Well, we disagree on a couple of significant points, BUT
I agree that things should not be taught in the science classroom unless they are falsifiable or testable.
As far as I'm concerned, this includes all discussion/speculation/philosophy of origins.
However, as long as materialists or naturalists demand that their preferred philosophical viewpoint be taught in the science classroom, let's have a level playing field and allow other viewpoints taught there as well.
To sum up - I'll drop the affirmation of ID in science class when the idea of eternal materialism, or spontaneous generation of matter and energy with no root cause is dropped from the curriculum.
Since you're dropping off, I assume it's because you're not interested in further critical examination of your beliefs. I agree that slashdot is not a forum (in general) for rational discussion about high minded subjects but this discussion between us has been atypical of this forum.
With respect to your comment about bloodshed before the fall, in Gen 1:29, "And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so."
The first record of animal death was to provide for clothing for Adam and Eve after the fall. There's absolutely no evidence of death prior to this, so your point of view must be an assumption, no?
I have critically examined my views, and am open to more discussion on this topic, but I think that your view, while more convenient from an explanation perspective, leaves much to be desired. That's the trouble with making much of the scriptures an allegory or a type. Clearly both are components of parts of scripture, and it takes critical thinking skills to determine the appropriate interpretive filter.
If you take the literal fall away, then there's really only a need for an allegorical Christ as well. That's pretty empty theology by comparison.
It's a little of both, I'm afraid: According to this news article, it's some residents of the city that are suing. Admittedly I didn't find the source before posting. I basd the posting on my recollection of a conversation with a friend. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170468,00.html
The constitution says "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" When a county puts up ANY display, that's a county matter, not a federal one. Where are the rights of the states? GONE!
Why does the ACLU regularly file suit on issues like government properties allowing the display of Christian religious symbols AT CHRISTMAS when the VAST majority of people in this country celebrate that at LEAST as a secular holiday. Is it really oppressive? No way! This kind of thing makes me sick!
What does the Boy Scouts having their jamboree on federal property have to do with the establishment clause? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The Boy Scouts having 'under God' in their oath is NOT the state establishing a national Christian religion.
Here's the point, these are NOT about getting the state to endorse my religion. What it IS about is that there are a majority of people (still) who agree with the vast majority of Christian belief and practices, and who are not negatively affected by the city, county, state or feds recognizing that these ideas are consistent with community standards and offer some value to the community at large. Also, the facts are that the 10 commandments have a unique relationship to the rule of law in our country and it's revisionist history to claim otherwise.
Let's be clear, persecution of Christians for their religious beliefs DOES occur. Predominantly this is at the hands of atheistic or Muslim governments. More than 150,000 Christians were killed last year for their Christian beliefs. (Source: Missionary to Indonesia speaking at my church - not available on the web. This number is consistent with other sources I have heard.) What's happening here is not persecution. What is happening here is that the culture is becoming more intolerant and hostile to my worldview. Others may disagree, but I have observed management in my company tell people that they cannot discuss religion at work. This is a violation of free speech rights regardless of religious views, but there's a fear and perception that recognition of religious belief at work is unacceptable. It's only going to get worse and worse.
Do you believe that when the school system rents a church facility to have graduation (because school facilities are not big enough to handle the event) that this is the state sponsoring religion? What if the "church" is a synagague, mosque or temple? Frankly I would absolutely NOT care if the school system rented and atheist-owned hall for graduation. If my kids' worldview was going to be damaged by one incident in one location one time, my world view would be pretty indefe
Isn't it possible that at one time all of the creatures who are currently carvnivores were plant eaters? Isn't it a possibility that they adapted to eat meat later?
The Bible says that God gave plants for food, then after the fall, the death and meat eating began. It does not say how long the period of plant eating lasted. Based on what I know of the corruption in the heart of all men, I speculate that the period between God's creation of man, and man's choosing to rebel against God was probably pretty short.
You're assuming that the teeth demand that dogs and Adam and Eve ate meat.
I don't have all of the answers, but aren't you making an assuption that because these animals eat meat today they ate meat then? After all, is it possible for dogs to live on a vegetarian diet?
Gen 1:29-30 says: Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" Plants were designed to be eaten, and only after the fall were animals slain.
If it's spiritual death you with which you are concerned, then why was it not sufficient for Jesus to die "spiritually?" Thomas said "My Lord and my God" only after touching the physical wounds.
Why did the followers of Christ claim that Christ would rise bodily? Would it not have been MUCH simpler to argue that it was some spiritual or mystic resurrection rather than a physical one?
While not a Roman Catholic, I do agree that mankind - as the offspring of Adam - was separated from God even from before birth. A strong testimony to the concept of original sin and that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked - who can understand it?" is to spend time around an infant or very young toddler. They live only for themselves and are filled with rage if they cannot have their way! I say this as the parent of four wonderful boys, for whom I am immensely grateful, and appreciate the opportunity to have the privilege of being their dad.
There's an all-out war to preclude any public religious speech in this country. Don't believe that? Why is the ACLU filing suit against Las Cruces NM for having Crosses in their logo? the town is known as "THE CROSSES!" It's revisionist history at best. It's persecution of the Christian worldview at most. It's troubling either way.
