What I have noticed about these debates...

I think Schraf has replied already (I'm just catching up on this thread today) but I thought I'd reply.Actually, the law of the United States is not based on the Ten Commandments. After all, what are the commandments? Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc, ok, those are reflected in American legal code. But then, those same laws appear in almost every culture, Christian or otherwise.And what about the rest? "Honor thy parents"? That's not a law. "Thou shall keep no other gods but me"? We have a constitution that specifically prohibits that kind of thinking. "Thou shalt heep the sabbath"? People work on Sunday all the time. "Thou shall not covet"? How could we make that a law? Coveting is the base of our economy, after all.This country stands for cultural and religious pluralism, participatory government, and freedom of the press and speech. You'd be hard-pressed to find those in the Ten Commandments - or anywhere in the bible. And a government shrine that says "Thou shall keep no other gods but me" is an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion, and is hardly inclusive to persons of other religious traditions.So, no. None of our laws - except the obvious ones - are based on the Ten Commandments any more than they're based on the Code of Hammurabi.

I got ticketed for coveting my neighbor's oxen yesterday.

A Christian, Not that you'll post here again, but if you are going to make assertions you are going to have to support them, & "I saw a TV program about" it isn't good enough.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

I've only read up to this post, #198, but 213 have been written. I have fifteen more to read. Let me make a prediction before I read them.Evolutionists on this forum will happily discuss this issue in those fifteen posts, even though it's off topic and against forum rules!On the other hand, the creationist--that would be you--will duck and run as soon as the evolutionists have had their say, because there will be nowhere he can turn for any factual, honest response to the evolutionists arguments.That's what always happens, 100% of the time, and it is the number one, main reason that I am no longer a YEC. It will happen this time, too.......

Congratulations, Admin "wet blanket" Brian, I haven't noticed any of the other admins quite so directly rebuked by a wayward member. You moved right to the front in your first couple of weeks! :-)On a more serious note, I don't think I've seen any other poster quite so unaware of his/her own behavior. Sure Salty or Scotty may have slaughtered the rules here or there, but they both knew they brought trouble on themselves. A_Christian needs an award from "Most Oblivious Poster."

What I have noticed about these debates is that often times they tend to run off topic. Also, there seems to be an awful lot of passive scorn and half hearted attempts at being witty that one must endure however one chooses(with the exception of disregarding the forum guidelines....(eep). Although, personally speaking, I find it informative in all regards. And, at times, the folly lightens the load.------------------
love,
weary"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

quote:

---

I'm not impressed with
most of what evolutionists THINK they know. It is what they
want everyone else to accept is what bothers me.

---

Hi AC,
I am not surprised that you are unimpressed. You have even indicated that you basically do not understand science at all so it is a trivial matter for you to dismiss the ACTUAL research on which scientific theories are based.You claimed it will take years of scientific work to prove creationism...how about giving it a start...1. propose a testable hypothesis of creation
2. demonstrate how it is falsifiable
3. indicate the supporting evidence
4. show how it better explains the accumulated data than the ToEIf you cannot do this then creationism will never be science...

quote:

---

I enjoy the
way evolutionist belittle those that disagree with them. Don't
you know that only make you look vular and cheap.

---

I enjoy when those who admit they do not know much about a subject equate their opinions with scientific theory and then get upset when scientists don't roll over and accept what they say...it those who make the assertions look ignorant and arrogant.

Ok..just scrolled back and saw that AC got himself suspended...so in case he does not come back...can any like minded individual please present or at least summarize the "data" presented during the James Kennedy program?

LOL, Cheers TL,I was seriously thinking 'is it me?'!AdminBrian

Mammuthus,One of the latest Kennedy programs on evolution (Real Player) is entitled "Evolution and you." It's about eight minutes long and can be found here:http://www.coralridge.org/coralridgehour.aspYou can easily locate this (video) program by typing "evolution" in the Search Archive field. Sorry, M. There's really not much in the way of "data" to summarize. But I do have a capsule review: Evolution is bad. Very, very bad. And if you "believe" in evolution... you're bad. Still, I recommend you watch this thing if for no other reason than the obligatory Colin Patterson (sp?) quote... I hope this isn't the type of program AC was referring to.--Macavity

quote:

---

Topic: What I have noticed about these debates...

---

• 
• 
• 

------------------

Thanks Macavity,AC was claiming that the data that supposedly refutes evolution is contained in this lecture...I will take a look at the program later though it will probably give me a headache.
cheers,
M

I can summarize. Whatever happens, blame evolution-- unless it is stuff Christians like.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Opinion is not the main power of science. Logic, evidence, and repeatability is."Repeatability is a power and asset of experimental science, but not necessarily of historical science where we try and examine the past.As for logic and evidence - they are important in science, but can only go so far."Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear." J. ShreeveI would venture to say that life is only 10% what happens and 90% how it is interpreted!

Thanks for explaining what the problem seems to be with the whole "kind" issue.Macroevolution is a gaining of information - correct? In other words, DNA information must be added to add on new characteristics that weren't there before - right?