Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

I'm spinning too.

Ignorance prevails.

I hear you Richard - I am fed up to here with these Bible bangers and their bullsh!t!

No one is stopping them from going to church on Sunday, but stay the hell out of politics!

First lesson to be learned for the Constitutional fanatics is read the damn thing!

I hear you too, Feisty.

De- evolution is happening in real time.

Is the DDI doing doubles this Fri.?

So teaching atheism or evolution is not pushing a belief down someone's throat? I beg to differ. Teaching atheism or evolution is no different than teaching creationism

You miss the ENTIRE point Alice - religion has NO place in politics...

That is why the founding fathers set it up that way....

You may want to revisit & actually read the Constitution & subsequent amendments prior to spouting off!

Like I said in my original comment - I have ZERO problem with you & others praying to a plastic Jesus - where you CROSS the line is ramming your BS down OUR throats!

@ Richard - consider I'll be buying your drinks all night - you have nothing to worry about! ;o)

I have never supported banning ANY theories from reaching the ears of children. From back when I was a teenager myself and my history teacher was told he must SKIP our chapter on evolution.

Instead he asked us all to go home and write a paper on how we believed people came to be, and why. I went home and told my religious parents what my assignment was and they were perplexed. They ran out and bought me a very thick religious book on the subject, which increased my homework assignment for that night exponentially. However, I read the book through, based my theories of belief on that book. Sure it covered all of the amazing things a single human eyeball does and it touched upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy, which I managed to present well on paper at the time (since then some further arguments have arisen or been over-ruled). The next day I handed in my paper and then proceeded to learn a very basic lesson in class about evolution.

My teacher gave me a very high score for my paper, telling me it was the most thorough and rational explanation of creationism he had seen, complete with outside sources listed. I had included from the book I got many arguments he had clearly never considered. This experience made me a lot more curious about both evolution and creation theory, and I could have only wished to have them both completely explored side by side in class with my also-religious classmates.

Instead the "evolution crowd" won and now religious students like myself will probably be home-schooled and miss out on an awesome opportunity to take a look at the complete picture of this great big war on the origin of man that has been going on for centuries. For that reason, I support teaching "creationism" or Intelligent Design, as I have come to see it, alongside evolution, because the theories don't exactly rule each other out when you take everything into account. I watched 2 good documentaries on the subject: No Intelligence Allowed and Creatures that Defy Evolution, along with the Discovery Channel's box set on Evolution.

The depth of knowledge in both theories is just fascinating. Kids really should be exposed to all of it. I'll bet their interest in science and history would sky-rocket, just as mine did.

By the way: I am an atheist. But not because my frightened school covered my ears if religion was ever brought up.

Quite the contrary.

Feisty, I think we should mention that children should be taught facts in school, they can go to sunday school for their does of fantasy.

Alice, no one teaches "atheism", they teach science, and science has overwhelmingly concluded that evolution is the mechanism by which species arise. Creationism, on the other hand, is not science, it is one religion's particular narrative. It is not even close to a scientific theory, having been falsified long ago.

Alice, Whatever are you talking about? Charles Darwin believed in God. Go read some of his writings. I went to Catholic school for 12 years. Of course we were taught about evolution and" Mendel's peas" natural selection and good solid science.

Sister Mildred Ann,my biology teacher, would would have told you that" ignorance is not a virtue or an excuse."

Go, do your homework.

By the way: I am an atheist.

So am I - I quit the Catholic Church when I was sent to confirmation indoctrination at the tender age of 13...

Still I don't fault the believers BUT keep the crap our of politics...

BS, alice. Creationism is not a science, it has no facts to support it, it is pure speculation with zero foundation. The science of evolution has a huge body of concrete evidence garnered over a long period of time to support its contentions and confirm its predictions. Creationism has none of that and can predict nothing.

It's incredible easy to say something is so and never have to prove it. What pisses me off is the constant criticism of the theory of evolution from people who have learned almost nothing about it, even to the point of not understanding what the term theory means in a scientific sense. It's akin to have a group of blind people critiquing the Mona Lisa.