There's a movement of people hostile to the Christian worldview and this step is the next one in the removal of my freedom of speech and in the battle for the minds of American children. Perhaps you will perceive me as being alarmist or extremist, but I feel strongly that my civil rights are at risk.
The Evolution/ID debate is simply the latest front in the culture war between people who believe in absolute truth and those who do not. Evolutionary theory is a reflection of a worldview that is in stark contrast to the Christian worldview. Why is it that so-called scientists are troubled that there might be an alternate explantion which is different from the explanation acecpted by the crowd? The religion of scientists seems to be as scared of revolutionary ideas as the church at one time was of Galieo's theories.
I think that speciation through evolution is a terrible idea, and is simply untrue. It's not provable or falsifiable for that matter. Why should this be taught? Because the current conventional wisdom is that this is true? I submit to you that the concept of speciation through evoolution will be considered archaic bad science in 100 years.
Perhaps you should check your facts. The Christian understanding is that women and men are equal in value, but have different roles. In fact, men are to honor women.
Jesus' treatment of women was revolutionary for His time: He talked to foreign women, He taught women students, He used terminology which treated women as equal to men (Luke 13:16, Luke 7:35 to 8:50)
Science cannot treat origins as a scientific endeavor. Nothing about origins should not be taught in science class.
I apologize in advance for being a bit thick, but what does predictability have to do with this?
Also, it's true that God cannot be completely comprehended, but the fact that an ordered, non-capricious God created the universe, and He called it good - that fact tells us that the universe should be expected to be ordered and possible to be studied.
The fact that we are here as a result of an intelligent designer makes scientific study a possibility. If everything was random chance, no ideas would have structure or meaning!
Evolution is true - we do see variation within kind. It's measurable, reproduceable, concrete. Speciation through evolution is speculation based on evidence. Creationism is another theory based on philosophy and the same physical evidence. Scientists have a philosophical bias, too.
There's a fundamental issue that precludes Christianity from being compatible with evolutionary theory.
The Bible teaches that there was no death prior to the fall of man. Specifically taught in Genesis, and reinforced in the new testament was that sin entered the world through the actions of one man, and death came to the earth as a result.
Theologically speaking, since death could not have preceeded sin, and sin did not occur until the fall in the garden: Evolution - which requires a constant cycle of life death and life - is not consistent with the problem of mankind, or the solution - Jesus Christ.
Since origins cannot be tested, observed or falsified, it is not a scientific field of study. As a proponent of ID, I only care that my philosophy is taught in the science classroom as long as the naturalist's philosophy of origins is taught there. Sagan's line "The universe is all that there is, all that there ever was, and all that will be" haunts me. Why must materialist philosophy be taught in science class? As long as we're doing the wrong thing in that way, you should teach my philosophy there too.
Please note that I think that scientific study is a good thing. I also think that scientists should consider all possibilities. Gould contended that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' which in my view prevents scientists from considering whether something supernatural might be the primary cause.
I almost flunked out of college for the same reasons. I picked up "Where there's a will, there's an 'A'"
That program was not magic, but it helped me see the "game" of college differently and gave me some strategies - socially, politically, and academically that helped me win that game. I was on the dean's list in no time.
I finished college with a good GPA, and have been successfully in the business world for almost 15 years since graduation. Work is a similar "game."
You can learn to study and develop the discipline you missed due to the deficiencies of the educational system. Don't give up on college - play the game to win!
The problem is not that 'stupid patriots like' me (btw - mature response on your part, too, thank you very much) refuse to accept honesty. It's that folks who think like you want to defame, condemn and hand-wring about how terrible America is. You don't want to fix it, you want to complain about it.
Government is awful. It's inefficient, has some corrupt people, makes broad decisions without considering all of the narrow implications, and frustrates many people.
The American form of government is far from perfect. I believe that it is far better than the alternatives. You don't. We can agree to disagree respectfully, but if you're just planning to kvetch about the evil, stupid, 'imperialistic' nature of our government - while doing nothing to make it better (e.g. electing people who share your view or working to establish a new constitution here) then kindly SHUT UP so we don't have to deal with your whining.
I get angry about people who have no positive agenda, but instead attack the character and itegrity of those people who have the balls to get out there, get elected to public office and make tough decisions.
If we suck, it's YOUR FAULT for not winning the majority to your "correct" way of thinking. If your only direction is to whine, you'll never have followers and it will never get "better."
It's your choice. Frankly it's my hope that you decide to either be quiet about your world view, or keep complaining about how terrible we are rather than have you sidetrack the people who are trying (imperfectly) to do some good in the world. Ultimately it's your choice.
I went to a county council meeting last night so that my view would be heard by our leaders. What did you do last night?
I believe that you really believe what you wrote and did so in good will. The problem is that the facts belie the assertions that you have made.
First, even if SOME mutations are beneficial, there's not enough time to make up for the very small percentage of favorable mutation. Even if you throw 4 billion years at the problem, it's not enough. Scientists in the last 200 years have resorted to proposing extremely long periods of time because there's little way that mutation and evolution could provide speciation without huge amounts of time. I referred to the time/chance problem in detail in a previous post
Let me be clear. Evolution does exist. The facts show that it does. Look at rabbits that adapt to snowy conditions because the genes that lead to darker colored fur are eliminated by predators. This is adaptation, and it is supported by good science. Let me also be direct in this statement: the facts DO NOT show that evolution is the mechanism of speciation.
