Sorry, my friend. I hope it gets better. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Mel,

I didn't say "evolution negates one belief in God".

I said "why would evolution negate ones belief in God"?

You and I take a different stance where religion is concerned. AND you are my friend and I don't want to take it any further with you. I just value you too much to take a chance on possible misunderstandings.

Now if we were having lunch and could see/hear the animation behind the words, it'd be different!

Love ya weaver! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Dimpsasawa – Don’t you think that the way you phrased this statement is “part of the problem?” When you said, “do you get your conclusions from a scientific perspective or something else?” you are elevating a “scientific perspective” (read this as “scientific opinion or predisposition against Creation and/or a Creator) to the position of “established fact.” Let me quote something for you that might make this a little clearer.

“We have acknowledged that most scientists believe in evolution, but this is not at all the same as saying that science teaches evolution. Scientists are people, and this means that they are fallible, sinful, prejudiced, selfish, and proud – just like all other people! Science, on the other hand, means knowledge – not theories, opinions, beliefs, or philosophies, but actual, verified, factual, certain knowledge – the organized body of observed data and experimentally verified processes and their relationships.

It is true that most scientists reject Biblical Christianity – just as do most lawyers and most plumbers and most ditch-diggers. This is not because of their science but because of their fallen natures which, as in all men, resist the demands of the Word of God.

There exists a minority of scientists, just as in every other walk of life, who do believe in Biblical Christianity, and this in itself confirms that nothing in science, as such, compels a man to believe in evolution and its philosophy. For example, the Creation Research Society, organized only in 1963, has a regular membership of approximately three hundred scientists, each committed to belief in special creation as opposed to evolution, and each believing in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour.

Included among these three hundred creationist scientists are specialists in every branch of science, including many biologists, as well as physicists, chemists, geologists, archaeologists, and others. These men are all convinced that the data of their own scientific specialties favor belief in creation rather than evolution. Undoubtedly the number of creation scientists not in the Society is much larger that the number of actual members. Thus, although creationists definitely represent a minority viewpoint among scientists, it is a significant minority. It is certainly true to say, therefore, that all the actual scientific data in any field of science are fully consistent with Biblical creationism. Ones choice between evolutionism and creationism, then, is not really a scientific decision at all but rather a spiritual and moral decision. It is easier to be and evolutionist in the modern intellectual world (and this is the main reason why so many people accept evolution), but neither Biblical nor scientific truth is ever really determined by popular approval.” (Evolution and the Modern Christian, by Henry M. Morris, pp.42-42)

Dimpsasawa, the “problem,” if one wants to call it a problem, is not with science and observable facts. It is with the predisposition of those evaluating the data. There are only TWO models for how things “came to be” and one of those models “requires” a living Creator. The other requires only time, luck, and (as does the Creation model) going against the “laws” of nature. The first and second laws of thermodynamics, for example.

My position is very simple. If Jesus Christ is NOT who he said he was and if God does not exist, then it doesn’t matter “which model” for “origins” is accurate and which is not. If God and Jesus are not real, then the grave is the end of all things for ALL creatures, including man.

So, as with examining fossils, rock strata, nuclear decay rates, etc., the “claims” and “recorded observations” about Jesus of Nazareth can, and should, be made. The “hypothesis” has been proffered and the data can be examined in detail. JUST AS WITH any data, social or scientific, the DATA can be examined for accuracy and veracity. BUT the individual can still choose to accept or reject the conclusion that the data presents. ONLY Jesus has claimed to BE God. Jesus can be accepted or rejected even if someone accepts the “facts” and “data” about him to be true. Rejection of Christ would NOT be the first, nor the last, time God was rejected and denied regardless of the truth about Him being known beyond “any reasonable doubt.’” The first to “walk that path of personal pride and rejection of God as Lord was Lucifer. Since then, the vast majority of others, many angels and most men and women, have chosen “self” over God and “bent and twisted” facts to support their rebellion. In that respect, it’s sort of like the way a lot of WS’s “rewrite” history and twist the facts to justify what they are doing.


