With all respect loudmouth it is unreasonable to say origin sciences do not directly attack the Christian faith.
In America the Protestant faith has a foundation,repeat foundation,insisted and still a great deal insists that genesis is true and important to the Christian redemption story.

When people talk about the history of the rise of evolution it is always said that it replaced beliefs stemming from the Bible. ALWAYS.
Of coarse a Christian can get around it but such a person is in error. And its not needed, they just have been intimadated by someone claiming authority in some field.
And then the government steps in and says the historical and thriving Christian doctrine is not permissable on state property because of separation of church/state.
You can say the Bible is wrong but not say its right.
CLAIMING THE SEPARATION RULE. HMMMMM.

I would put out to all here a line from Thomas Jefferson talking about science subjects and government. From his notes on Virginia 1782.
"It is error alone which needs support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

Today the government suppresses a commonly held belief about origins. WHY? Because it is engaged in a struggle with the Christian faith as a influence in society. So it tries to undercut it's foundations. That is Genesis.
A true believer in science would never censor questioning on the merits of some claim of science.
Regards rob

Your contentions have been refuted numerous times and you seem unable to respond to those posts.

In America the Protestant faith has a foundation,repeat foundation,insisted and still a great deal insists that genesis is true and important to the Christian redemption story.

Simply not true. The vast majority of the Christian faiths in America, both Protestant and Catholic, have come out publicly to support the Therory of Evolution and to oppose Creationism.

Once again

Religions Supporting Evolution These churches and religious organizations have come out in opposition to teaching creationism in school: * American Jewish Congress * American Scientific Affiliation * Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences * Central Conference Of American Rabbis * Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter * The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church * Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders * The Lutheran World Federation * Roman Catholic Church * Unitarian Universalist Association * United Church Board For Homeland Ministries * United Methodist Church * United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.

So stop saying that opposing Creationism is an attack on the Faith or that Christians do not support Evolution.

The problem is not the TOE, the account of Creation in Genesis has simply been falsified time after time after time after time.

The Map is not the Territory

To continue teach myth as dogma is simply bad theology.

edited to fix spelling

This message has been edited by jar, 07-26-2004 02:03 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

In America the Protestant faith has a foundation,repeat foundation,insisted and still a great deal insists that genesis is true and important to the Christian redemption story.

---

And some insist that Genesis should not be taken literally. Who should I believe, those that lie to support their theories or those that accept what is found in God's Creation? It would seem that the christians who have to lie in order to support their translation of the Bible are in error.

quote:

---

When people talk about the history of the rise of evolution it is always said that it replaced beliefs stemming from the Bible. ALWAYS.

---

The Earth orbiting the Sun was one such scientific finding that directly contradicted the accepted translation of the Bible. In the end, christians decided that God's Creation was more accurate that Man's Translation. Evolution is another theory in a long line of scientific theories that christianity has had a problem with. Maybe you should also be complaining about a round earth and heliocentrism going against christianity.

quote:

---

Of coarse a Christian can get around it but such a person is in error.

---

And they claim that you are in error. Who am I to believe? Perhaps you should check and see what God wrote in the Creation.

quote:

---

And then the government steps in and says the historical and thriving Christian doctrine is not permissable on state property because of separation of church/state.

---

And rightly so. This is the only way that religious freedom can remain, if the government is totally separated from it's creation and it's practice. Don't forget that our the founding of this country can be traced back to the Puritans, who were themselves persecuted for their religious beliefs by the State. The founding fathers wanted to prevent this, so they established a separation of church and state.

quote:

---

"It is error alone which needs support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

---

Which is why science is supported by it's evidence, not the government. If creationism was included in schools it would only be because of the demands of the populace (government), not the demands of scientific endeavors. The truth of evolution comes from the evidence, not the support of blind faith.

quote:

---

Today the government suppresses a commonly held belief about origins. WHY?