Secondly, Here's one reference that shows that the moth story is merely a story which happens to be unsupported by science. There are MANY MANY places where this is documented, and I am confident that the facts are on the side of debunking this story. Many evolutionists use this as an example, and have been misled by bad science and poor teaching.
When you say The answer is obvious, really. You're falling prey to the phenomenon described by HL Mencken "For every complex problem there is a solution that is concise, clear, simple,and wrong." Mencken was wrong about many things, but right about this one. This is a complex issue, and evolution is not a sufficient explanation of speciation.
It's not that you have bad intentions, it's that you've been led down the wrong path by well-meaning but wrong teachers.
Respectfully, Anomaly
PS - from your UID, it looks like we've both been hanging around slashdot for about the same length of time.:)
Look, there's little point in dialog if we're planning to resort to character assassination and name-calling. We can respectfully disagree, and perhaps even come to some common understanding, but *not* when you make wild accusations and criticize the character of people you do not know, and whose opinions you do not understand.
As a bible-believing Christian, I know many people believe that the Bible reliable, are intelligent and thoughtful people who in fact are good scientists. Christianity is not diametrically opposed to science. Many many many of the major contributions to scientific knowledge have come at the hands of scientists who were (or are) Christians.
When you say You are correct that there is no absolute truth you are making a claim of absolute truth. Talk about absurd ideas!
Look, complainers like you will never be satisfied - there will always be insufficient reform, and too much corruption. Too much waste and too little accomplishment.
Give me a break. Our leaders are evil? Please.
If we're so awful, why don't you find the country of paradise that you seek. Let me see - Venezuela? PRC China? Iran? Go ahead, and good riddance.
Worse off? Are you kidding me? If you think we stink, why not just leave. Nothing we do would please you.
I've got friends who have had 'boots on the ground' in Iraq. They tell me story after story about how the Iraqis are glad we're there offering order and due process for them. On what do you base your assertion?
If you want Linux to be the hacker's paradise, then by all means make people work to get their PCs to work properly. Most people don't want to futz with conf files to get their sound to work. It's not weakness or stupidity - people want to use PCs for things other than tinkering with drivers!
I've been using linux as a primary desktop OS for 8-9 years. I know what I'm talking about. Especially on laptops, device driver support can be a royal pain. Getting the audio to work on the Thinkpad 390X was (and continues to be) painful. OSS drivers *do* work, but out of the box they don't.
None of the non-geeks I know would tolerate that kind of performance. It's an elitist attitude like yours that will keep Linux away from "normals."
Let's look at Iraq: USAID reports significant progress In the areas of health care:
* Vaccinated over 3.2 million children under five and 700,000 pregnant women with vaccination campaigns and monthly immunization days.
* Provided supplementary doses of vitamin A for more than 600,000 children under two and 1.5 million lactating mothers, and iron folate supplements for over 1.6 million women of childbearing age.
* Screened more than 1.3 million children under five for malnutrition and distributed high protein biscuits to more than 450,000 children and 200,000 pregnant and nursing mothers.
USAID addressed urgent water and sanitation needs to prevent disease outbreaks:
* Provided potable water for 500,000 persons each day in Basrah, Kirkuk, and Mosul.
* Repaired 1,700 breaks in Baghdad's water distribution network, rehabilitated water treatment facilities in four governorates, and repaired over 100 sewage pumping stations, rainwater stations and collapsed sewer lines in 6 governorates.
* Procured supplies to service water treatment facilities in Baghdad and other cities.
USAID programs enhanced the effectiveness and long-term impact of health services:
* Provided skills training for 2,500 primary health care providers and 700 physicians. Trained 2,000 health educators, teachers, religious leaders and youth to mobilize communities on hygiene, diarrhea, breastfeeding, nutrition and immunization issues.
* Disseminated information on essential health messages to families around the country.
* Renovated 110 primary health care centers and provided basic clinical and laboratory equipment to support the delivery of essential primary health care services to 600 primary health care centers.
* Provided vaccines and cold chain equipment to selected remote health centers.
* Developed a national plan for fortification of wheat flour with iron and folic acid.
* Re-established the national disease surveillance system.
Not to mention:
* Power
* Operations and Maintenance
* Agriculture
* Marshlands
* Food Security
* Humanitarian Assistance
* Vocational Education
* Business Skills Training
In Indonesia, USAID reports $3.9B in US aid for tsunami recovery.
I could go on and on with financial helpd, educational assistance, political support and more, but come to think of it: You're right. We stink. We are imperialistic conquerers who destroy foreign governments and enslave their people. In the name of all that is good and right, we should be destroyed by the good and freedom loving people around the world. Let the destruction begin. Americans are evil and stupid.
Perhaps you're understanding of the 'religious right' differs from mine. I am certain that I would be described as a member of the religious right, although I don't have a membership card, and am uncertain of the definition of such an 'organization.'