If creationism is taught as a scientific explanation then other religion's stories regarding creation, of which there must be thousands, should also be included. Also, believing in evolution does not mean a rejection in a God. I think I remember a priest during a prayer at Notre Dame giving thanks to God for the world and to Darwin for explaning how we got there. Evolution is a theory but gravity is also just a theory. For something to become a scientific fact involves a rigorous process.

You know, I've been in the automotive field most all my life. I have met the sleezeist, full of themselves smarmy car salesmen you could only imagine. NONE of them come close to this Perry creep. Just they way he looked at that little kid gives me the creeps, he looks like not just a slimey used car salesman, but a pervert to boot. JMHO.

Buddhism is lessons in meditation, rather than a religion of worship. The only theory there is attaining Nirvana.

All of this discussion reminds me of the old saying:

"As long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in schools."

No matter how hard people will try to eliminate religion in schools, teachers will still say "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" in December, and "Happy Thanksgiving" in November. If there is no diety, to whom (or what) are we giving thanks ? Whether you may want it to be or not, we are a nation that believes in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Ishmael. Now if we could only follow the precepts laid out in the 3 major religions that worship that God, we would all be much better off.

By all means,teach any theory that can be supported with scientific facts-but creationism has none so it should not belong in a public classrom.If you want your child to learn about it teach it at home.

If you do believe in evolution then yes you are atheist. If all the people who believe in evolution-large majority, actually said yes I am an atheist as they should, it would pull the leg(the last one) out from under the religious right. By believing in evolution- this in itself makes all the religious texts nothing but cruel story books . The bible says we have only been on the earth how many years? It just goes on and on, the silly stories from these religious texts- in history the people who believe these silly stories(which is all they sould be)-making them fact, have done some very cruel things in the name of.... . There was no garden of whatever, get over it, grow up-didnt most of us quit believing in santa claus and the easter bunny ? Maybe the tooth fairy does exist? How can this possibly be a serious conversation for some?

Alice -

I have a theory, that the only God you will ever know is yourself.

I hope that's not too scary for you, or the kids.

Alice: scientific theories can be proven, changed, adjusted, accepted, and (to an extent) proven to be false. Creationism, buddhism, spaghetti monsterism are not scientific theories. They are a belief systems, it can't be proven. They are not able to be tested. You either believe or you don't.

Parents don't have a right to demand that schools teach their children religious precepts anymore than parents have a right to teach their kids that 2+2=5 just because his or her parents believe that to be the case.

I don't care what you believe, you just can't teach it to kids in public schools as science when it isn't. The entire notion of education is to replace factual ignorance with factual knowledge. Creationism has no facts, just conjectures and beliefs. Science on the other relies on proofs and evidence.

Defender of logic:

There is no creature that defies evolution. Each time a creationist/Intelligent Design adherent trots out some creature that defies evolution, the support for the position inevitably turns on irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is absolute hogwash. It simply means the creationist does not have a broad enough base of knowledge to find similarities in other living structures. Yet another explanation is that the creationist is too lazy or too stupid to understand that the "parts" that make up various critters can be found in many places in the evolutionary sphere.

No self-respecting atheist can say with certainty that God Herself did not choose evolution - as we understand it - to be Her six-day plan. However, science has come as close as it can to accepting evolution as a fact. With that in mind, it is the nature of science to constantly question evolution and thus it will always remain within the realm of theory.

Only a fool states with certainty that there is a God. How blind are these people to foist their beliefs on others with the absolutely indefensible "proof" that they know the unknowable? The defining characteristic of the eternally condemned - as the Bible repeatedly points out - is hubris.

Although in the case of people like Perry, some might argue that the defining characteristic is unvarnished stupidity.