Okay, I can do that for you. But before doing so, perhaps you’d be kind enough to state the scientific hypothesis of Evolution. Once we have that stated we can see the two “side by side” as it were. We could then look at the “predictions” that flow from each hypothesis and how the observable facts “fit” with each hypothesis, or at least which facts would seem to “better fit” with expected predictions predicated on the hypothesis being studied.

WAT, not sure where I might have said that I am “convinced” that you are an atheist. I’m pretty sure that I have said that you have been “arguing” an “atheistic type of position” in opposition to a Biblical Christian position with respect to Evolution instead of Creation. However, whether I did or did not say that you were an atheist, you have perceived it that way and that is sufficient. You made it clear that such a “definition” is offense to you, so I hereby apologize to you for offending you and you personal beliefs.

I, likewise, have been “offended” from time to time by statements like “radical,” “extremist,” “fundamental Christian,” “Religious right,” “bible thumper,” etc. It’s EASY to get our feelings hurt. However, when it comes to “Christianity” based upon Jesus Christ, it is clear that if He is who He said He was, then all other forms or religions are merely human constructs and NOT based on TRUTH. They might make us “feel good” as individuals because we can bend them to OUR will, but in Christ it is “His way” or “no way.”

So I try not to get too offended because I expect to be offended by others who won’t, or can’t, accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.

Once more, sorry for any offense you might have felt.

2Long – naaaaaaa, I’m not buying that attempt to “appease” evolutionists. It’s been around for a while. But it’s tantamount to saying that God was the architect, He drew up some great blueprints, and then tossed them on the ground in the hope that the needed parts would get together on their own, over time, and assemble the “building” just as He designed it, even though he also set up the physical laws of entropy and conservation of energy.

Weaver – No, I don’t believe that I have read that particular book. If you’d care to give me a little more about the book I might be able to comment or even look up the book and possibly read it.


I am curious why you don't think the Bible is "enough" for you anymore. I am also curious about "if not Scripture" then what has supplanted that for you, as a Christian, and why? So I AM curious about this book you have cited.

God bless.

FH,

I am sorry the "labels" I used were hurtful to you. I did not realize that you considered them derogatory, even though I would feel they were derogatory if used about me. I didn't think...okay I just didn't think. I am sorry.

I do however not agree with you about putting God in school, unless it is part of a study of ALL religions, and with an emphasis on critical thinking. And that will never happen, so I am against with everything I have, combining church with school and/or state. It is a prescription for disaster. The horrible atrocities which have accured throughout the world's history in the name of religion should be enough to scare the wits out of anyone when it comes to this. Church must be kept separate from state and public schools to protect us from ourselves. We are not ready for it.

In response to your question about why the Bible wasn't enough for me any longer. I know that if God is a God of Love, and Jesus came to save us from ourselves and show us the way to God's love, that fear would not be a part of the equation. I also know that God would not exclude ANY of HIS children from His house. Whether they come through Jesus or not. Jesus said "I am the only way to God". I really don't think it was meant literally, I think it was meant like this "Through me the path to God will be illuminated, come to me and I will take you to Him".

For every scripture verse you put out, another can be found to dispute it.

In other words, I find the Bible inconsistent and to easy to misinterpret. Plus a lot of it just plain doesn't make sense to me.

"A Course in Miracles" can be found on the website owned by the Foundation for Inner Peace. www.acim.org

Here is some of what the Course is about from the website.

And FH I was very sincere in asking you if you had read it. It is not in any way, shape or form meant to replace the Bible. For me it just made sense of what wasn't making sense to me anymore regarding my beliefs.

A Course in Miracles:
How It Came, What It Is, What It Says

What It Says

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

This is how A Course in Miracles begins. It makes a fundamental distinction between the real and the unreal; between knowledge and perception. Knowledge is truth, under one law, the law of love or God. Truth is unalterable, eternal, and unambiguous. It can be unrecognized, but it cannot be changed. It applies to everything that God created, and only what He created is real. It is beyond learning because it is beyond time and process. It has no opposite; no beginning and no end. It merely is.