I think that we are in agreement that there should be a hierarchy of ideas. Some ideas have merit, and others are complete tripe. Speaking in philosophical terms, I think that the problem is far more related to relativism than it is to fundamentalist Christianity.
In our current post-modern world, since there's no such thing as absolute truth, no one has the right to claim their ideas as being of more value than anyone else's.
In my world view, all people have equal value (some contribute more than others) but ideas have differing values from an absolute sense.
The core issue (as I mentioned in a post above) is that those with a distinctly non-christian world view have hijacked the courts and the educational system in the US and are using it to indoctrinate the next generation with muck.
One component of that muck is the concept that all life spontaneously appeared from essentially nothing. This is NOT a scientific view. It is a speculative view. It is non falsifiable, and not testable. It is not science. And yet, it is taught in the science classroom. Why? I cannot say. Since the materialistic naturalists demand their philosophy be taught in the classroom, ID proponents want their view taught there as well.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but am curious to know if you can follow this line of reasoning.
Also, when you rail against the abuses of the religious right, I'd ask you to consider whether any other world view would allow as much freedom as is available to people of all stripes here in the US. I submit to you that any other ideological view would be far worse in terms of freedom. History (and modern-day) is replete with examples.
Start with abiogenesis = a-bio-genesis, "non-biological origin". According to this source, abiogenesisis "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation."
It seems to me that the plain ordinary meaning of this term implies more than you suggest in your post above. Now we agree that there was a time when life did not exist, and I hope that we agree that it does now.:)
So, it follows that life came from somewhere. The question is through natural processes, or something other than natural processes. Science is simply unable to speak on the issue of a non-natural cause, because science is constrained to things natural.
That's precisely the question that the theory of evolution addresses. And ID proponents might suggest that it's the question addressed by ID as well. Frankly we'd be fools to believe that adaptation does not happen. It is observable, and it is repeatable. There is no question that evolution is the explanation of the differences within a species.
Where you and I diverge is in the question of speciation. Evolution is an answer - something like an 80% answer. There are gaps, and the hope is that they will be filled in when more information is available. This was precisely the situation with the epicyclic theory of the solar system some years ago. I'm waiting for a modern-day Kepler to blow the doors off of speciation via evolution. I'm not saying that evolution is bankrupt - I'm just saying that it's a poor explanation of speciation. I believe that scientists have an a priori commitment to naturalism and refuse to consider anything that does not fit their philosophical model.
WRT complexity, I'm not saying that no complexity can arise naturally, I'm saying that it's not the most likely explanation of what we observe. Here are some thoughts: Why didn't the universe equilibrate an eternity ago? It seems to me that all energy should have been equally dispersed, and it should be a LOT colder than it is.
What about irrreducible complexity? How can it be that a structure like the eye exists when in order to have been favorable, many of the parts must have appeared at the same time, in the right order. Seems unlikely to me. How does the calcium in the bones of a bird make it through the process to form the shell of the egg, and then stop doing the process kills the mother bird? Talk about complex!
How hard is it for the body to heal a cut? There are something like seven different processes involved in starting, then stopping the clotting process before the person dies from either bleeding out or lack of blood flow because it's all solid in their veins.
Most mutations are NOT beneficial. Yet, naturalistic speciation depends on this process, pluse time. This simply seems implausible to me.
According to a mathematical expert, Dr. James Coppedge, "giving evolutionists every possible concession, postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary, and speeding up the rate of bonding a trillion times: The probability of a single protein^34 molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161, using all atoms on earth and allowing all time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10^119,841 years on the average to get a set of such protiens" (James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or impossible, p218)
According to occam's razor, doesn't it seem likely that something outside natural processes is most likely for the existance of life here?
Abiogenesis had to occur anyway. It did? With all due respect, on what do you base that claim?
Nor would you assume God made it. If you find a watch, you don't assume that God created it. Neither do I. We assume, based on our framework of knowledge that:
an intelligent designer designed it,
someone arranged for production, then
some distribution mechanism occurred to deposit the timepiece in the sand.
Given what we know about the universe, it's occam's razor.
How then can we look at the myriad complexity of biology and believe that something which is orders of magnitude more complex came to be as a result of time, chance, and favored characteristics?
I'm a hypocrite because I use the word materialist to describe.... materialists? I'm baffled by this. Can you clarify for me, please?
Can you explain to me how the study of origins is a scientific pursuit? It's neither observable nor testable. It's not falsifiable using the scientific method. How is that science?
Scientists should be free to investigate whatever they like, any way they like. I agree with the first clause. Scientists are free to study whatever they like. They are not free to block expression of competing ideas in the marketplace, but no one tells a scientist what to study (other than the grant committee.)
The second clause, I disagree with. Scientists MUST be bound to follow the scientific method, precluding many ways of investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we disagree on a couple of significant points, BUT
I agree that things should not be taught in the science classroom unless they are falsifiable or testable.
As far as I'm concerned, this includes all discussion/speculation/philosophy of origins.
However, as long as materialists or naturalists demand that their preferred philosophical viewpoint be taught in the science classroom, let's have a level playing field and allow other viewpoints taught there as well.