---

It doesn't. It just isn't part of a public school program which is inherently areligious. If you want to teach your kids about creationism you are free to do so. The government is not suppressing creationism, only keeping it where it belongs, as part of people's religious faith.

quote:

---

A true believer in science would never censor questioning on the merits of some claim of science.

---

And science doesn't. However, if you are going to make a claim it must be supported by objective evidence and not contradicted by it. What is wrong with that requirement? If creationism is true then it shouldn't be a problem. If creationism is true, then we should see creationist predictions being born out by new information. If creationism is true, then creationists would not have to rely on theories derived from zero evidence. If creationism is true, then we wouldn't find observations that falsify creationism. Evolution has nothing to do with replacing creationism, it only filled the void after creationism was found to be false.

Even it there are three hundred (steves)paid evolutionists (and I doubt it) thats still very few for such a big country on matters so reaching.

You doubt it? Read the list. 300 Steves employed in fields relevant to evolution.

How many paid creationists named Steve are on your list, by the way? That's what I thought.

It's just an inescapable fact that, among people with the expertise relevant to the subject, evolution is the dominant conclusion.

quote:

---

Read the list. 300 Steves employed in fields relevant to evolution.

---

Actually, the Steve-o-Meter is at 434 as of May 3, 2004.

And just to reiterate, there are three requirements. First, your name has to be Steve or Stephen (and I think Stevarinos are allowed as well). The second requirement is that you have to be working in a field that is related or governed by the theory of evolution. From the sites FAQ:

About two thirds are biologists. (There are, unsurprisingly, few biologists to be found on the creationist lists.) Most are scientists; there are a few borderline cases (economists, philosophers, psychologists, science educators, medical researchers, computer scientists, and so forth). Nearly all are Ph.D.s; there are a few M.D.s and Ed.D.s.

The third requirement is that you agree that the following statement is accurate and applies to education:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 12:21 PM

We are (unlike usually) going around in circles.
In fact you agreed with my point, I think, that evolution is always taught with the point it replaced previous Bible beliefs. The others contended this was not so.

It all comes back to the same equation that evolution supporters cannot answer.

There is a separation of church/state.
This separation is the justification to censor creationist teachings or criticisms.
SINCE origins are taught that reject the Bible/Christian doctrine then this is the STATE saying they are false.
This is ITSELF contrary to the separation of church/state.

This is an easy equation to understand. Either you refute it as it is or honestly admit its decisive force. (in 30 words or less)
I can't see where my reasoning is wrong and believe this arguement will in the future bring change to education in your Country.
Regards Rob

Separation of church and state does not mean that the state is obligated NOT to teach science just because it conflicts with religion.

Creationism is not taught in science classes because it is not science. Evolution is taught in science classes because it is science.

It really is that simple.

not my country pal - we keep that sort of rubbish out of the class room (expect for one regretable incident).

quote:

---

In fact you agreed with my point, I think, that evolution is always taught with the point it replaced previous Bible beliefs.

---

Not so, it filled the void left after creationism was falsified. Creationism, as portrayed in a literal Genesis, was falsified before either Wallace or Darwin published their works. However, Darwin himself still believed that God was the creator, just not as God was portrayed in Genesis.

quote:

---

There is a separation of church/state.
This separation is the justification to censor creationist teachings or criticisms.

---

And if creationism was solely based on scientific data, and consistent with all of the data, then it would be taught in science class. However, don't blame evolution because your theories don't match up with the evidence, and that the sole support for creationism is blind, religious faith. Also, the criticisms, as I demonstrated earlier in this thread, are spurious and not worth the pixels they are printed with. Again, it is the job of the science department to teach the theory of evolution so that kids won't fall for pseudo-scientific lies like those found in creationist literature.

quote:

---

SINCE origins are taught that reject the Bible/Christian doctrine then this is the STATE saying they are false.

