OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Because while I agree that science does seem to support at least some forms of evolution, there still isnt any hard-core rock solid, religion-busting proof of it.

I dunno, the last fossil I picked up was certainly rock-hard.

There are plenty of scientists out there who have questioned aspects of creation and that should be taught as well.

Pray tell, what scientists are these?  Where have they published any research that undermines the concept of evolution from a common ancestor?  You better not say Don Patton.

Unfortunately, some teachers and professors belittle Creationists for their view.

Thats because their views go against the facts.  As a great quote states, 'everyone is entitled to their own interpretations, but no one is entitled to their own facts.'

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

BTW...I watched a movie tonight and one scene took place in a Catholic school.  A creepy ol nun in her black Habit was smacking some boy's hand with a ruler.  Made me wonder if you got hit back in school.  Lol!

That pretty much sounds like any school in Ireland up until they banned corporal punishment in the 1980s. Most schools here are/were run by religious orders.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

BTW...I watched a movie tonight and one scene took place in a Catholic school.  A creepy ol nun in her black Habit was smacking some boy's hand with a ruler.  Made me wonder if you got hit back in school.  Lol!

That pretty much sounds like any school in Ireland up until they banned corporal punishment in the 1980s. Most schools here are/were run by religious orders.

You mean half by Catholics and half Protestants right?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Douglas Shireman:

You mean half by Catholics and half Protestants right?

Nope, all catholic south of the border, and mostly protestants north of the border.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Douglas Shireman:

You mean half by Catholics and half Protestants right?

Nope, all catholic south of the border, and mostly protestants north of the border.

ahh, so that's why the Northern Irish were so reluctant to stay united with their Irish brethren. Was that the main reason they joined the UK? I assume that reason is a bit vague. Maybe their spiritual differences caused so much trouble over time that the north and south always hated each other.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

There are plenty of scientists out there who have questioned aspects of creation and that should be taught as well.

Pray tell, what scientists are these?  Where have they published any research that undermines the concept of evolution from a common ancestor?  You better not say Don Patton.

Oops, I think I mis-typed what I meant.  *Blush*  It was 6 days ago and I can hardly remember what I did yesterday.  But I think what I was trying to say was that there are a number of scientists who believe in creationism.  And this should be pointed out in primary schools when they teach this.

Who?

Isaac Newton for one. He wrote:  The most beautiful system of the Sun, planets and comets,could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

William Paley said that every watch requires a watchmaker.  Ie..if you are walking along in the woods and find a diamond-studded ?Rolex on the ground, what do you conclude is the cause of that Watch?  Wind rain and erosion?  Or some intelligent being making that watch?  

Other scientists:

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross
Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias
Cosmologist Ed Harrison.
Even Astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized that fine tuning of the universe requires intelligence.

Point is, spontaneous generation of life, which Darwinism requires to get the theory started, has never been observed....anywhere.  It is only a theory and I think that should be emphasized in the schools.

OFFLINE

STEP ONE:  Learn what a SCIENTIFIC theory is.  

Regard:

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
STEP ONE:  Learn what a SCIENTIFIC theory is.  

Regard:

I'm not religious myself, but sometimes science isn't that reliable either. Science is really nothing more than someone's best guess at any given time. Pluto for example. First it was a planet, now it's not a planet. What happened? Pluto did not get any bigger or smaller. The only real problem with science is that the facts are always changing. I guess that's why they call them theories.

Personally I don't care about how the Universe was created at all. Any person with common sense who is religious should not be concerned with creationism but more with the good virtues than religion teaches.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Douglas Shireman:

I'm not religious myself, but sometimes science isn't that reliable either. Science is really nothing more than someone's best guess at any given time. Pluto for example. First it was a planet, now it's not a planet. What happened? Pluto did not get any bigger or smaller. The only real problem with science is that the facts are always changing. I guess that's why they call them theories.

At least the thing about science though is that (a) it uses facts from multiple independent sources  that can be tested and proved/disproved, and (b) if the facts are shown to be wrong, then people are (mostly) willing to accept that the theory needs modification/replacement. On the opposite side of the coin, you have the bible, which is one source of information which can't even be tested never mind proven/disproven as facts, and for believers, you're not allowed to question it's validity as it's the "word of God".  The whole anything is possible when god is involved is the debating equivalent of "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and I'm going home", there's no real way you can argue against it in a logical fashion and win.