The world of perception, on the other hand, is the world of time, of change, of beginnings and endings. It is based on interpretation, not on facts. It is the world of birth and death, founded on the belief in scarcity, loss, separation, and death. It is learned rather than given, selective in its perceptual emphases, unstable in its functioning, and inaccurate in its interpretations.

From knowledge and perception respectively, two distinct thought systems arise which are opposite in every respect. In the realm of knowledge no thoughts exist apart from God, because God and His Creation share one Will. The world of perception, however, is made by the belief in opposites and separate wills, in perpetual conflict with each other and with God. What perception sees and hears appears to be real because it permits into awareness only what conforms to the wishes of the perceiver. This leads to a world of illusions, a world which needs constant defense precisely because it is not real.

When you have been caught in the world of perception you are caught in a dream. You cannot escape without help, because everything your senses show merely witnesses to the reality of the dream. God has provided the Answer, the only Way out, the true Helper. It is the function of His Voice, His Holy Spirit, to mediate between the two worlds. He can do this because, while on the one hand He knows the truth, on the other He also recognizes our illusions, but without believing in them. It is the Holy Spirit's goal to help us escape from the dream world by teaching us how to reverse our thinking and unlearn our mistakes. Forgiveness is the Holy Spirit's great learning aid in bringing this thought reversal about. However, the Course has its own definition of what forgiveness really is just as it defines the world in its own way.

The world we see merely reflects our own internal frame of reference—the dominant ideas, wishes and emotions in our minds. "Projection makes perception" (Text, p. 445). We look inside first, decide the kind of world we want to see and then project that world outside, making it the truth as we see it. We make it true by our interpretations of what it is we are seeing. If we are using perception to justify our own mistakes—our anger, our impulses to attack, our lack of love in whatever form it may take—we will see a world of evil, destruction, malice, envy and despair. All this we must learn to forgive, not because we are being "good" and "charitable," but because what we are seeing is not true. We have distorted the world by our twisted defenses, and are therefore seeing what is not there. As we learn to recognize our perceptual errors, we also learn to look past them or "forgive." At the same time we are forgiving ourselves, looking past our distorted self-concepts to the Self That God created in us and as us.

Sin is defined as "lack of love" (Text, p. 11). Since love is all there is, sin in the sight of the Holy Spirit is a mistake to be corrected, rather than an evil to be punished. Our sense of inadequacy, weakness, and incompletion comes from the strong investment in the "scarcity principle" that governs the whole world of illusions. From that point of view, we seek in others what we feel is wanting in ourselves. We "love" another in order to get something ourselves. That, in fact, is what passes for love in the dream world. There can be no greater mistake than that, for love is incapable of asking for anything.

Only minds can really join, and whom God has joined no man can put asunder (Text, p. 356). It is, however, only at the level of Christ Mind that true union is possible, and has, in fact, never been lost. The "little I" seeks to enhance itself by external approval, external possessions, and external "love." The Self That God created needs nothing. It is forever complete, safe, loved, and loving. It seeks to share rather than to get; to extend rather than project. It has no needs and wants to join with others out of their mutual awareness of abundance.

The special relationships of the world are destructive, selfish, and childishly egocentric. Yet, if given to the Holy Spirit, these relationships can become the holiest things on earth—the miracles that point the way to the return to Heaven. The world uses its special relationships as a final weapon of exclusion and a demonstration of separateness. The Holy Spirit transforms them into perfect lessons in forgiveness and in awakening from the dream. Each one is an opportunity to let perceptions be healed and errors corrected. Each one is another chance to forgive oneself by forgiving the other. And each one becomes still another invitation to the Holy Spirit and to the remembrance of God.

Perception is a function of the body, and therefore represents a limit on awareness. Perception sees through the body's eyes and hears through the body's ears. It evokes the limited responses which the body makes. The body appears to be largely self-motivated and independent, yet it actually responds only to the intentions of the mind. If the mind wants to use it for attack in any form, it becomes prey to sickness, age, and decay. If the mind accepts the Holy Spirit's purpose for it instead, it becomes a useful way of communicating with others, invulnerable as long as it is needed, and to be gently laid by when its use is over. Of itself it is neutral, as is everything in the world of perception. Whether it is used for the goals of the ego or the Holy Spirit depends entirely on what the mind wants.

