Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[Lexinom]

To answer your question, neither view can be emperically proven. Both are held on faith. One side attempts to escape this by interpreting all the evidence to bolster the theory, rather than letting it guide the theory - reinforcement syndrome redux. But fundamentally, both views - old earth and young earth - are faith propositions: we don't have time machines.

Ultimately, one will believe the view that fits with his lifestyle and desires - for God, or for life without morals or consequences.

[andysandmikesmom]

Tory...your article surely has generated a lot of thought, a lot of emotional outbursts, and a lot discussion...

What I wonder about is this...if one wishes to have something taught, which questions evolution as it is now taught, just what do they want taught..I mean, there is strict creationism, which as I understand it, asserts that all living things were created by God, in an instant, in the form we see today...and created in just six days...and that the earth is around 6 thousand years old...and then there is intelligent design, which is very different in that it seems to grant that some 'supernatural being'(ID, to my knowledge, never really asserts this being as God),was the initial creator of some life form, which then went on to evolve...and ID also seems to grant that the earth is millions, or billions of years old...

I guess, what confuses me, is that creationism/Intelligent Design seem to have very little in common with each other, except that they both grant the initial creation to be done by a 'being'...creationism grants the creation to God, whereas ID grants the creation to any 'powerful being', whether God, or some other being, or I suppose even aliens from outer space...so I see very little in common between Creationism and Intelligent Design...

So, if opponents to Evolution want alternatives taught, just what alternative do they want taught?...ID? Creationism?...I mean, one must admit that there is great difference between these two...they disagree on many points, and thus we see that even the opponents to evolution cannot agree on alternate competing ideas...and then, there are widely varying and differing ideas about which 'religion', supports which alternate ideas, and would adopting that religions ideas about this, then lead to trying to slip the teaching of a specific religion into public school?...


There are those that would try to claim that this would never happen...I call that, burying ones head in the sand...if one wants to present an alternate idea to evolution, based on ones own particular religions stand on this issue, then naturally, we come to teaching the religious views associated with that religion, and thus are teaching a particular religion...

There are many religions that I would never want taught to my children, and I believe that many also feel that same way...by adopting one religions views on evolution, and how they feel their views challenge evolution, it would seem to me, to necesarily be teaching a specific religion in public school...is that really what some here are advocating?

I really would appreciate the thoughts of others on this...

Since I came to this thread rather late, I have posted late, and now must leave the thread...but I am hopeful, that tomorrow, someone can answer some of my questions...

[Dimensio]

Basically, if you are calling creationists liars for telling you what God has said in His word, yes you are calling God a liar.

I don't call them liars for that. I call creationists liars when they make claims that are very easily and demonstratably false to anyone -- regardless of whether or not they are a creationist -- who is objective. In nmh's case, I have pointed out that nmh denied making comment about Antony Flew despite a prior post where he (or she) did exactly that.

[Dimensio]

Exposing Creationist's lies????

Yes. Creationists have lied. Such events are documented.

Where do we get THE TRUTH that the poster calls lies. From God's Word! So that's calling God a liar.

You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars. You are also assuming your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.

[Dimensio]

Ultimately, one will believe the view that fits with his lifestyle and desires - for God, or for life without morals or consequences.

False dichotomy. Not all who accept evolution are atheists. Not all who accept evolution lack a belief in morals and/or consequences. In fact, very few would fit such a description.

[aNYCguy]

Can you tell me, in your own words, how one measures the quantity of information present in a genome?

[presently no screen name]

Yes. Creationists have lied. Such events are documented.

You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars



What have I lied about? What have I misrepresented? I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something? If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.

From where/Who/what do you get your beliefs? You got a more truthful book than the Bible and a better teacher than God?

[aNYCguy]

God didn't kill His Son. Our sins did.

Forgive me, but it seems you haven't thought this through very clearly. Could you please explain, concisely, how "our sins" killed God's Son?

[presently no screen name]

you haven't thought this through very clearly



How so?

[aNYCguy]

I can prove God exists with every breath I take. "I am" witness to God's existence.

Similarly, I can prove I can fly with every breath I take. "I am" witness to my own incredible power of magical levitation.

It seems that I learn a fascinating new form of argument on every new crevo thread!

[Dimensio]

What have I lied about?

I didn't actually call you a liar. I've seen a number of clearly false statements from you, but thus far I've seen no clear evidence that you actually know them to be false.

What have I misrepresented?

I don't call creationists liars simply for professing creationism, and I know no one else who does. I call creationists liars when they lie. And when I say "lie", I mean make statements that are false even to someone who does not accept evolution. For example, Kent Hovind has claimed that two samples taken from one wooly mammoth specimen produced two different dates. In reality, the samples were taken from two different specimens. Kent Hovind is lying. In the case that triggered this discussion, nmh made a demonstratably false claim about philosopher Antony Flew (demonstratably false as in it was in direct contradiction to the statement of the article, and nmh repeated the false claim even when the relevant part of the article was quoted) and then later nmh denied saying anything at all about Antony Flew, even though nmh's previous posting on the matter was directly linked.

I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something?

Yes. You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars.

If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like it. It has to do with the fact that your representation of why creationists are called liars does not reflect reality.

[stands2reason]

No there is NO evidence whatsoever and YOU know that too. Evolution is a religion. You want to believe in it even though NOTHING supports it and especially not logic.

Wrong. Your choice of ignoring the evidence -- not even bothering to refute it scientifically--doesn't make it go away. Just stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA"

[stands2reason]

They only check the sign up date when they suspect a troll.

Like they think we are. :-)

[stands2reason]

God is bigger than science. Science shouldn't try to deal in the spiritual or supernatural.

[RunningWolf]

Basically once she tells you something is so, anytime after that you say anything different, now you are a liar.

Well that is just once piece of the demented 10,000 fragment liar kaleidoscope. It is almost impossible to not be a liar in the demented world unless you worship at the altar of darwinistic evolutionism, its main deity the flying spaghetti monster.

Wolf

[stands2reason]

I always thought it was our immortal soul that was created in God's image, not our bodies.

[stands2reason]

Let him howl. That's what he does best.

[stands2reason]

SSDD

or is it SSSS?

(same s#!+, same thread)

[stands2reason]

See the post above hers. (tee hee)

[presently no screen name]

You know what, with all you babbling, you say nothing.

It stands. You are calling God a liar. God created the world and every living thing in it. If you do not accept His Word, The Bible, you have no capacity for truth.

Yet you hang onto what Kent says. A mere man who depends on God for his every breath. Why do you look up to man? How lowly do you think of yourself? Animals do that - oh I forgot - you belief humans are animals. But then again, I guess Kent's (monkey brain) is an animal too.

Remember, at one time, 'man" said the world was flat. However, those who seek truth knew better - the bible explains it - and doesn't explain it as flat.

So, keep believing man - they are always finding something new and denouncing what they said yesterday.

But God always was, always will be, and will always remain the same. TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE. On that note - no more chit-chat. I'm not into talking to animals but I do wish you all the best and may you have enough pee-pee pads for all you needs.