To sum up - I'll drop the affirmation of ID in science class when the idea of eternal materialism, or spontaneous generation of matter and energy with no root cause is dropped from the curriculum.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Since you're dropping off, I assume it's because you're not interested in further critical examination of your beliefs. I agree that slashdot is not a forum (in general) for rational discussion about high minded subjects but this discussion between us has been atypical of this forum.
With respect to your comment about bloodshed before the fall, in Gen 1:29, "And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so."
The first record of animal death was to provide for clothing for Adam and Eve after the fall. There's absolutely no evidence of death prior to this, so your point of view must be an assumption, no?
I have critically examined my views, and am open to more discussion on this topic, but I think that your view, while more convenient from an explanation perspective, leaves much to be desired. That's the trouble with making much of the scriptures an allegory or a type. Clearly both are components of parts of scripture, and it takes critical thinking skills to determine the appropriate interpretive filter.
If you take the literal fall away, then there's really only a need for an allegorical Christ as well. That's pretty empty theology by comparison.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
It's a little of both, I'm afraid:
.ap/ /
According to this news article, it's some residents of the city that are suing. Admittedly I didn't find the source before posting. I basd the posting on my recollection of a conversation with a friend. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170468,00.html
HOWEVER, I believed it because of the ongoing assault on Christian's rights from the ACLU which I have seen again and again:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/desert.cross
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments
http://www.aclu.org//religion/tencomm/16298prs2000 1012.html
http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpag e=1&id=91429
The constitution says "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" When a county puts up ANY display, that's a county matter, not a federal one. Where are the rights of the states? GONE!
Why does the ACLU regularly file suit on issues like government properties allowing the display of Christian religious symbols AT CHRISTMAS when the VAST majority of people in this country celebrate that at LEAST as a secular holiday. Is it really oppressive? No way! This kind of thing makes me sick!
What does the Boy Scouts having their jamboree on federal property have to do with the establishment clause? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The Boy Scouts having 'under God' in their oath is NOT the state establishing a national Christian religion.
Non-ACLU assaults
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/venrtura.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/wtccross.a sp
Here's the point, these are NOT about getting the state to endorse my religion. What it IS about is that there are a majority of people (still) who agree with the vast majority of Christian belief and practices, and who are not negatively affected by the city, county, state or feds recognizing that these ideas are consistent with community standards and offer some value to the community at large. Also, the facts are that the 10 commandments have a unique relationship to the rule of law in our country and it's revisionist history to claim otherwise.
Let's be clear, persecution of Christians for their religious beliefs DOES occur. Predominantly this is at the hands of atheistic or Muslim governments. More than 150,000 Christians were killed last year for their Christian beliefs. (Source: Missionary to Indonesia speaking at my church - not available on the web. This number is consistent with other sources I have heard.) What's happening here is not persecution. What is happening here is that the culture is becoming more intolerant and hostile to my worldview. Others may disagree, but I have observed management in my company tell people that they cannot discuss religion at work. This is a violation of free speech rights regardless of religious views, but there's a fear and perception that recognition of religious belief at work is unacceptable. It's only going to get worse and worse.
Do you believe that when the school system rents a church facility to have graduation (because school facilities are not big enough to handle the event) that this is the state sponsoring religion? What if the "church" is a synagague, mosque or temple? Frankly I would absolutely NOT care if the school system rented and atheist-owned hall for graduation. If my kids' worldview was going to be damaged by one incident in one location one time, my world view would be pretty indefe
Isn't it possible that at one time all of the creatures who are currently carvnivores were plant eaters? Isn't it a possibility that they adapted to eat meat later?
The Bible says that God gave plants for food, then after the fall, the death and meat eating began. It does not say how long the period of plant eating lasted. Based on what I know of the corruption in the heart of all men, I speculate that the period between God's creation of man, and man's choosing to rebel against God was probably pretty short.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
You're assuming that the teeth demand that dogs and Adam and Eve ate meat.
I don't have all of the answers, but aren't you making an assuption that because these animals eat meat today they ate meat then? After all, is it possible for dogs to live on a vegetarian diet?
Gen 1:29-30 says:
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" Plants were designed to be eaten, and only after the fall were animals slain.
If it's spiritual death you with which you are concerned, then why was it not sufficient for Jesus to die "spiritually?" Thomas said "My Lord and my God" only after touching the physical wounds.
Why did the followers of Christ claim that Christ would rise bodily? Would it not have been MUCH simpler to argue that it was some spiritual or mystic resurrection rather than a physical one?
While not a Roman Catholic, I do agree that mankind - as the offspring of Adam - was separated from God even from before birth. A strong testimony to the concept of original sin and that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked - who can understand it?" is to spend time around an infant or very young toddler. They live only for themselves and are filled with rage if they cannot have their way! I say this as the parent of four wonderful boys, for whom I am immensely grateful, and appreciate the opportunity to have the privilege of being their dad.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Adam and Eve were vegetarians until after the fall. It's not a problem for plants to die.
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."
There's an all-out war to preclude any public religious speech in this country. Don't believe that? Why is the ACLU filing suit against Las Cruces NM for having Crosses in their logo? the town is known as "THE CROSSES!" It's revisionist history at best. It's persecution of the Christian worldview at most. It's troubling either way.
