, but an independance from God. It seeks this and you can see it in every aspect. Why should anyone who isn't a Christian or a creationist care about the opinions of Christians and/or creationists? I care about them for the same reason they care about me. They see me and my beliefs as detrimental to society and I see their beliefs as being detrimental to society.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

You produced a list of people that may or may not be accurate. The fact that they needed to produce a list in the first place says that its obvious that mainstream Christianity does not agree with evolution. Its the same thing like Democrats trying to get the "religious" vote by setting up people who outwardly appear "religious." In other words, its a dog and pony show that is easy to recognize. No, that only has to do with the fact that atheists support the theory of evolution. You want ToE to be seen as an unbiased part of science, as seemingly benign as gravity. But it isn't, and those who have stakes in it have a clear and vested interest in an irreligious society. That isn't evidence of anything other than what I already know... which is that Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians and Episcopalians are compromisers of the truth, by and large. Some were born into that and mean no ill towards anyone. But I'm not speaking about individuals, I'm speaking about, as so many have coined, "the Church." And when belief in Christ becomes this elaborate organization, this is when we know that we're either going astray or that we are that much more succeptable to going astray from clear doctrine. They venerate Mary, bishops, Popes and saints as having iconic status with Jesus. Uh, but read the scriptures. The apostles were no different from you and I or anyone else. They were fallible humans in as much need of salvation as any one of us. Catholics also believe in baptism or regeneration which is the belief that babies need to get their head wet in order to be saved. This completely misses the point of what a baptism is. Baptism does not save, nor does any good work. Ephesians and Titus are clear on that point. They also are generally imbued by the notion that the Pope is the incarnation of Jesus. They also believe in non-canoninical works such as the Apocrypha. They organize themselves more like a buisness than a body of believers and send out Cardinals and priests in the same way someone gets traded to a new team rather than being lead by the Holy Spirit. The list goes on and on. but again, that isn't a jab at any one individual. I know many Catholics who are nice people. I don't doubt the sincerity of many. I just happen to believe that their beliefs run counter to what the scriptures say. Obviously, to keep God completely out of the picture, evolutionists/atheists had to invent their own cosmology and their own version of creation events. This is obvious because without some sort of cosmological evolution, there could not have been a chemical evolution, because that would negate a biological evolution. So many trailblazers attempted to figure it out, such as Oparin, Haldane, Urey, and Miller. Miller posited that simple amino's could have arisen in a prebiotic soup. But nowhere does organic matter spawn from inorganic matter. He concluded that when the earth was still in basic formation that hydrogen, ammonia, methane gas, as well as a few other building blocks, so to speak, were present. In any case, the experiment did not have the success they hoped. What they were able to achieve was the creation of 2% non-living amino acids, but it take 20 specific amino acids just to arrive at one sinlge, solitary protein. As well, the amino's were not living, meaning they still would have had to figure out how to bring it to life. Thus, we are just as far away from creating life from non-life as we've always been, but we've been hard pressed to see the truth found in textbooks. And to be sure, if life could come from non-life you and I both know that every pro-evolution website on the planet would have it plastered on the front page. That's your surest way of knowing that what I've stated is true. What have I said that is egregious as one would need to be fearful of it? Some of what I said came from personal opinion based on the things that I've witnessed. Most of it can be attested for, unlike a solid theory of evolution which changes more often than a department store changing room. What exaclty have I misunderstood that you might be able to shed some light for me?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Not at all. No apologies necessary as this is a public forum. I appreciate the niceties nontheless. Being that there was nothing even remotely akin to me saying that we need to stop investigating anything, I'm not sure how to respond to your words. Can you elaborate on what you meant so I can answer you? How and why does flagella no longer pose any problem(s) and why should Behe ever stop at one argument in defense of his beliefs?"Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.

​

Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.

