quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: ive seen that face before on the discovery channel. that face is really just their attempt to show what jesus MIGHT have looked like based on skulls from that time. remember that jesus did not have joseph's DNA, he had mary's and whatever image i think he had in heaven. truth is, they are of middle eastern heritage, but certainly not arab, (600's AD), or persians, etc. i would say they are of mesopotamian descent, as abraham lived in the land of Ur which is in mesopotamia before he moved to canaan.

The mesopotamians are ancestors of modern day IRaqi's and Persians. Althought there has been some mixing fromthe arab crusades and greek conqured era's.. these people have relatively been the same. nevertheless... Jesus was of middle eastern origin. He was indeginous to that land.

The west likes to beleive or actually WANTS to beleive that the man they call jesus couldnt look like an arab or soemone fromt he middle east becuase afterall... peopl from that land are barbaric.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: creationism can be proven scientifically valid.

No it can't.

quote:

adam and eve were created perfect. they had a perfect DNA code, and there was a moisture firmament above the earth. it never rained, but water came in through streams, and great fountains under the earth. under this firmament, they were protected from the rays of the sun, and the oxygen density was much higher than todays. and so, that is why in the bible, most of the early people lived several hundred years. adam lived to over 900 years old and noah and all in between. but, being forced to reproduce between brother and sister, the DNA code became more and more flawed. and then after noah's flood, when this firmament over the earth came down and all the springs under the earth burst forth, the oxygen density became less dense, the sun now came through the atmosphere stronger. all this, causes mutations. so now, our life expectancy has dropped from several hundred years, to less than a 100.

See.

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The mesopotamians are ancestors of modern day IRaqi's and Persians. Althought there has been some mixing fromthe arab crusades and greek conqured era's.. these people have relatively been the same. nevertheless... Jesus was of middle eastern origin. He was indeginous to that land. The west likes to beleive or actually WANTS to beleive that the man they call jesus couldnt look like an arab or soemone fromt he middle east becuase afterall... peopl from that land are barbaric.

he was of middle eastern origon, im not doubting that, but that face u posted cant really show u what jesus really looks like.

your somewhat right that the west does symbolize jesus in the liking of culture, such as his complextion, etc.
------------------------

quote:

No it can't.

Source
How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?

Figure 136: Causes and Effects. Each arrow’s tail represents a cause, and each yellow circle represents an effect. The arrow itself is the cause-to-effect relationship. Yellow circles also represent scientific evidence that to most people suggests a creation and a global flood. All of us, including students, should be free to reach our own conclusions about origins after learning the evidence and all reasonable explanations. Withholding that information in schools or misrepresenting it in the media is inexcusable.

The first cause appears to be supernatural, or beyond the natural (blue area). Evolutionists often say the yellow circles and their scientific implications cannot be presented in science classrooms, because the first cause (red circle) is supernatural. Subjects outside the natural (including biblical descriptions of creation and the flood that are so consistent with the physical evidence) are inappropriate for publicly financed science education. However, excluding what is observable and verifiable in nature, along with possible causes, is bad science, misleading, and censorship. Creation science, then, is the study of this scientific evidence.
---------------------------------

Let me define science.

science(n.) - A field of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide considerable insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. [See Items 53 and 55 beginning on page 27.]

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.

scientific evidence: Something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena.

All evidence in Part I of this book is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. [See Part II.]

Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists’ refusal to debate this subject (see page 333) and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations.

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.” Of course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. [See Figure 152 on page 326 and the paragraph preceding that figure.] Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of the flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood (given on page 107), but in science, all starting points are available. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science.

___________________

Good morning everyone! Did I actually miss this religious conversation? Jesus I've been too asleep at the wheel!

quote:

Originally posted by Reverend_Trance It is not forcing Christianity but a single principle of their beliefs.

What's the difference? There are many sweeping "principles" in Christianity that can be enforced in law that would wholly appear to be of a Christian nature. The balance and beauty of our laws, however, is that they do not adhere to a one particular religion. Otherwise, we'd likely see a few more Commandments in our laws by now, wouldn't we?

quote:

Men and women have been married for thousands of years. Polygamy was once common and now society has adjusted for a single marriage between 2 people.