The opposite of seeing through the body's eyes is the vision of Christ, which reflects strength rather than weakness, unity rather than separation, and love rather than fear. The opposite of hearing through the body's ears is communication through the Voice for God, the Holy Spirit, which abides in each of us. His Voice seems distant and difficult to hear because the ego, which speaks for the little, separated self, seems to be much louder. This is actually reversed. The Holy Spirit speaks with unmistakable clarity and overwhelming appeal. No one who does not choose to identify with the body could possibly be deaf to His messages of release and hope, nor could he fail to accept joyously the vision of Christ in glad exchange for his miserable picture of himself.

I wouldn’t attempt to refute that an omnipotent creator could violate the laws of thermodynamics - and oh so much more. But I’m sincerely interested in any new arguments that the first and second laws have to be discarded in order for evolutionary processes to take place. Please point me to some elaboration about this. I say “new” because I am aware that previous arguments on this have been rejected. You understand, of course, that any scientist would love to be able to refute “accepted” principles and have it stick. A Nobel Prize would certainly be in the cards for anyone who could turn the first or second law on its head. (Remember, Einstein refuted Newton.) The next step to overturning the first and second laws would be a perpetual motion machine and we could all drive SUVs without guilt.

Instead of further discussion or rehashing of dug-in positions, I’d like to ask a couple specific questions to better understand Creation Science’s view. As discussed way above, we see that ID’s “Father” embraces the “old earth” position of the scientific community, i.e., that the earth is billions of years old. Creationists argue that the earth is approx. 6000 years old. My first question is, “Is this a make or break position?” - i.e., if the earth is actually as old as the IDers and scientific community assert - or any age significantly beyond 6000 years, do the creationists fold? My second question is, “What in Christianity stipulates ANY age upon the earth? Why is this even a point of importance?”

Lastly, I’m still waiting for a logical explanation of how Noah got all the critters on the Ark and more specifically how the kangaroos and koalas wound up only in Australia (of course, there are many other examples that could be cited). This is pertinent because I perceive the Creation Scientist’s positions to be based on an inerrant interpretation of the Bible and they cite the “great flood” or “Noah’s flood” in arguments they make to refute evolution constructs - specifically, the age of the earth. Thus, the kangaroo question is obvious and ought to have a defensible answer.

WAT

Weaver, I agree that Christianity could, and should, be taught in a "World's Religions" sort of class.

I also strongly disagree with you about other assertions that you've made. If you were to carry that sort of reasoning to it's natural end, there would be very little that could be taught in schools because "horrible atrocities which have accured throughout the world's history in the name of 'science' should be enough to scare the wits out of anyone when it comes to this."

Nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, weapons of all types and kinds (and the science that was the "cause" of atrocities resulting from misuse of that science), abortion that kills millions of totally innocent babies, the list of "atrocities," and potential atrocities through the misapplication of what is taught, under the 'guise' of "enlightened" moral relativism and science, could be very long indeed.

When it comes to "science," both models of origins should be taught. The "decision" that only evolution should be taught as "fact," or even as the "only model worthy of being taught," should NOT be made for you, for me, or for anyone else. People DO have the right to have all sides presented and the right to determine for themselves which "model" might "make more sense to them" or which "model" might potentially more accurately "predict" what scientific investigation might may actually reveal.

It is "elitist" secularism that believes we "need to be protected from even the mere mention of God. As if we are all too stupid, in this ONE area, to reach conclusions on our own. Weaver, there ARE only two viable "explanations" for "how we got here," that is, two models of possible Origins. It does NOT matter if Creation is a "minority" position among people. That is one of the primary reasons why we HAVE "Free Speech" entitlement guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a "two way street."

Discussing and presenting Creation by a "Supreme Being," "God," or any other term that might be used DOES NOT "establish" a "State Religion." Neither would presenting it as a "solely Christian" God. Like it or not, there ARE only the two potential models, neither of which has been shown to be THE way it really happened.