​

Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed." -Michael BeheThis obviously a very brief synopsis for his argument. For further inquiry, order a copy of his book(s) for a more in depth analysis of his argument. Everyone constantly looks for justification one way or another. Religion is yet another tool for someone to manipulate another group, but again, this speaks more loudly about man's disposition than it does any given religion, unless that religion is what compels people to inact their own version of justice. Believe it or not, I tend to shy away from "religion." Even the very word makes me shudder. But i understand that this word is the only word that helps us communicate the point of spirituality, so I use it for the sake of clarity. There are people who hate the notion of God, whether they are overt about it or whether it comes across ever-so tacitly. It exists. And anyone so obtuse as to not be able to recognize that isn't qualified to counter-argue that point. My statement was in response to Hauk pleaing for me not to "shoot the messenger," either meaning himself as the messenger or Darwin as the messenger. I took it to mean Darwin himself, so I was merely pointing out that Charles was not the inventor of evolution. Charles did, however, lead the most thorough investigation of it.As for, you know, his empiricism, he made a few good observations in support of small peripheral adaptations which the entire world, then and now, knew (knows) exists. Where he went awry was asserting that every living thing is ultimately related by noticing different colors, shapes, and sizes of beaks. Nowhere did I say that Darwin wanted to eradicate the Creator. I said that people have used his book as the first compelling reason to dissasociate oneself from the necessity of there ever being a Creator. You might be surprised to know that I happen to agree with you on some level. I don't think that theology has a place in the science classroom, nor does science have room in the theology classroom. And its not that they are mutaully exclusive, but that so much of both are open to interpretation. Recognizing that a higher cognizance may exist does not mean that we have to define what the Creator is. Could we ever really understand something so great? But if we can determine that there is a Creator, supported by science, then it gives us a more compelling reason to look at the theological aspects as well. But the Creator has no place in ToE. It just doesn't. Its only in your imagination that creationists pose some sort of threat to science, especially when so many of them are scientists. How have you surmised that he knows more than me? Because you hapen to agree with his particular brand of belief? Perhaps 'parity' was a bit much, but it is undeniable that a rather large scientific exodus has taken place. Many defectors once indoctrinated by evolution are finding themselves in support of a more laudable theory. Since I myself am a defector, I understand this very well. You presume to know so much about me, but how fair is that? Do you honestly believe that the answer of "Goddidit" is satisfying answer for me? I in no way would satisfied by an answer of such brevity. I enjoy science, just like I enjoy history or any other subject. What I don't like is theory being pawned for truth. I think you can appreciate that being that you believe that my beliefs subvert truth. I guess the only difference being that I respect your right to an opinion. No, I had my secretary transcribe it as I spoke. Uh, yeah, I wrote it. Anything could have some merit to it. I don't think the entire theory of evolution is bunk... Just the bulk of it. Because everything in life does have a purpose. You take a dump for a reason. You eat for a reson. You sleep for a reason. You breath for a reason. You have a heart for a reason. You have a brain for a reason. And this example could be said of all organisms. So why should the conglomerate of all life have no purpose, when demonstration shows that there is some purpose for everything? No, a little deeper than that. But something like that only comes by asking for it, praying for it, and meaning it. If you have not, its because you ask not. And if the American fastfood culture of now, now, now, doesn't happen in the timeframe you wish or in the manner you wish, then you will continue to wait in frustration. That isn't a question that I can answer for you. I understand your premise, but surely on some level you understand that some things are right and some things are wrong. I assume that you understand that absolutes do in fact exist but its going to take you a ilttle investigating to ascertain those truths. Agreed. And vice-versa. Knowledge begats knowledge as one builds off another. But we'd likely not be where we are today without the invention of the wheel. And if we were teleported into the past without any knowledge of current evwents and current inventions, we'd be just as ignorant as they were. But ignorant realy isn't a dirty epithet. We are all ignorant of most things. I'd be hard pressed to believe that we even have 1% of the answers and yet mankind shamelessly parades around as if he gave himself knowledge, as if gave himself oxygen.I just think that we'd better eat some humble pie when it comes to nature, whether we subscribe to atheistic or theistic beliefs.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Yeah, I think you misinterpreted the taco referrence. The uh, tacos, had no real significance. What i said was claiming to believe in Jesus is as asinine as someone liking the way tacos taste. Simply claiming to follow Jesus does not represent actually following Jesus. In other words, it all means nothing to me if the adherents are like whitewashed tombs. You know what, i just can't get it across the way Yeshua can, so allow for Yeshua to break it down."The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

​

All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.' As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.