Personally I don't care about how the Universe was created at all. Any person with common sense who is religious should not be concerned with creationism but more with the good virtues than religion teaches.

Exactly! Too many so-called religious people are more concerned with things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things and neglect the whole "love thy neighbour" part of the christian message.  To paraphrase another bible quote, "Render unto science that which is science's, and render unto go that which is God's"

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
STEP ONE:  Learn what a SCIENTIFIC theory is.  

Regard:

*Chuckle*  Funny how only last month a group has shown how some part's of Einstein's theory of relativity....is wrong!  In September 2011, European Organization for Nuclear Research  found possible evidence of the theory being violated by particles travelling faster than light.

`

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

At least the thing about science though is that (a) it uses facts from multiple independent sources  that can be tested and proved/disproved, and (b) if the facts are shown to be wrong, then people are (mostly) willing to accept that the theory needs modification/replacement. On the opposite side of the coin, you have the bible, which is one source of information which can't even be tested never mind proven/disproven as facts, and for believers, you're not allowed to question it's validity as it's the "word of God".

I dunno.  While it is impossible (so far) to prove or disprove the existence of Christ with the use of mathematics, there are ways to give evidence of the truthfulness of what the bible tells us.

You know, people are perfectly willing to accept the stories about Caesar all the time.  But there are even more sources to prove the validity of the Bible.  Still people refuse to believe.  ITs the height of hypocrisy.

Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus Christ...and what happened to him.  He also wrote about Jesus' brother...James.

Including Josephus, there are at least 10 other non-Christian sources that mention Jesus...within 150 years of his life.

Celcu, Tacitus and the Jewish Talmud (Anti christian sources) talk about Jesus.

Also, the New Testament is 27 documents written by 9 different writes over a 20-50 year period.
Furthermore there are 5700 handwritten Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.  There are also 9000 manuscripts in other languages.

There is nothing else from the ancient world that comes close in terms of manuscript support.  The next closest work is the Iliad, by Homer.  Most other works survive on fewer than a dozen manuscripts.  Yet few historians question the historicity of the events in those works.  

Furthermore no other ancient book is as well authenticated as the New Testament.

Consider the Gospel writer Luke.  He was not an eyewitness to Jesus.  But he claims to have interviewed many true eyewitnesses.  Yeah, he could have been lying about all that.  But consider that he wrote accurately about so many other things.  Such as:

The proper location of a specific river near Philippi,
the proper form of the name Troas,
the proper locations of places where travelers could spend the night on a certain journey,
the correct designations for magistrates of a coloney,
well known shrines and images of Artemis,
the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul,
the correct title for the Chief Magistrates in Ephesus,
the use of precise ethnic designation,
the correct sequence of places,
the Jewish law regarding Gentil use of the temple area,
the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at the time,
the name Porcius Festus...which agrees precisely with Josephus,
the best shipping lanes of the time,
the correct legal formula,
the best port to find a ship sailing to Italy,
the right route to sail, in view of the winds,
the proper term of the time for the Adriatic,
the conditions of imprisonment.  And a host of other accurate descriptions of the day in which he lived (84 in all).

He also wrote of miracles that Paul performed himself!  35 miracles in ACTS.  Miracles where Paul temporarily blinded a sorcerer, cured a cripple, exorcized an evil spirit, and raised a man from the dead!

Now...if Luke was trying so hard to be accurate on all those other things, why would he fabricate stories about Paul and Jesus' miracles?  In light of the fact that Luke has proven to be so accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he is not telling the truth about the miracles her records.  And such bias is illegitimate.  Luke's credentials as a historian have been proven on so many points that it takes more faith NOT to believe his miracle accounts than to believe them.

We believe what Josephus has to say about Herod, Pilate, Claudius, Annas, and Tiberius Caesar, so why not believe his accounts of New Testament figures?  And we believe what Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Clelsus, Mata Bar-Serapion and the Talmud had to say about other aspects of the times, (including New Testament followers of Jesus) why should I not believe what they said about Jesus?

There is accurate testimony out there.  It isnt just a case of "If you dont believe me, I'm gonna take my toys and go home".  We arent making this stuff up.  Our beliefs are based on reliable eyewitness testimony.