---

And if the State were to be fair, we would spend five to six semesters teaching the ins and outs of every creation story in existence for every culture to ever exist. However, this is a science class, not a comparative religions course. If you want creationism in you have to make it scientifically accurate, not religiously and theologically consistent with christian dogma. And the state is saying that young earth creationism is false, but not christianity. The one does not rest on the other, only you have made a literal Genesis a requisite for being a christian.

quote:

---

This is an easy equation to understand. Either you refute it as it is or honestly admit its decisive force.

---

It is a decisive force that keeps pseudoscience and lies out of school science curiculums. It can only improve the education of this countries children towards developing new and better technologies. (31 words)

quote:

---

I can't see where my reasoning is wrong

---

You are wrong in that the State is falsifying christianity. The State is only upholding scientific findings that falsify a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is not the fault of the State that scientific findings caused the falsification of a literal Genesis, but rather the fault of those interpreting Genesis in a way that contradicts the realities of the natural world. The State has not set out to squelch religious conversation, only to uphold the accuracy of scientific findings regardless of their religious implications.

quote:

---

not my country pal - we keep that sort of rubbish out of the class room (expect for one regretable incident).

---

And we would export our fundies if it weren't the exceptionally high British Tariffs. Somehow Canda figured out a way to scare them into staying here. Hopefully we can con Mexico into taking a few here and there through NAFTA.

Robert Byers writes: I would put out to all here a line from Thomas Jefferson talking about science subjects and government. From his notes on Virginia 1782. "It is error alone which needs support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

Thanks for unwittingly making a case against U.S. creationists trying to get creationism into science classes by trying to use the government to do so. If you'll read the whole Query that contains the quote (you left a word out of your "quote"), you'll see that Jefferson is making the case for keeping government out of religion, and vice versa. I encourage you to read the whole query, but for a preview, here's your same material with a little more context preceding and following:

Thomas Jefferson, in Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII, writes: In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

This is also the same Query in which Jefferson writes, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

You can find it online at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/ch17.html

RB writes: We are (unlike usually) going around in circles. In fact you agreed with my point, I think, that evolution is always taught with the point it replaced previous Bible beliefs. The others contended this was not so.

I really don't understand what you don't understand. It is simple! Science is objective while religion is subjective. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it is evidence driven (objective). Creationism is not evidence driven making it subjective.

There is a separation of church/state. This separation is the justification to censor creationist teachings or criticisms. SINCE origins are taught that reject the Bible/Christian doctrine then this is the STATE saying they are false. This is ITSELF contrary to the separation of church/state.

The theory of evolution is not being taught as a doctrine. It is being taught as a scientific theory.

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that the christian doctrine is wrong.

This is an easy equation to understand. Either you refute it as it is or honestly admit its decisive force. (in 30 words or less) I can't see where my reasoning is wrong and believe this arguement will in the future bring change to education in your Country. Regards Rob

Have you ever been in a mental hospital? Every single patient thinks that he is completely logical while the rest of the world are nuts. Have you any idea how hard it is to convince a mentally imbalanced person that his logic doesn't make sense? We're having the same trouble with you.

---

The Laminator

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Loudmouth writes: Hopefully we can con Mexico into taking a few here and there through NAFTA.

We don't have to con Mexico into anything. I quite sure they will freely accept free slave laborers from us.

---

The Laminator

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Haven't we all agreed from the very beginning that, ideally and time permitting, we would, of course, teach the problems with the ToE?

There really isn't an agrument on the core question of the thread.

All that's left is -- what are the problems? Which ones could you teach in an introductory level course, if any?

quote:

---

Name some beneficial human mutations besides that stupid muscular german kid that has shown up a lot on this forum.

---

First off, why do you limit your study of beneficial mutations to just humans?

Second, a big beneficial mutation in humans is the partial to full immunity to HIV that some people conferred from their anscestors who survived the Bubonic Plague in Europe.

Sickle Cell Anemia is beneficial WRT reproduction because it conferrs immunity to maleria long enough to reproduce oneself.

I, personally, have a beneficial mutation that inhibited my lower wisdom teeth to form.