There's a movement of people hostile to the Christian worldview and this step is the next one in the removal of my freedom of speech and in the battle for the minds of American children. Perhaps you will perceive me as being alarmist or extremist, but I feel strongly that my civil rights are at risk.
The Evolution/ID debate is simply the latest front in the culture war between people who believe in absolute truth and those who do not. Evolutionary theory is a reflection of a worldview that is in stark contrast to the Christian worldview. Why is it that so-called scientists are troubled that there might be an alternate explantion which is different from the explanation acecpted by the crowd? The religion of scientists seems to be as scared of revolutionary ideas as the church at one time was of Galieo's theories.
I think that speciation through evolution is a terrible idea, and is simply untrue. It's not provable or falsifiable for that matter. Why should this be taught? Because the current conventional wisdom is that this is true? I submit to you that the concept of speciation through evoolution will be considered archaic bad science in 100 years.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Perhaps you should check your facts. The Christian understanding is that women and men are equal in value, but have different roles. In fact, men are to honor women.
Jesus' treatment of women was revolutionary for His time: He talked to foreign women, He taught women students, He used terminology which treated women as equal to men (Luke 13:16, Luke 7:35 to 8:50)
Science cannot treat origins as a scientific endeavor. Nothing about origins should not be taught in science class.
I apologize in advance for being a bit thick, but what does predictability have to do with this?
Also, it's true that God cannot be completely comprehended, but the fact that an ordered, non-capricious God created the universe, and He called it good - that fact tells us that the universe should be expected to be ordered and possible to be studied.
The fact that we are here as a result of an intelligent designer makes scientific study a possibility. If everything was random chance, no ideas would have structure or meaning!
Evolution is true - we do see variation within kind. It's measurable, reproduceable, concrete. Speciation through evolution is speculation based on evidence. Creationism is another theory based on philosophy and the same physical evidence. Scientists have a philosophical bias, too.
If it's a SCIENCE class, material taught there should be subject to the scientific method. If it's not (origins) it should NOT be taught.
There's a fundamental issue that precludes Christianity from being compatible with evolutionary theory.
The Bible teaches that there was no death prior to the fall of man. Specifically taught in Genesis, and reinforced in the new testament was that sin entered the world through the actions of one man, and death came to the earth as a result.
Theologically speaking, since death could not have preceeded sin, and sin did not occur until the fall in the garden:
Evolution - which requires a constant cycle of life death and life - is not consistent with the problem of mankind, or the solution - Jesus Christ.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I agree that ID is not science.
Since origins cannot be tested, observed or falsified, it is not a scientific field of study. As a proponent of ID, I only care that my philosophy is taught in the science classroom as long as the naturalist's philosophy of origins is taught there. Sagan's line "The universe is all that there is, all that there ever was, and all that will be" haunts me. Why must materialist philosophy be taught in science class? As long as we're doing the wrong thing in that way, you should teach my philosophy there too.
Please note that I think that scientific study is a good thing. I also think that scientists should consider all possibilities. Gould contended that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' which in my view prevents scientists from considering whether something supernatural might be the primary cause.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I almost flunked out of college for the same reasons. I picked up "Where there's a will, there's an 'A'"
That program was not magic, but it helped me see the "game" of college differently and gave me some strategies - socially, politically, and academically that helped me win that game. I was on the dean's list in no time.
I finished college with a good GPA, and have been successfully in the business world for almost 15 years since graduation. Work is a similar "game."
You can learn to study and develop the discipline you missed due to the deficiencies of the educational system. Don't give up on college - play the game to win!
Regards,
Anomaly
The problem is not that 'stupid patriots like' me (btw - mature response on your part, too, thank you very much) refuse to accept honesty. It's that folks who think like you want to defame, condemn and hand-wring about how terrible America is. You don't want to fix it, you want to complain about it.
Government is awful. It's inefficient, has some corrupt people, makes broad decisions without considering all of the narrow implications, and frustrates many people.
The American form of government is far from perfect. I believe that it is far better than the alternatives. You don't. We can agree to disagree respectfully, but if you're just planning to kvetch about the evil, stupid, 'imperialistic' nature of our government - while doing nothing to make it better (e.g. electing people who share your view or working to establish a new constitution here) then kindly SHUT UP so we don't have to deal with your whining.
I get angry about people who have no positive agenda, but instead attack the character and itegrity of those people who have the balls to get out there, get elected to public office and make tough decisions.
If we suck, it's YOUR FAULT for not winning the majority to your "correct" way of thinking. If your only direction is to whine, you'll never have followers and it will never get "better."
It's your choice. Frankly it's my hope that you decide to either be quiet about your world view, or keep complaining about how terrible we are rather than have you sidetrack the people who are trying (imperfectly) to do some good in the world. Ultimately it's your choice.
I went to a county council meeting last night so that my view would be heard by our leaders. What did you do last night?
I believe that you really believe what you wrote and did so in good will. The problem is that the facts belie the assertions that you have made.