@ alice: Lol no. Atheism isn't taught in school but evolution is and should be. Why? Because it isn't a belief it's a scientific theory based on and grounded by facts. Just because something in science is called a theory doesn't mean it's purely hypothetical. Gravity, for example, is another scientific theory. If you really want to test that theory your more than welcome to find a really high object and jump off. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and it really is just some possible idea that may or may not exist.

science isn't a belief, religion is.

So this article could be shortened to say, yes, but not "officially".

Whether you may want it to be or not, we are a nation that believes in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Ishmael.

And a nation that doesn't believe in any of that.

alice: you're joking right? You don't understand the difference between science and religion and why one of these is not constitutional to require in school? Seriously? Are you a product of Texas schools or is there a different explanation for your lack of comprehension?

Someone mentioned bogus arguments like :

"Sure it covered all of the amazing things a single human eyeball does and it touched upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy, which I managed to present well on paper at the time (since then some further arguments have arisen or been over-ruled). The next day I handed in my paper and then proceeded to learn a very basic lesson in class about evolution."

There is a lot of evidence for the evolution of the eye. From simple, single cell arrangements to pin-hole eyes, and so on. Human eyes are complex, and horrible from any design analysis (backward retina, horrible circulatory outlay, dreadful lensing...)

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution because the source of energy is chemical, the sun, geothermal and radiation. The Earth is not a closed system.

Entropy, as an argument, is proof for evolution (see mutations, degradation of DNA/RNA and other molecules, etc...). If crystallization isn't defying entropy, then you cannot argue that evolution defies entropy.

Not all opinions are equally valid. If you cannot present a testable proposition with abundant evidence across all known disciplines of science, and contradicted by absolutely none of them, then you don't have a scientific position. You have a conjecture, a hypothesis -- not a theory.

Saying that God did it is as plausible as saying "my socks are missing so a marauding band of motorcycle-riding dragons must be responsible" because there's a parity of evidence supporting both claims.

Juliop: Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist. The Emperor of Japan is not an atheist either (that's like calling the pope an atheist). You really need to hit some books (or try google).

Yeah, Hitler was a well-known christian, and Hirohito was clearly shinto.

Based on derogatory comments about Christians from people on this site, I cannot possibly imagine any sane person would ever vote for a Christian for president. That leaves out all of the contending Republican candidates and President Obama in 2012. Who are the Atheists going to vote for now that's not an insane believer in myths?

Two short questions for non-creationists:

What is the alternative best guess at the origins of the universe?

Where are the examples of transitional species that support evolution?

I have done some research and can find nothing to answer these two questions.

Whether you may want it to be or not, we are a nation that believes in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Ishmael.

Actually, a NATION can't believe anything. It's not a sentient being. As to the people that live here .... SOME of them believe in that god, some of them believe in other gods and some believe in no gods at all. You don't speak for everyone.

Uh, EM? We don't have to guess at those questions. We already know.

Origin of the Universe? The "Big Bang."

Transitional species? ALL species. But some excellent ones that illustrate evolution are Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx.

You did no research, because had you done a simple ten-second Google search you'd have found both.

And the people who killed in the name of religion were not actually the people who believed in the religion, they used the religion to make themselves more wealthy, powerful and self important.

Certainly they were religious and believed in their religion. The crusaders certainly considered themselves Christians and you certainly can't say the Pope wasn't Christian! However being religious certainly didn't stop them from wanting more power!

To respect your fellow mankind, help the sick and unfortunate, to be honest and bring your children up to be good people, doesn't make you a religious freak or a horrible atheist.

I agree with you there ... morality is not reserved for the religious.

(I knid of dumbed it down a little bit for the low-information, stuck-on-stupid liberal crowd here, but you all get the idea.)

How wonderfully condescending of you to be sure. Too bad you're incorrect. The founding fathers felt that religion should be separate from the state PERIOD.

From James Madison:

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

Chris, how is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not the EXACT DEFINITION of the "separation of church and state?" It's not even possible to write a better definition than that.

In any case, Shinto is a religion whether you like it or not, Julio. And that's beside the point. You stated that Hitler and the Japanese were atheists, when they were both deeply religious. THAT is the point you're trying to avoid addressing.