There are a number of instances where homosexuality relationships have been clearly recognized. Surely you remember our conversation a while back on thisold thread

quote:

Gay marriage shakes this foundation.

Whose foundation? Yours? Other fundamentalist Christians? Who else? For many others, and I do mean, MANY others, gay marriage causes no harm to anyone. And what kind of "foundation" are you referring to? Straight marriage? Statistics prove you quite wrong. Don't you find it a bit strange how the state of Mass. has the lowest divorce rate, yet is one of the only states that allow gay marriage? Or by "foundation" you mean morality and ethics? Well considering that children coming from gay marriages tend to show a higher tolerance towards other minority groups, I'd tend to find that a bit on "shaky" ground.

quote:

The key here is change.

Bingo. You might practice what you preach a bit more here.

quote:

They believe that marriage is a basic and funimental union between a man and a woman.

Whose "they"? The majority? Well "they" also believed slavery was right, women have no right to vote, children have no constitutional rights and can work ridiculously long hours in factories, and interracial marriage is an abomination, among other beliefs. But as you so aptly stated:

quote:

The key here is change.

I simply couldn't agree more. But what makes you think that this applies only to Christian doctrine?

quote:

Marriage was an institution created by God amd then adapted to by secular authorities.

Oh please. Until you can demonstrate with verifiable evidence that God had anything to do with writing the Bible, your beginning premise here doesn't hold water very well at all.

quote:

God said that this is an indecent act.

Bullshit, especially when taken in full context of the biblical writing. Are you talking Old or New Testament? Leviticus or Corinthians? I'm more than willing to discuss what Moses supposedly wrote in Leviticus or what Paul states in full context anytime you are. My contention is that NOTHING stated in the Bible in context gives any full conclusion against homosexual marriage.

Don't you find it a bit strange how Jesus, the Son of God said absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality?

quote:

They do not want this to go public. Becuase the secular authorities are approving something that the majority does not want. (The average 70-75% in favor in the states it did pass.)

The "secular authorities" are only trying to follow Constitutional civil rights, and are trying to grant everyone, including minorities, full rights. Please keep in mind that the Constitution was not written solely for the majority.

quote:

For them male/female relations are normal. For them peg A goes into slot B instead of in the ass.

Well, quite true. But please don't tell all those heterosexuals who like to fuck their girlfriends in the ass either, okay? Oh yeah, I suppose "peg A" doesn't "naturally" into "mouth B" of their girlfriends or wives either (though I tend to find it does personally). I mean really, you think you're gonna make babies with that kind of fit? No? Well then why are you doing it? It's not natural, is it? And BTW, doesn't the Bible say something about that kind of lewd behavior anyway?

quote:

Since homosexuality is not natural it is a sin.

Well since those folks back in those Biblical times knew next to nothing about the modern day complexities of the biological natural world, I think we should cut them a break.

But as for those modern day Christians who still adhere to the Bible verbatum and those days of old without at least trying to comprehend the modern day natural world, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever:

http://www.androphile.org/preview/L...Werner20.24.htm

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Contrary to that old darn Christian indoctrination, homosexuality behavior is quite common in nature.

quote:

Considering how liberal many people are in this board, it is hard to be a hick.

Oh cry me a river, will you? I'm from Kansas for Christ's sakes! Does that entail that I should necessarily be a hick too? Granted, I still like beer from a can every now and then, and I'd prefer a mean BBQ over a fancy Italian restaurant any day of the week, but I've managed to "evolve" into a Progressive with time. Who knows, it may actually happen to you too!

quote:

In my opinion, they should have a civil union but not a full blown marriage,

I would go with you on that, provided that all the rights and benefits granted in heterosexual marriages are given to homosexual civil unions.

quote:

because marriage is mainly controlled by the Church or other religious authority and I want to respect that.