:)
First, even if SOME mutations are beneficial, there's not enough time to make up for the very small percentage of favorable mutation. Even if you throw 4 billion years at the problem, it's not enough. Scientists in the last 200 years have resorted to proposing extremely long periods of time because there's little way that mutation and evolution could provide speciation without huge amounts of time. I referred to the time/chance problem in detail in a previous post
Let me be clear. Evolution does exist. The facts show that it does. Look at rabbits that adapt to snowy conditions because the genes that lead to darker colored fur are eliminated by predators. This is adaptation, and it is supported by good science. Let me also be direct in this statement: the facts DO NOT show that evolution is the mechanism of speciation.
Secondly, Here's one reference that shows that the moth story is merely a story which happens to be unsupported by science. There are MANY MANY places where this is documented, and I am confident that the facts are on the side of debunking this story. Many evolutionists use this as an example, and have been misled by bad science and poor teaching.
When you say The answer is obvious, really. You're falling prey to the phenomenon described by HL Mencken "For every complex problem there is a solution that is concise, clear, simple,and wrong." Mencken was wrong about many things, but right about this one. This is a complex issue, and evolution is not a sufficient explanation of speciation.
It's not that you have bad intentions, it's that you've been led down the wrong path by well-meaning but wrong teachers.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
PS - from your UID, it looks like we've both been hanging around slashdot for about the same length of time.
Look, there's little point in dialog if we're planning to resort to character assassination and name-calling. We can respectfully disagree, and perhaps even come to some common understanding, but *not* when you make wild accusations and criticize the character of people you do not know, and whose opinions you do not understand.
As a bible-believing Christian, I know many people believe that the Bible reliable, are intelligent and thoughtful people who in fact are good scientists. Christianity is not diametrically opposed to science. Many many many of the major contributions to scientific knowledge have come at the hands of scientists who were (or are) Christians.
When you say You are correct that there is no absolute truth you are making a claim of absolute truth. Talk about absurd ideas!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Look, complainers like you will never be satisfied - there will always be insufficient reform, and too much corruption. Too much waste and too little accomplishment.
Give me a break. Our leaders are evil? Please.
If we're so awful, why don't you find the country of paradise that you seek. Let me see - Venezuela? PRC China? Iran? Go ahead, and good riddance.
Worse off? Are you kidding me? If you think we stink, why not just leave. Nothing we do would please you.
I've got friends who have had 'boots on the ground' in Iraq. They tell me story after story about how the Iraqis are glad we're there offering order and due process for them. On what do you base your assertion?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
If you want Linux to be the hacker's paradise, then by all means make people work to get their PCs to work properly. Most people don't want to futz with conf files to get their sound to work. It's not weakness or stupidity - people want to use PCs for things other than tinkering with drivers!
I've been using linux as a primary desktop OS for 8-9 years. I know what I'm talking about. Especially on laptops, device driver support can be a royal pain. Getting the audio to work on the Thinkpad 390X was (and continues to be) painful. OSS drivers *do* work, but out of the box they don't.
None of the non-geeks I know would tolerate that kind of performance. It's an elitist attitude like yours that will keep Linux away from "normals."
Congratulations!
What great things has America done?
Let's look at Iraq:
USAID reports significant progress
In the areas of health care:
* Vaccinated over 3.2 million children under five and 700,000 pregnant women with vaccination campaigns and monthly immunization days.
* Provided supplementary doses of vitamin A for more than 600,000 children under two and 1.5 million lactating mothers, and iron folate supplements for over 1.6 million women of childbearing age.
* Screened more than 1.3 million children under five for malnutrition and distributed high protein biscuits to more than 450,000 children and 200,000 pregnant and nursing mothers.
USAID addressed urgent water and sanitation needs to prevent disease outbreaks:
* Provided potable water for 500,000 persons each day in Basrah, Kirkuk, and Mosul.
* Repaired 1,700 breaks in Baghdad's water distribution network, rehabilitated water treatment facilities in four governorates, and repaired over 100 sewage pumping stations, rainwater stations and collapsed sewer lines in 6 governorates.
* Procured supplies to service water treatment facilities in Baghdad and other cities.
USAID programs enhanced the effectiveness and long-term impact of health services:
* Provided skills training for 2,500 primary health care providers and 700 physicians. Trained 2,000 health educators, teachers, religious leaders and youth to mobilize communities on hygiene, diarrhea, breastfeeding, nutrition and immunization issues.
* Disseminated information on essential health messages to families around the country.
* Renovated 110 primary health care centers and provided basic clinical and laboratory equipment to support the delivery of essential primary health care services to 600 primary health care centers.
* Provided vaccines and cold chain equipment to selected remote health centers.
* Developed a national plan for fortification of wheat flour with iron and folic acid.
* Re-established the national disease surveillance system.
Not to mention:
* Power
* Operations and Maintenance
* Agriculture
* Marshlands
* Food Security
* Humanitarian Assistance
* Vocational Education
* Business Skills Training
In Indonesia, USAID reports $3.9B in US aid for tsunami recovery.
I could go on and on with financial helpd, educational assistance, political support and more, but come to think of it: You're right. We stink. We are imperialistic conquerers who destroy foreign governments and enslave their people. In the name of all that is good and right, we should be destroyed by the good and freedom loving people around the world. Let the destruction begin. Americans are evil and stupid.
