Evolution vs. Creation Debate in Tucson, Arizona May 10

Calvery Chapel Tucson and Fellowship of Christian Athletes ^ | May 10, 2003 | Fellowship of Christian Athletes

[Ichneumon]

Ha, I want to see you creationists and "scientists" disprove Last Thursdayism! You can't, can you? I win!

Curses! Foiled again!

[Heartlander]

Ha, I want to see you creationists and "scientists" disprove Last Thursdayism!

How long has this theory of ‘Last Thursdayism’ existed and been asked of others to disprove?

[f.Christian]

"Would you appoint some flowers to reign
In matchless beauty on the plain
The rose (mankind will all agree)
The rose, the queen of flowers should be."

By Sappho, 600 B.C.

Throughout time, "the queen of flowers" has become the flower of kings, queens and sweethearts. There are more than 30,000 varieties of roses.

Historically, roses have been used in extravagant ways. Cleopatra once received Mark Anthony in a room knee deep in rose petals. There are some 4,000 songs about roses. And, of course, just down the road is the annual "Rose Parade."

Roses, you see, are symbols of love, beauty, war and politics, and you’ve all heard of England’s "the war of the roses."

Scripture speaks of ... the Ultimate Rose --– the Rose of Sharon (Song of Solomon, 2:1).

Religious historian, Dr. William Smith states that "the Rose of Sharon," in Eastern tradition, is generally believed to be the sweet scented narcissus, but in Western thought, the Rose of Sharon is the Hibiscus syriacus which especially attracts hummingbirds because of its sweetness. "The Rose of Sharon" demonstrates an interesting phenomenon – it does not bloom until late spring causing many gardeners to believe that it has died; but, to their astonishment, it suddenly resurrects. Considering the legacy of "the Rose of Sharon" in 1922, Ida A. Guirey wrote the song "Jesus, Rose of Sharon."

Jesus, Rose of Sharon, bloom within my heart;
Beauties of thy truth and holiness impart,
That where’er I go, my life may shed abroad
Fragrance of the knowledge of the love of God.
Jesus, Rose of Sharon, sweeter far to see
Than the fairest flowers of earth could ever be

Fill my life completely, adding more each day
Of thy grace divine and purity, I pray.
Jesus, Rose of Sharon, bloom forevermore;
Be thy glory seen on earth from shore to shore,
Till the nations own thy sovereignty complete,
Lay their honors down and worship at thy feet.

Chorus:

Jesus, blessed Jesus, Rose of Sharon, Rose of Sharon,
Bloom in radiance and in love within my heart.

[Dataman]

You did your homework. Your conclusion-- Because Silver Burdett is not reliable in one instance, it cannot be trusted as an authoratative source-- I will accept IF AND ONLY IF you apply that same standard to your own sources. Do I dare expect that level of intellectual honesty or logical consistency from you?

You didn't find the passage in question because it is from an older text. I collect old history texts because of the rampant revisionism in today's brave new textbooks. The book has a label inside the front cover indicating it was from a public school district, not a parochial school. The two professors responsible for compiling the text were from the U of Texas and Cornell.

An attempt to remove credibility of the textbook by labeling it "religious" does not in any way damage the fact that darwinism is used to justify the trampling of human rights, the murder of hundreds of millions and racism.

[Ichneumon]

There is an epidemic of coworkers saying/writing, "mute" instead of "moot" and I'm waiting for Webster's to add, "nother" to the lexicon instead of "another."

I'm still bummed that some dictionaries have given up the fight and accepted "kudo" as proper usage.

Background: "Kudos" is a Greek word meaning "praise". It may happen to end with an "s", but it's not a plural. You can "give kudos" to someone (i.e. give praise), but you can't "give them a kudo". That's a incorrect as "give them a prai" instead of "give them praise".

And yet, a lot of people make that mistake, and now some dictionaries are throwing in the towel and allowing "kudo" as a legitimate word because that's how it's often used in "common usage". Sigh.

It may be "common usage" for a lot of people to pronounce "ask" as "axe", but that doesn't make it an acceptable alternative pronunciation...

[Dimensio]

So for you morality is self-referential. It's immoral if it makes you uncomfortable directly or by doing so to those for whom you have affection. What, then, do you say to sadomasochists? They can turture others without violating your standard above.

Whom can they torture? If they are torturing those who have consented, then I have no business telling them to stop. If their torture directly affects unwilling participants then I have a vested interest in working against allowing it because I would prefer to live in a society where neither I nor those for whom I have affection becomes one of those unwilling participants.

Who are you to impose your morality on someone else?

I am me. What's your point?

What if I worship the Hindi god Kali and show my devotion through ritual killings?

What if I don't worship Kali and I don't want to be a ritual killing statistic? Further, I don't want people for whom I have affection to be killed ritualistically. As such, I have a vested interest in a system that prohibits ritualistic killings.

Your concept of morality cannot logically say mine is wrong. It also cannot logically say that Saddam's ethics is wrong.

From an absolute standpoint, no, it cannot. I never claimed as much. It's a matter of what I and others like me find "preferrable". I prefer a society that does not permit baseless murder, because it makes me more secure. I suspect that you would prefer such a setup as well. As such, I support a society that prohibits murder.

This view is commonly known, and rejected, as "might makes right." The powerful are above the law, because they can escape the penalties, but the rest must submit because the rulers of the state can make them.

I'm trying to figure out your point. I don't claim things are perfect or even that great, but are you suggesting that you have a system for defining ethics that I might find more agreeable? If so, I'd like to hear what it is and how you support its existence.