What it DOES, and why so many "elitists" are afraid of it, is that it says that the "elitists" might be wrong. There might BE a Supreme Being. All things might NOT be under our control. FEAR of having their predetermined "faith" in natural process as their "god" challenged is what motivates them to decide, in advance, for you and everyone else, that if they can just silence people of faith (in a God), that it won't matter if Evolution is proved or not, it will be accepted as FACT simply because so many people "say it is so" and the "opposition" has been effectively censored and silenced.

Another area where "God" needs to be discussed in schools is the area of "laws." Just how DID our founding fathers decide on a "moral code" to base laws (and the Constitution itself) on? Attempting to excise "God" from all things IS what secular humanism wants. They want their philosophy to be the ONLY philosophy and by NOT allowing people to know anything about "God" is a way to warp the minds of the "young skulls full of mush." Sort of reminiscent of the "Hitler youth" who were fed only "one" flavor of morality and certaintude and "worship."

Remember, it "cuts both ways." The Bill of Rights prohibits BOTH the establishment of an "official" and "exclusive" State Religion AND any attempt to prevent the Free Exercise of Religion, anywhere, anyplace, and anytime. The Constitution guarantees the right of the individual to make up their own mind regarding the embracing or rejecting of ANY religion, but not the de facto establishment of Atheism (no God anywhere, anytime) AS the officially sanctioned STATE RELIGION.

I would suggest that even today there are many people who went to schools where God was discussed, perhaps even taught as the "Christian" God, who have not committed atrocities. Some may have even chosen to reject the concept of God, or have chosen to make "God" over into their own image of what a "god" should be. Some may have made a choice of faith that entails supporting or rejection on "Model of Origins" over the other. But THEY have not been "warped" or "harmed" or "forced" to accept Christianity, or any other religions, as THEIR religion, against their will.

I would submit that things, morally and socially at least, have gotten much worse since "God" was kicked out of the classroom.

The rest of your post dealt with your personal beliefs and your "reasoning" for rejecting traditional Christianity. I need to think about commenting on what you said before deciding to post, or not post, any comments.

I also want to access the website you reference to get a better understand of that they are "preaching" as the "truth" before comparing it to what Scripture actually says.

If there IS some particular aspect that you would like a comment on, let me know and I can narrow and focus my comments to just a specific topic or item.

God bless.

WAT, perhaps it's your condescending "tone" and refusal to address REAL problems with the Evolution Model that prompts others to not "play your game."

I dunno. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been "disproven" with respect to Evolution. Really? Entropy has been "disproven." Really? You argue against God being able to "go around" physical laws and then turn right around and state in effect, "but evolution can violate fundamental physical laws and does NOT have to subject itself to the constraints of those physical laws."

No, you prefer to "dismiss" the arguments as "old" and therefore unworthy of application to the Evolutionary model.

That animals in any part of the world "got there" after the Flood amazes you because you de facto reject Catastrophism as a "viable" cause of planetary, physcial, and ecological changes from the "world that was."

WAT, the "tone" with which you approach discussion of ANY potential alternative to your already accepted "Evolution only" as being FACT mindset is what causes me to "pause" about spending any time or effort in "rebutting" or "answering" your positions or questions. The "things of God" are "foolishness" to you, so why should we bother to engage you and "play your game?"

Many evolutionists "rail" against some of the things done by Creationists, ala dimpsasawa's article attempting to belittle the "science" of the tests. Yet here you are, stating that Evolution "should not" have to obey the laws of science. It is an interesting position to take, I have to grant you that.

The "requirement" for PROOF really is a "shoe that fits both feet. If you are going to establish today's physical laws as your "test" for a "model's" predictability of actual events, then you can't be a "cake eater" and attempt to have them apply only to what you WANT them to apply to.

I'd like to throw in a third "model."

The Earth was possibly seeded by extraterrestials at one or more times. This could help explain the Cambrian Explosion and fill in some "missing link" gaps.

Why not?

Arguments to include all possible explanations in schools shouldn't be limited to two, right?

Of course, where did the extraterrestials come from? Were they created by one or more dieties or evolve separately on some other rock - or rocks?

