Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
If we’re going to teach evolution, are we going to teach punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?
Are we going to teach pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?
Are we going to teach that life arose from non-living matter or that spontaneous generation is impossible?
///For some odd reason I don’t think you have it, just like when I asked Metmom for a clear, accurate fulfilled prophecy. The silence was deafening.///
Not true. I answered. And I’ll give the same answer.
Read the Gospels. There’s plenty of references to specifically fulfilled prophecy there.
And in case you’re concerned about handling a Bible, here’s a link since you couldn’t be bothered researching it on your own.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/messianic_prophecies.html
IIRC, Newdow's daughter didn't have any objection to religious exposure any more that Madeline Murray O'Hare's. In both cases, they were pawns used by their parents to promote the parents atheistic God hating agenda.
Pretty despicable of the parents to USE their children like that, isn't it.
The perpetually offended. sheesh.
Indeed I will. But that debate is between and among the scientists. I'll stay out of it if you will.
No, they haven't "asked", they've demanded and sued for it.
And how is Christianity *forced* on anyone in schools? Are they required to believe it? Are they required to participate? Do they not have the option of simply not listening? The schools allow kids to opt out of activities if they wish.
So now non-Christians force their non-Christian views on others by having all traces of religion being kept from so much as being mentioned. Schools are sued to have any mention of Christmas removed from the school; can't call it Christmas break, can't have Christmas programs, have to call it *Winter Festival* or some such drivel. Kids are harassed about bringing Bibles into schools. They are denied permission to start Bible study groups as an after school activity, which no one is forced to attend.
It would be amusing if it weren't so sad, the hypocrisy of the non-Christians in their behavior. They object to being *forced* to even hear about references to God or Christ and yet are more than willing to force their non-Christian belief system on the rest of the country.
They're not willing to live and let live. They have to walk around being perpetually offended. They feel obligated to sue everyone else into compliance with their belief system and the scream if they simply encounter references to God. "Do as I say, not as I do" is the by word for these folks. They are hypocrisy personified.
The Constitution does not guarantee a God free society.
This is a privately owned site. Did you not know? The owner is free to do as he pleases. The Constitution applies to the Federal government and Congress is specifically prevented from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech or the press.
Amendment I
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.
It says that the government is to promote science and the useful arts, and it says they can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Science and religion are considered and addressed as separate and unrelated. You can’t start making public policy on the premise that science is a religion without changing the meaning of those terms to something quite different than what is addressed in the Constitution, and altering the meaning of those phrases in the process.
What’s to not understand. Genesis I says that the animals were created before Adam. Genesis II says that the animals were created after Adam. I can read.
I am sorry. I had the impression wrong impression that you were a Christian. My bad.
Specifically, I’m saying your arguments are a load of crap.
I’ve seen numerous posts to this effect.
“Here’s my ignorant interpretation of the Genesis account that I read on some atheist website, DEFEND IT!”
Just as with other subjects, I agree that we should show the history of the study of evolution and how it has evolved as we have acquired more information about our history. As for spontaneous generation, we already teach in school how that was debunked (except for “And God created man” which we will leave to the church to teach).
It is not an interpretation. It is a literal reading of Genesis.
Yeah, you’re right, they laid out some big principles, like the assumption of the need for religious morality, in the founding documents.
And they expected these principles to be applied into the future, subject to Amendment.
Yes, one of the circumstances that changed was that guilty people, not wanting to be confronted with their guilt before God, figured out how to infiltrate the judicial system to force atheism on those that didn’t want it.
It’s your ignorant forcing of your worldview into the text. That’s eisegetical reading, rejected by any serious person seeking understanding.
Any exegetical reading of the two chapters leaves no confusion. There is a different purpose in the prose of the two chapters. If you weren’t intent on “disproving” the account, there are plenty of exegetical explanations that clarify and refute your insistance on some “discrepancy”.
A few posts back I called tpanther for this misrepresentation. He actually admitted that he intentionally misrepresented you.
Genesis 2 said that Adam was alone, SO God created the animals:
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
How can one read otherwise. Man was alone so God set out to make a helper fit for him. Read on.
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
However, a simple reading leaves them in conflict.
OK, so you’re a simple person. Accepted.
Why didn’t God know that animals would not be a satisfactory helper for Adam. I can still remember as a young kid in Sunday School being taught that this was why man had one less rib than woman.
20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
So, you cannot refute the 'simple reading' and poast thusly.
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.