That's fine by me too, but I hope you do not make the distinction between the concepts of "marriage" and "civil unions" based on sex (male or female that is). Otherwise, it gets a bit confusing when referring to secular heterosexual civil unions that are allowed today.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: prove to you homosexuality isnt natural? your not serious are you? homosexuals arent being discriminated against at all. we have laws protecting them against that. but what they want is elevated status over single individuals and to that of a married couple. and thats where the moral issue lies. is it right for them to marry or not.

Wrong, quite wrong, as I'll explain below.

quote:

the traditional morality says that it is wrong for homosexuals to marry, and its wrong to live the homosexual lifestyle itself.

I didn't realize that we were to follow "traditional morality"? And what is "traditional morality", BTW? Is it that African Americans have inferior status? Is it that it is morally justified that they are slaves? Is it that women should have inferior status and do not have a right to vote? Or is it perhaps that interracial marriages are immoral and wrong?

These traditions were set in stone at one time or another, and were as ethical as it was to not commit adultery. In fact, some such as slavery were as ethical as it was to not commit homocide. Traditions were made to be modified as we become more tolerant of minority groups.

quote:

i think everyone knows homosexuality is wrong whether they admit it or not.

I don't. Man, what's wrong with me?

quote:

the states did have racial laws of discrimination in place, but they did not base it on morality. they based on their angry sentiment over the conclusion of the civil war and of centuries of slavery under white people which over the years created a sentiment that whites were superior to blacks. that was not right.

Damn right it wasn't right, but there was plenty of Christian justification on slavery too. How the hell do you think they were able to justify it in the first place?

quote:

but homosexuals have no such laws in place of outright, blatant discrimination. they have all the basic rights of all americans, but they are trying to get a right that has been reserved for specific individuals, and has been since the beginning of the human race.

You mean "basic rights" like these?:

quote:

Marriage Rights and Benefits Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life. Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes: Tax Benefits *Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. *Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits *Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. *Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. *Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. *Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. Government Benefits *Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. *Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. *Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits *Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. *Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. *Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. *Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies. Medical Benefits *Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. *Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits *Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. *Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits *Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. *Applying for joint foster care rights. *Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. *Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits *Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." *Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits *Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. *Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. *Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections *Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). *Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). *Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. *Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. *Obtaining domestic violence protection orders. *Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. *Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family. http://www.eriposte.com/civil_right.../gay_rights.htm

I'm sorry, you were saying that homosexuals have all the same rights, weren't you? Look the other way, Christian, nothing to see here.
-------------

quote:

it should be either civil unions or nothing at all. to have the same rights as a married couple was essentially mean the same status as a married male and female.

*GASP!*

Oh the misery!!!!

quote:

im sorry, but there are just some things that each one of us just cant do. i cant walk in a buy a beer from a gas station. but im not crying about it calling it age discrimination.

It is age discrimination, and if you can make a sound, logical case on the matter supported by evidence and research that you should be allowed to do this, I am fully in your corner. Unfortunately for you, our government has some pretty good statistics that demonstrate that youngins on alcohol are a bit dangerous to society. Are you so willing to boldly state that homosexual behavior is a danger to society too? Please be prepared to support your statement with evidence if you do.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Yup mutations are just a freak occurance by nature. Just think of transgender folk, what are they a man or woman, or maybe a moman...?

On average you have about 40-50 mutations in your body. So does that imply that you are a freak of nature?

Mutations are not a freak of nature - they are nature.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: in the theory of evolution, where are the cross-link species?? the missing link??there have been "missing links discovered" like the so-called Lucy skeleton.

Oh there's quite a few more "missing links discovered" than that. Here's just a few:

Old Thread Link

The "missing links" and "gaps" just keep getting filled as we progress further into time, and you'll just have to forgive those darn scientists who've given up filling those gaps with "godidit" anymore. I guess they kinda got burnt out on that.

quote:

but, there great skeptism against its validity to the point where the bones could not even be that of an ape or human.

Discuss this skepticism to me. Is this your skepticism? Is there skepticism among PhD anthropologists? I wasn't aware of any myself.

quote:

there are examples of species adapting, but there has not been one example observed or discovered of an animal jumping species.