Give me a break!
Perhaps you're understanding of the 'religious right' differs from mine. I am certain that I would be described as a member of the religious right, although I don't have a membership card, and am uncertain of the definition of such an 'organization.'
I think that we are in agreement that there should be a hierarchy of ideas. Some ideas have merit, and others are complete tripe. Speaking in philosophical terms, I think that the problem is far more related to relativism than it is to fundamentalist Christianity.
In our current post-modern world, since there's no such thing as absolute truth, no one has the right to claim their ideas as being of more value than anyone else's.
In my world view, all people have equal value (some contribute more than others) but ideas have differing values from an absolute sense.
The core issue (as I mentioned in a post above) is that those with a distinctly non-christian world view have hijacked the courts and the educational system in the US and are using it to indoctrinate the next generation with muck.
One component of that muck is the concept that all life spontaneously appeared from essentially nothing. This is NOT a scientific view. It is a speculative view. It is non falsifiable, and not testable. It is not science. And yet, it is taught in the science classroom. Why? I cannot say. Since the materialistic naturalists demand their philosophy be taught in the classroom, ID proponents want their view taught there as well.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but am curious to know if you can follow this line of reasoning.
Also, when you rail against the abuses of the religious right, I'd ask you to consider whether any other world view would allow as much freedom as is available to people of all stripes here in the US. I submit to you that any other ideological view would be far worse in terms of freedom. History (and modern-day) is replete with examples.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Start with abiogenesis = a-bio-genesis, "non-biological origin".
:)
According to this source, abiogenesisis "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation."
It seems to me that the plain ordinary meaning of this term implies more than you suggest in your post above. Now we agree that there was a time when life did not exist, and I hope that we agree that it does now.
So, it follows that life came from somewhere. The question is through natural processes, or something other than natural processes. Science is simply unable to speak on the issue of a non-natural cause, because science is constrained to things natural.
That's precisely the question that the theory of evolution addresses.
And ID proponents might suggest that it's the question addressed by ID as well. Frankly we'd be fools to believe that adaptation does not happen. It is observable, and it is repeatable. There is no question that evolution is the explanation of the differences within a species.
Where you and I diverge is in the question of speciation. Evolution is an answer - something like an 80% answer. There are gaps, and the hope is that they will be filled in when more information is available. This was precisely the situation with the epicyclic theory of the solar system some years ago. I'm waiting for a modern-day Kepler to blow the doors off of speciation via evolution. I'm not saying that evolution is bankrupt - I'm just saying that it's a poor explanation of speciation. I believe that scientists have an a priori commitment to naturalism and refuse to consider anything that does not fit their philosophical model.
WRT complexity, I'm not saying that no complexity can arise naturally, I'm saying that it's not the most likely explanation of what we observe. Here are some thoughts:
Why didn't the universe equilibrate an eternity ago? It seems to me that all energy should have been equally dispersed, and it should be a LOT colder than it is.
What about irrreducible complexity?
How can it be that a structure like the eye exists when in order to have been favorable, many of the parts must have appeared at the same time, in the right order. Seems unlikely to me.
How does the calcium in the bones of a bird make it through the process to form the shell of the egg, and then stop doing the process kills the mother bird? Talk about complex!
How hard is it for the body to heal a cut? There are something like seven different processes involved in starting, then stopping the clotting process before the person dies from either bleeding out or lack of blood flow because it's all solid in their veins.
Most mutations are NOT beneficial. Yet, naturalistic speciation depends on this process, pluse time. This simply seems implausible to me.
According to a mathematical expert, Dr. James Coppedge, "giving evolutionists every possible concession, postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary, and speeding up the rate of bonding a trillion times: The probability of a single protein^34 molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161, using all atoms on earth and allowing all time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10^119,841 years on the average to get a set of such protiens" (James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or impossible, p218)
According to occam's razor, doesn't it seem likely that something outside natural processes is most likely for the existance of life here?
Abiogenesis had to occur anyway.
It did? With all due respect, on what do you base that claim?
Nor would you assume God made it.
If you find a watch, you don't assume that God created it. Neither do I. We assume, based on our framework of knowledge that:
an intelligent designer designed it,
someone arranged for production, then
some distribution mechanism occurred to deposit the timepiece in the sand.
Given what we know about the universe, it's occam's razor.
How then can we look at the myriad complexity of biology and believe that something which is orders of magnitude more complex came to be as a result of time, chance, and favored characteristics?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'm a hypocrite because I use the word materialist to describe.... materialists? I'm baffled by this. Can you clarify for me, please?
Can you explain to me how the study of origins is a scientific pursuit? It's neither observable nor testable. It's not falsifiable using the scientific method. How is that science?
Scientists should be free to investigate whatever they like, any way they like.
I agree with the first clause. Scientists are free to study whatever they like. They are not free to block expression of competing ideas in the marketplace, but no one tells a scientist what to study (other than the grant committee.)
The second clause, I disagree with. Scientists MUST be bound to follow the scientific method, precluding many ways of investigation.
Respectfully,
Anomaly