​

Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be your servant.

​

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

​

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven 8 before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.

​

Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.' Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?

​

And you say, 'If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.'
You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it; one who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it; one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.

​

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. But these you should have done, without neglecting the others.

​

Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.
Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.

​

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth.

​

Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets' blood.'

​

Thus you testify against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?

​

Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

​

Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

​

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! -Matthew 23:2-37

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

That's fine. It may or may not be true. But as I alluded to, the same exact thing could be said of evolutionists who chose the theory because it satisfies some urges to reject God. I mean, none of this is new. Its been going on since the beginning. The only difference is the delivery method of going against Him. People make deductive reasoning all the time, and though this may be hard for you to concieve because we live in 2006, virtually everyone believed in a Creator(s) in the not-so-distant past. And the only reason they believed it was because of the complexity around them. But now or days people finding a space shuttle out in the woods think it developed all by itself over billions of years. No it really isn't. And I highly doubt that evolution had nothing to do with so many people's aversion towards God. I mean, you're preaching to the choir because I remember all of what I believed in the past. Without ToE there is no reason to be an atheist in confidence. Its a fish out of water without the theory. That's presumably why its so threatening that anyone should counter their hope for nothingness and meaninglessness. Yeah, that would be the logical conclusion, but certain evolutionists might be inclined to believe that the bullet developed through millions of years of time in said organism. I think you are missing the deeper meaning behind what a creationist believes. A flower needs good soil, ample sunlight and plenty of water. Without these basic elements, the flower will wilt and die. Those are natural reasons for why the flower would live or die. The evolutionist would say, "Its nature." The creationist would say, "Its nature through the rules of the Creator." Do you understand what I'm saying? Yes, there are naturalistic explanations for how and how anything in nature grows or dies, but it was indicative of a mind to institute the parameters about nature. You see photosynthesis only as apart of nature. I see photosynthesis as an obvious of intent.Its like a computer. If no one knew what a computer was, some people might be inclined to believe that they grow out in the wild and that their capablilities developed over millions of years. Other people would look at it and logically surmise that someone programed it the way it was intended. No, I just believe that there is nothing apart from the Creator. For me, its not that God is so transcendental that we cannot know Him, but rather He is so immanent in the affairs of the universe that there is no place devoid of Him. If you were in all spaces, all dimensions of time and space, what would distinguish you from one thing to the next? Yes, there is nature, but perhaps there is only nature because of the Creator. Again, you don't need to define what the Creator is. That part only comes by personal revelation through faith. That is just something that canot be understood by all. And let me tell you, that's the frustrating part. Its like being let in on a secret and you want to divulge that information but you can't. Not for a lack of desire, but because it only comes on an individual basis. Anyway, that's a little too metaphysical for this topic. The majority of "religious" people are probably just that, religious. And as I've shared elsewhere, that's means squat to God. Everyone is religious one way or another. That's a sinister thought to many people, but religiosity is anything followed with a particualr zeal. And being that ToE completely innundated the masses through indoctrination, it became just like , "what goes up, must come down." People learned not to question it. It became a very powerful dogma. So, some people, the "religious people," learned to consolidate both. Others saw ToE as their get-out-of-jail-free card for the need of a Creator. It became their special creation theory and they used it as a tool to impugn the Creator.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

If YEC originated in the 20th century by a religious cult, then where does Moses fit into the picture?