Really? Interesting. Where would you like me to start? Are you willing to acknowledge this "jumping" if I can verifiably demonstrate it to you, or will you simply stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't exist?

quote:

im going to throw out the creationist view, i know everyone doesnt believe the bible, but creationism can be proven scientifically valid. adam and eve were created perfect. they had a perfect DNA code, and there was a moisture firmament above the earth. it never rained, but water came in through streams, and great fountains under the earth. under this firmament, they were protected from the rays of the sun, and the oxygen density was much higher than todays. and so, that is why in the bible, most of the early people lived several hundred years. adam lived to over 900 years old and noah and all in between. but, being forced to reproduce between brother and sister, the DNA code became more and more flawed. and then after noah's flood, when this firmament over the earth came down and all the springs under the earth burst forth, the oxygen density became less dense, the sun now came through the atmosphere stronger. all this, causes mutations. so now, our life expectancy has dropped from several hundred years, to less than a 100.

You seemed to have thrown the words "scientifically valid" into this story. I'm trying to find where you have the validity in this. For some reason, I can't seem to find anything scientifically valid in your story. Could you cite a source in the primary literature for this, please?

quote:

then it is not natural. if u cant reproduce, its not natural. show me a case where two animals have had homosexual relations for their entire lives.

Then I hope you're all for telling each and every Christian to stop asking their girlfriends/wives for acts of sodomy while you're at it. It just simply won't do - no reproduction, no good.

quote:

animals dont do it. show one case that would prove its natural. now show me dozens, because one incident doesnt mean the entire animal kingdom is doing the same thing.

http://www.androphile.org/preview/L...Werner20.24.htm

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm


Since you've thrown around the words "scientifically valid", I can only assume that you're a bit more with the times of scientific research. Since you've seemingly overlooked such instances, you have no excuse whatsoever to claim this doesn't occur in nature.

quote:

ive thrown myself back into the malee

Indeed you have. Welcome to the mosh pit.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: um, no he was 100% hebrew. his genealogy is in the book of luke. from jesus, all the way down to adam. Luke 3: 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e] the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

This geneology doesn't match up at all with Matthew, and there are a slew of problems with both geneologies matching up with geneologies in the OT, i.e. 1Chronicles. How can you continue to justify this to yourself? Don't you study your Bible with scrutiny? What seems more plausible is the writers of the NT were simply trying to justify Jesus being a King, thus trying to attach him to the geneology of King David.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

crap, i thought we moved away from the same-sex marraige and into evolution. i wished u joined the debate earlier OPUS!!

oh well, this is going to take a couple hours to respond to, give me a couple days.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Figure 136: Causes and Effects. Each arrow’s tail represents a cause, and each yellow circle represents an effect. The arrow itself is the cause-to-effect relationship. Yellow circles also represent scientific evidence that to most people suggests a creation and a global flood.

Most people? Does that include scientists that actually study such evidence with scrutiny and have concluded with sound reasoning that a "creation and global flood", at least that which is depicted in the Bible, is pure fantasy?

quote:

All of us, including students, should be free to reach our own conclusions about origins after learning the evidence and all reasonable explanations.

I wholeheartedly agree, and your operative word there is "reasonable". The creationists have not given any verifiable, testable, observable "reasonable" scientific theory at all, so why on earth would you entail it to be taught along side of that which does have all the met criterion of a sound theory?

quote:

Withholding that information in schools or misrepresenting it in the media is inexcusable.

Explain. Be specific.

quote:

The first cause appears to be supernatural, or beyond the natural (blue area).

Was there ever testable, observable, verifiable evidence to state that the first cause was supernatural? Why would one conclude as such without supporting evidence?

The difference between creationists and what you call "evolutionists" is that the latter simply says, "I don't know", because at present we simply do not know. The former inserts God when they do not know without verifiable evidence to support it.

And BTW, you do realize that evolution does not involve abiogenesis theories, don't you? So calling "evolutionists" in this context is misleading and incorrect.

quote:

Evolutionists often say the yellow circles and their scientific implications cannot be presented in science classrooms, because the first cause (red circle) is supernatural.

How on earth does your premise follow such a conclusion? That's about as non sequitur as you can get!

quote:

Subjects outside the natural (including biblical descriptions of creation and the flood that are so consistent with the physical evidence) are inappropriate for publicly financed science education.

