Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by wkdaysoff
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The state American Civil Liberties Union (search) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution (search).
The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.
Try sticking to substantial questions, guy. It will focus your mind.
I was looking at other brands of air filters, but thousands of hours of teevee advertizing convinced me of the superiority of the 'Ionic Breeze'.
I've never heard of that either.
Even before 1951, Catholic theologians were free to speculate on the compatibilty of the faith with evolution. No pope ever condemned it. The Church appears to have learned something from the embarassing Galileo affair.
Yes. It's one of the reasons it's so hard to develop an AIDS vaccine. It's why you have to have a different flu shot every year.
Mr. Pot… Please pick up the white courtesy phone…; )
It was a rhetorical question.
I can assure you both that the word for day (yom) in Genesis 1 means an indefinite period of time. This is substantiated by the verse in Gen 2:4 that refers back to the Gen 1 Creation narrative and must be translated as periods of time.
One of the confirming things for me, that may seem unrelated to you is the meaning of firmament (rakia). It means beating a soft metal into a thin foil. This must be a description of the "boundary" of the universe. For, God's face moved on the waters, before he created the waters. So if you take everything literally, it just doesn't make any sense. It is not internally consistent. If you really believe what the Bible says, you can't interpret it inconsistently.
When God created light, the whole progression of creation could have been set in motion, as we know from Einsteins' formula for conversion of energy to matter (matter to energy).
All of this does not contradict the Theory of Evolution (biology), because the Creation event is not in the Theory.
Yeah, that must be it. Some over-the-top Brit 99% of Americans have never heard of is responsible for 68% of us being ignorant of science,
You seem to have me confused with your dealer.
My post was friendly irony and your post is dealing with what?
I wish I could remember, but my short term memory is...darn, I thought I left it over there...
RIGHT WING PROFESSOR RESPONDED: "I was looking at other brands of air filters, but thousands of hours of teevee advertizing convinced me of the superiority of the 'Ionic Breeze'."
Your argument seems to be that if you skimmed over the the "other" brand's claims (Creation-based argument), after having been brainwashed 12-16 years with the previously totally non-contested brand (Evolution-based theory), you still believe the previously totally non-contested brand's claims (Evolution-based theory).
AIG's argument would be if you took Ionic Breeze's (Evolution's) OWN data and arguments and examined them through the perspective of the "other" brand's (Creation's) claims and proved (or at least strongly indicated) that the "other" brand (Creation) is actually far superiour using Ionic Breeze's (Evolution's) OWN "facts."
That is one way that AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org) argues their points. They use the VERY SAME mountains and outer-space and Carbon-dating claims (and other NUMEROUS, FALLIBLE dating methods), and DNA, etc., and look at it through "Biblical glasses" (i.e. via a Biblical perspective). It produces conclusions which DO NOT CONTRADICT the Bible at all, but instead, SUPPORT the Biblical perspective COMPLETELY.
One of the things Ken Ham asks is (paraphrasing): "If the Bible were true, what would you expect to find? [Answer:] Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. And what do you find? [Answer:] Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth."
It is telling that ALL of the major religions of the world believe that there WAS, in fact, a world-wide flood. The stories are not exactly the same in every detail, but they are significantly close enough to realize that they are all referring to the same flood and Noah and his family being the family that survived the flood. Interestingly, the stories of the flood are told in ALL parts of the earth.
If a world-wide flood (with Noah's family surviving) did NOT happen as stated in the Bible, the probability that religions and people all over the world (who have never even HEARD of Christianity or Judiasm or the Bible) could simultaneously come up with virtually the same details is virtually ZERO.
BTW, I own two Ionic Breezes and like them a lot. If I fail to clean one of them when it is finally time to do so, however, I can REALLY tell that my allergies are affected because I wake up with a headache and congested sinuses.
The church succumbing to the deceptions and mis-conceptions from popular culture is a time worn phenomenon, no less evident in the 19th - 21st centuries than in the 1st and 2nd. It was 1800-1900 years ago that the Greek evolutionary scientific "intelligensia" of the day aka "Hellenists," who had crept into sectors of the early church and particularly into learned power stuctures, persuaded the church that what passed for science at the time for those scientifically "in-the-know" -- not in scripture -- was that the earth was flat and the universe was geocentric.
The early church trusted the false scientists of their day to the ultimate peril of their credibility the same way some trust the same evolutionary pseudo-scientists today. History repeats. It's a shame that some will allow themselves to be easily intimidated by bad science. Funnier still though is how evolutionary materialist "scientists" today conveniently forget what their orignial flawed premises were for which they today scapegoat the errant church.
Your gullibility with respect to the Answers in Genesis web site is sad. All I've found in that site is prevarication. Their attempt to rebut dendrochronological evidence the earth is older than 6000 years misrepresents the methods of that field, and glosses over the fact the the objections that they raise were objections the dendrochronologists themselves found, and dealt with. Their objections to radioactive dating don't hold water, and they don't deal with the major physical impossibilities inherent in a world wide flood.
The biblical flood story itself probably comes from Gilgamesh, which may be the source for several of the other flood stories. And it's hardly surprising that flood myths should be common. Flooding was a catastrophic event in earlier times, and it occurred rarely enough that it was a major landmark in people's lives.
The problem with this is that if you want creationism to be studied as science, this is the wrong question. The right question is, "If the Bible were true, what would you definitely NOT find?" That is the question whose answers would be the potential falsifications of creationism. All scientific ideas must be potentially falsifiable. If all possible evidence is consistent with an idea, then that idea is not scientific.
Micro-floods, yes. One global macro-flood ... no.
What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?
Problems with a Global Flood.
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood. By a former creationist.
"Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.