You seem incapable of climbing a curb 4 inches high, so allow me to help you. It isn't "religion" that causes people to kill others. It isn't guns that cause people to kill each other. It is people from all walks of life who kill people. This is a relfection and a backlash of what sin does to people. "Religious" people aren't immune to sin. And if there is any eternal justice that supersedes mankinds highest courts, then allow for Providence to do that which is righteous.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

ID has never been a facet of science, nor has evolution. They are both theories that employ science as a means to verify its claims. ID needs no testable hypothesis in the same sense that evolution does because its all about observation. We aren't expecting any animals to ever change into other animals. You are. Therefore, you need a hypothesis, and it must updated constantly to make predictions about future events. As far as peer review literature, the scientific community is under the general assumption that creation was bunk before they ever had a chance to understand what it is, only because it smacks of theology. Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? | Answers in Genesis

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I guess for a Deist, God created an atom and then He rested..... and then He rested some more..... and now He's in hibernation.... heck, He hasn't done squat since then. No, I'm aware that theistic evolutionists exist, but they are misinformed, both scientifically and theologically. Design is a logical inference, not a logical fallacy as presuppose.Here's a good website to help understand what the design inference entails.http://www.carm.org/atheism/purpose.htm How am I comparing portions of a highly educated sector of the populace with the rest of the population? Heh, read link above, again. A Creator's role is null and void if evolution were true, and evolutionists know this. Why everyone is playing stupid is only to create the illusion of objectivity.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Interaction does not equal incompetence. What would God have changed His mind for? All I alluded to was that in Deist belief, God is virtualy non-existent, which makes me wonder how anyone could have come to the conclusion of there being a God in the first place. People mess up all the time, but I wouldn't call God 'powerless,' I'd call Him patient and intimately acquainted with the past, present, and future. The only basis of my view is contained within the Bible. That's the significance of the Bible. Anything beyond that would ultimately be a construct of my own mind. Isn't that the only legitimate source to my views, spiritually, philosophically, and theologically? Now, you can question the integrity of the Scriptures all you want, but if you want to know the basis for my "view," it comes directly from His Word. Unless of course you want me to just make stuff up so I can broaden my view of Christianity in the hopes that I can dumb it down just in time for the "new tolerance."

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

No, religion was just a tool of manipulation. Last time I checked, religion was not a worthy excuse for murder in a court of law. Wars are fought over innumerable scapegoats. I mean, if you wanted to take it a step further, why not condemn the actions of certain atheisic dictators who have massacred people, such as, but not limited to Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Tse-Tung, Hussein, Hitler, etc, etc? Ultimately it boils down to the moral degeneracy, does it not? And morality in this case could subjective to whatever you want. You've obviously reconciled on some level that murder is wrong. And for as much as you could say that religion causes wars, we could just as easily that the suppression of religion causes wars. I mean, right now in atheist China the Falun Gong are being persected in droves and having their organs harvested in the name of science. Are you going to blame the whole of "science" as the culprit or are you going to blame the men who commit the attrocity irrespective of their motive? No, establishing motive in a criminal case is an important aspect. But you could just as easily blame Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, atheism, pantheism, or even science. But in the case of the Falun Gong, are you going to blame liver transplants or are you going to blame the men who have abandoned morality by harvesting peoples organs against their will?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

No, sorry... The entire premise of the experiment was to prove that life could have come about all on its own. They in no wise proved that. In all actuality, they proved quite nicely that it could not be done, even guided by human intelligence and under pristine laborartory conditions that they believed comprised earth's earliest atmosphere. So, now complex organic molecules were eternal in order to make simpler ones? Its a simple deduction. For everything to have come into existence, one either has to believe that everything came out of nothing or that something, on some level, had to be eternal. So it stands to reason that you believe everything derives from nothing or that you can at least logically surmise that something, simply out of necessity, had to be eternal. And you don't have to define what that eternal thing is. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15