As for a system where people are above the law, well, the solution is to build into the framework a set of checks and balances to prevent anyone from ever being in a position of being "above the law" and being diligent in maintaining this system. Unfortunately, all too often people allow this system to be destroyed either through erosion or through sweet-talking charismatic meglomaniacs who convince people that the system needs to be "tweaked" in such a way that grants them increased authority.

[f.Christian]

The GOD of the Old and New Testaments claims that HE inhabits eternity, and that there is no God before HIM.

HE also explains that HE created all that there is.

An Entity that is capable of creating the universe around us, and has the power to propel a galaxy 200,000 miles per hour, probably doesn't expect us to put HIM in a neat little box that we can completely understand.

For HIS clear and simple message relating to this, try the Book of Job. You will get HIS perspective on your question.

P.S. The Book of Job, thought by most theologians to be the oldest Book of the Bible, has been acknowledged by literary scholars as one of the finest pieces of literature to date.


256 posted on 04/28/2003 5:10 PM PDT by bondserv

[Right Wing Professor]

one FReeper has admitted that without their religion they would be a murderous psychopath

It's sort of like Islam in reverse :-)

(Disclaimer: Of course, Islam is a Religion of Peace. The remarkable correlation between the Moslem population of a country and the likelihood of mayhem somewhere in the neighborhood is purely accidental.)

[Ichneumon]

Of course, I find it interesting that most creationists only present their version of Creationism as a possible alternative to evolution, even though there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of creation stories throughout human history. Why is yours so special that it receives exclusive consideration?

That's why, when someone gives some rambling argument that they think "proves" the existence/involvement of a deity in some manner, I like to tell them that they've convinced me, Shiva (or Zeus, or Ra the sun god, etc.) must exist after all. Praise Shiva!

[Ichneumon]

I suppose it would be terrifying to believe in a God who punishes people for their thoughts. It may be rational to fear such a God, but how does it follow that He is good?

Especially when he keeps a torture chamber in his basement.

[Ichneumon]

The GOD of the Old and New Testaments claims that HE inhabits eternity, and that there is no God before HIM. HE also explains that HE created all that there is.

Sounds rather like Hank's claims

[f.Christian]

To: don-o

d-o ...

What dissenting opinion gets the hammer?

owk ...

I myself was suspended just a week ago for ... questioning (( ATTACKING )) * * --- the existence of God...

And the posts were wiped from existence.

For example.

499 posted on 05/03/2003 10:45 AM PDT by OWK

... * * ... my addition --- FR atheist nazis !

[Aric2000]

I have yet to see one of your socalled facts, not refuted in some way shape or form. Every one of them blown away, but that really doesn't matter, does it?

[Lurking Libertarian]

darwinism is used to justify the trampling of human rights, the murder of hundreds of millions and racism.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which tells us nothing about morals, ethics or government. The fact that some people have erroneously misused it to justify their evil acts does not invalidate it as a scientific theory, just as Hitler's misuse of Christianity to justify racism and genocide doesn't invalidate Christianity, it just shows that evil people will use anything handy to rationalize their evil.

[Stultis]

The progress of civilization was brought about only throught the incessant conflict of peoples and races. War is one form of this conflict and threfore a natural, and even a necessary, means of human progress.

Gee, you act like there was something wrong with that. Are you going to say that the United States and other (classically) liberal democracies were wrong to be in conflict with the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes and political systems?

At the same time, whether (or when) such conflict is good or bad has not a thing to do with the analogical phenomena of competition for reproductive representation between individuals within a species. Even if we concede the applicability of the analogy, we would still be committing the naturalistic fallacy (arguing from "is" to "ought").

[js1138]

What do you mean by "good"?

If you do not have an inborn sense of what is good, why is it important to decide between God and Satan?

[jennyp]

How long has this theory of ‘Last Thursdayism’ existed and been asked of others to disprove?

Since last Friday.

[jennyp]

Evolution contributed to a paradigm shift but it is not, in and of itself, a worldview.

The title of the debate announcement that prompted this thread is "Alternative Worldviews: Evolution and Creation." You may wish to limit evolution to biology, but few others do.

LOL! The debate that prompted this thread was organized by creationists! It's your side that keeps wanting to promote evolution into a "worldview"! LOLOLOLOL...

[jennyp]

By asking professors at other colleges, we did eventually find someone willing to defend evolution in public. But he was slaughtered so thoroughly by the creationist from a Bible college that some students muttered the debate had been rigged. All we could do was explain that we had invited our own school's faculty to debate but that's they'd refused to. Even when invited to pick the format of their choice. What else could we do?

Since you can't remember specific details like who the creationist debater was (which is understandable being 10 years ago), I'll ask you the same question I asked My2Cents about the creationist debate he saw in college that changed his life (who has yet to answer):

Please tell us what the best arguments were that the creationist made at this debate.

Both you and My2Cents say that the creationists' performances at these debates were impressive to you. Surely you can remember their specific arguments? Let's see if they stand up to exposure in a written format.

[Heartlander]

Since last Friday.

LOL
OK, if it’s all just in good humor than…
What is their philosophy in regards to the theory of evolution

What church do they go to?

Punk-eekostal Church – a new branch that popped up from nowhere and they really like to sing.
The First Primordial Biologists – adhere to a literal interpretation of abioGenesis, and water is very important to them.
Kelvinist – Entropy is ultimately predestined.

What denomination?

Naturalism
Nihilism
Materialism
or Scientism

LOL!