|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What I have noticed about these debates... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The law of the United States of America was (if you read a bit of history) founded on the principals found in the Ten Commandments. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I got ticketed for coveting my neighbor's oxen yesterday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
A Christian,
Because the data was presented during the James Kennedy Program. What makes you think you're so great. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4081 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
To understand the problem let us look at a simple problem. The height of the Alps. An evolutionistic science teacher would say that there is not enough water to have covered them by a FLOOD. What is lacking, is proof that the ALPS were that high prior to the FLOOD. This the evolutionist will not bother to discuss. 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. ......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4081 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4391 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: 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 creation2. demonstrate how it is falsifiable 3. indicate the supporting evidence 4. show how it better explains the accumulated data than the ToE If you cannot do this then creationism will never be science...
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBrian Inactive Member |
LOL, Cheers TL,
I was seriously thinking 'is it me?'! AdminBrian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Macavity Inactive Member |
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.asp You 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
itsme Inactive Member |
quote: ------------------
itsme writes:
I was unsuccessfully able to disprove evolution using only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelation...so now I am currently working on proving the theory of evolution using only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelation...then I will be an evolutionary creation ist,'cause I'll tell ya what, if I get all the way up there and there is a god or a devil....I'm gonna be frickin' pissed!! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
I can summarize. Whatever happens, blame evolution-- unless it is stuff Christians like.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jcgirl92 Inactive Member |
"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. Shreeve I would venture to say that life is only 10% what happens and 90% how it is interpreted!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jcgirl92 Inactive Member |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024