Posted on 11/12/2005 8:19:25 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
ID Ping
Now, I'm not sure why any theory of creation or evolution should be taught to kids who can barely read or do math, but, if you want to teach the Bible, which I have no objection to, this is the wrong approach.
What's the right approach? I'm glad you asked. Overturn this "separation of church and state" idiocy, which isn't in the constitution and is the creation of anti-religious liberals, then just teach the Bible in those localities that want it. Simple.
Astronomer/theologian Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe agrees. He is the leading Christian old-earth progressive creationist. That's why he and associate biochemist Fazale Rana have developed their testable [thus falsifiable] creation model. Dr. Gonzales is a friend and associate of theirs.
If interested, visit reasons.org.
Here's another one you might find interesting!
Your argument's only flaw is we do not know for certain that there is life on Pluto (ok it is a stretch but still...)
You could have used the example that the Earth eclispes the Moon all the time and yet there is no life there.
Besides... what do eclipses have to do with forming life anyway? Maybe he means there needs to be a Moon to create tides and stuff. I dunno.
I was scratching my head over that one too.
|
the difference between philosophy and theology is that philosophy begins in man whereas theology begins in God.
Wow are you joking me???? First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. Also known as "separation of church and state".
If you ever go to Phila, please... please... please... go to the new Constitution center and educate yourself. Serious...
This phrase is an incessant cheap among the evobirdies. Is it a neologism, or does it simply mean, "it cannot be proven false"? Either way, it won't work as an incantation to wave away opposition.
Evolution serves as a superb paradigm in educating new biology students into the structure and categorization of plant and animal nature. Family tree, if you will. As a paradigm, we can't do without it.
Other than that--you start getting into what looks a lot like dogma. We all remember the hilarious "march to homosapiens" pictures which were supposed to convince us all that one species springs fortuitously from another--all the way from a spider monkey (with tail!) to the guy in the grey flannel suit.
And a lot of us remember that chart becoming defunct, and large questionings opening up about the actual descent of man. But we were supposed to cling to the underlying theory of progressive speciation on pain of being called "nutcases" or "knuckledraggers" "fundamentalist nose-pickers" or any such insult designed to guard against a teaching franchise being threatened!
I happen to think the obvious and least painful solution is for a scientist to behave like a scientist, and not deal in dogma at all, but deal in the limitations of the speciation stories. There's so much to teach about flora and fauna--stop playing evo priest.
And the way evos behave on the FR board lead me to believe that it is priesthood they are after--they want to preach what they want to preach and deal with no heresies. Watching them here over the past few years, looking at their posting histories (they generally post to few threads other than evo-crevo issues) and their arrogant tone--they don't even seem to be interested in conservatism itself, just in having the opportunity to find conservative Christians and rattle their cages.
All I can think of is that it was thought that tides from the Moon's pull created an environment where primordial life could form in the clay "cups". But that would imply evolutionary beginnings so... can't be that.
Actually, the bible says essentially the same thing:
2 Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Q #1: Is the fact that we can see “perfect” solar eclipses related to our existence?
A: The Earth’s surface provides the best view of solar eclipses in the Solar System. The Earth’s surface is also the most habitable place in the Solar System. Is this coincidence just that? In The Privileged Planet, we argue that it isn’t. The conditions that make a planet habitable also make its inhabitants more likely to see solar eclipses.
The first example I thought of was the solar eclipse. The conditions you need to produce a solar eclipse also make Earth a habitable planet.
This is the point where my BS meter pegged. The sizes of the lunar and solar disks as seen from Earth is pure cosmic happenstance. We are lucky that the similarity of those apparent sizes makes eclipses spectacular. This coincidence has no effect whatever on the development of life. If it did, then why don't we get serious environmental effects from annular eclipses?
I'm not completely sure what Gonzalez is getting at here, but your arrogant dismissal of his point doesn't hide the complexity of aligning the axis of the sun/earth orbit and the moon/earth orbit and the distance of the sun, moon and earth required to create the solar eclipse. A phenomenon that Gonzalez is unwilling to attribute to the big bang. Just because Gonzalez continues to question phenomenon that you dismiss doesn't deprive you of your determination to cling to your dogma.
Which makes Dogbarktree's point:
"He who knows that he knows, doesn't really know. He who knows that he doesn't know, knows."
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.