The pursuit of science does not rule out ANY possibility. How often does that need to be stated? Creation is automatically included! Bring forth the fruits of the scientific process and allow knowledge to expand. The trouble some have is that the scientific process is a human process. Its constraints are things we humans can understand. We hypothesize things we don't yet understand and set out to prove or disprove their viability within the constraints of our understanding. Evolution is within our understanding - so far. A creator - by most accounts - is not. We do not understand how creation works. This doesn't mean a creator doesn't exist or we can't hypothesize one. It means our science is not capable of studying one in that we cannot explain by the things we do understand how it happens. (We obviously have some more evolving to do.)

WAT

I havent forgotten about the thread. Been very busy this past weekend. Once I finish this project this morning at work, I should be able to jump back in. This has been fun so far!!

Wow. It's like we're speaking different languages.

I do think it's interesting that those of you who want to put religion in our science texts take this all so personally. Instead of agreeing that the work of pseudoscience (and that's what it is!) has been rejected and complaining about that, you say that the people who do the work have been "belittled".

Evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It violates an incorrect extrapolation of the 2nd law.

GC

We have a constitutional right in the United States of America to practice any religion of our choice or to BE FREE FROM ANY AND/OR ALL RELIGIONS.

Not everone in this country believes in your concept of God. We have Neo Pagens, Buddhist, Shintoism, Judaism, American Indian, Indigionous African Religion, etc.

Why should they be subjected to God as you define Him? (no disrespect meant to you personally FH, just a generic statement)

Whose concept of God will our children be praying to?

If you want religion taught to YOUR child then you have the right to put that child in a private school paid for by you.

And I have a right to keep anothers concept of God away from my DD in a school paid for by me (as a tax payer).

The Constitution gives me that right and protects that right!

Oh and to answer your question about where one's morality will come from with the absense of God in the public schools?

Well first of all if you believe in God you know that He is everywhere.

Second a moral code must come from within. Relying on an outside authority does not work. Just take a look at the Nazi's who followed Hitler. Had there morality come from within, things may have been a little different for the 12 million people they slaughtered. (in the name of religion by the way).

Well actually only 6 million of the victims were Jewish, the other 6 million were professors, scientists, artists and the like who threatened Hitlers ideas with their critical and creative thought.

Morality can only come from within if it is to stand up to outside influences.

C'mon, FH - I didn't say that. Re-read what I said: "I wouldn’t attempt to refute that an omnipotent creator could violate the laws of thermodynamics - and oh so much more." A creator can do any dern thing it wants, I suspect.


I said nothing of the sort. Where'd you get that?

I'm not gaming you or any one else. I'm just asking quite simple questions that naturally fall out of positions taken by creationists. I'm actually trying to understand. Why 6000 years? What's magic about this? Where does it come from?

I don't know if I de facto reject Catastrophism because I don't know what it is. If it's a postulated catatrophe without a known natural cause, i.e., an act of your God, yes I reject it. If your explanation is the 'roos got to Australia after Noah's flood because "poof" they appeared as an act of God, so be it. That's your explanation. My next question would be then why have Noah gather up the animals in the first place? Forgive me for trying to make sense out of it. This is my weakness.

WAT

Weaver,

I just have to say, that my world is a better place for having known you!

I delight in your posts and am glad you are here!!! You are one of God's angels!

Ah, irony now. Thats been convincing people to change firmly held beliefs for, ooh, millenia. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Not a lot of time to respond. I will more in depth later. But this statement right here is the reason Hitler was who he said he was. Hitler's moral code (from within) was that Jews and others should be killed for the greater good. So, each person can make up morality as they see fit?!?!?

Very dangerous. And will not work. Morality HAS to come from a higher source, or then Hitler's morality is no better or no worse than my own. What right do I or anyone else have to say that he is wrong, except for that the fact that he was beaten militariy (to the winner goes the spoils).

Same thing for slavery. Who says one person cannot own another person? What if the majority of people in that country want that? Who has the right to decide morality?

It CANNOT come from the inside. Otherwise, everyone's morality is justified. And there is no such thing as right or wrong.

In His arms.