Oh boy.

There's inappropriate because they're so easily struck down without any evidence to support their assertions. This is a science class, you know.

quote:

However, excluding what is observable and verifiable in nature, along with possible causes, is bad science, misleading, and censorship. Creation science, then, is the study of this scientific evidence.

*scratches head*

Are they being serious here?

quote:

Let me define science. science(n.) - A field of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments. Broad, but increasingly precise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

The "relationships" have nothing to do with scientific "laws" per se. The only thing the so called "laws" of science pertain to are verifiable "truths" through mathmatical formulas. Everything else outside of that falls upon postulations, hypothesis, observation, and theories supported by verifiable, tested, retested evidence.

quote:

Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event.

True, but the problem with this statement is that science could give two shits as to what "caused" the first event. In fact, science could give two shits on whether an event is natural or supernatural. The problem with the supernatural, however, is that it has never been verifiably demonstrated with observation testing, retesting, etc. Therefore, without verifiable demonstration, scientists simply cannot arbitrarily "insert" supernatural phenomena within verifiable natural phenomena whenever or whereever they darn well choose - ESPECIALLY in those areas that they currently cannot explain. Instead, they simply say "we don't know yet".

Basic Science 101 - learn to say "we don't know" when you damn well don't know.

quote:

Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide considerable insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. [See Items 53 and 55 beginning on page 27.]

Scienctists don't deny that at all. They simply do NOT like to insert "godidit" in areas where they currently have no knowledge or technological capability to understand an event. This includes the "first cause", the second cause, the 1000th cause, the nth cause, it doesn't matter.

quote:

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence. scientific evidence: Something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena.

Uh, yeah. And?

quote:

All evidence in Part I of this book is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong.

Such martyrdom. How original. How silly.

quote:

Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. [See Part II.]

Oh, that should be good. "The global flood theory is full of holes and thus supports evolution, but don't believe what evolutionists say about it, just continue to believe this swiss cheese theory no matter what they say!"

Did I ever tell you how much I love creationists?

quote:

Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists’ refusal to debate this subject (see page 333) and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations.

It's funny when creationists say that evolutionists refuse to debate with them, yet I see evos confront creationists every single day. Hell, our group, the Kansas Citizens for Science confront creationists and IDers and their postulations at will, yet for some reason creationists seem to be in denial of these confrontations and debates.

Why is that, exactly?

quote:

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, “Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.”

Jesus, where the hell do they get this stuff? I've never heard one evo state anything remotely along these lines. In fact, most evos such as myself are quite comfortable with a supernatural theory of the primary causal event. Why is it that creationists continue to confuse the concept of abiogenesis with evolution?

quote:

Of course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred—how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. [See Figure 152 on page 326 and the paragraph preceding that figure.] Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of the flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood (given on page 107), but in science, all starting points are available. The key question must always be, “What best explains all the evidence?”

Who are these heathen men who defy God? STRIKE THEM DOWN STRAIGHT TO HELL, I say!

quote:

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived.

That makes sense.

quote:

For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry.

Hmmm, I suppose some great scientist farted loudly and came up with the idea that electrons are not moving in circles around the nucleus, but are in a spacious gas cloud instead.

It matters not HOW a postulation or hypothesis is derived. One would certainly hope that they are derived by previous scientific research, however. In fact, nearly all sound theories were derived from previous scientific research. It logically follows that such new postulations would be a bit more scientifically sound if they stood on previous work, rather than a fart blowing out of my ass or a fuzzy wet dream. But those types of works no doubt occur - they are truly the exception and not the rule, however.

quote:

Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation.

Well why the hell would you say anything about the "source of the idea" in the first place then?

quote:

Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science.

Yes, let's. And no, science is not the "search for truth", which implies some endpoint with the study. It is merely a means of best explaining the natural world around us, nothing else.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: crap, i thought we moved away from the same-sex marraige and into evolution. i wished u joined the debate earlier OPUS!! oh well, this is going to take a couple hours to respond to, give me a couple days.

No problem. I'm game with evolution too when you're ready.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...