It scares me to see so much blind, emotionally driven rhetoric, forwarding on the same misinformation, while throwing out all traces of scrutiny and independent objectivity.

Dictionary.com defines Scientific Fact as "any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true".

Evolution will never be "proven" scientific fact because you will never be able start life in a test tube and watch it evolve into some organism, then an animal, then a monkey, then a human. The more I hear the mantra chanted "proven science" the less credibility it has with me. You sound like a bunch of religious fanatics who would rather chant along with what sounds good to you rather than spend an ounce of effort on critical thinking.

I wish more people thought like 'defenderoflogic'

As long as people of faith sit quietly in the corner with our heads bowed whispering in hushed, barely audible voices to each other and wear drab clothing so as to attract as little attention as possible, nobody has a problem with people of faith. Oh, but let someone say the name "Jesus Christ" on a school campus when that Name isn't used as a swear word and people stumble over each other trying to produce the new version of intolerance. It would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Tell me where that statement says students can't pray in school, or talk about Creation.

Uh, Levi? They can.

And ClearLogic, by that reasoning, we will never know for sure if Napoleon existed, because we have no time machine to go back and see him.

Hey Toasty McGrath,

I know about the Big Bang. It is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis. How do atheists account for it, that was my question. Something out of nothing? Sounds hard.

As for Archeopteryx, a lot of scientists believe that this species was clearly a type of bird rather than a transitional reptile-bird. I'm not saying they are correct, but to say Archy is a definite transitional species is misleading.

By the way, I do Internet research and read books, as I am interested in this topic. I really don't enjoy being called a liar, especially by a person that's never even met me. I also find it difficult to find objective sites. I keep seeing sites like: ilovejesus.com or godisamyth.com. It's hard to sort out unbiased information concerning evolution, though I commend your ability to do so in 10 seconds.

This may surprise you, but I'm a typical Christian that agrees that the earth is old and round rather than 6000 years old and flat. I also believe that creationism does not belong in a public school science course as an alternate theory to that of evolution. I'll teach my kids Christian theology at home and leave scientific theories in the classroom.

Toasty, your statement has no reasoning. that is history, not science. I though we were talking about science.

EM, no paleontologist considers Archaeopteryx a full bird. Only creationist think tanks make this claim.

And if you'd like more examples of transitional forms, I'd direct you to wikipedia. (I skipped ahead to the dinosaur-bird section because it's my favorite, but there are some really cool ones earlier on the page too) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds

CT, don't try to dodge the point. You said that we can't know that species evolve over time because nobody has been around long enough to witness it happening. Likewise, nobody has been around long enough to witness the existence of Napoleon. We have so much overwhelming evidence for both, however, that both are immutable facts.

OK Toasty, you brought up the big bang theory (and I stress that it's no more than a theory), so I'll ask you my favorite question: where did the material come from that went bang? Did it just all of a sudden appear, you know like POOF!? I mean, it had to come from somewhere.... enlighten me.

From the evidence and physical laws we have uncovered today, it always existed. The Big Bang didn't create matter, it was just a REALLY big expansion of matter that was already there.

Feel free to read up on some cosmology articles, but I warn you, your brain starts to get... Iffy... After a few minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

spider

Scientific theories are not rendered invalid because they don't answer questions that are outside of the realm of the theory. Evolution does not answer the question "how did life begin" because Evolution involves only how life changes in response to the environments of those living things. The Big Bang Theory does not explain the source of the original material of the Universe; it only explains what happened to that material during the construction of the Universe.

You reveal a significant level of science ignorance merely by stating "no more than a theory." A scientific theory is a big deal. In order to reach theory status a scientific idea has to stand the test of an overwhelming number of challenges by the experts in the field. An analogy would be a jury verdict reached as the result of thousands of trials and withstanding the "reasonable doubt" test in each of them. "Only a theory" is the hallmark of the science-challenged, undereducated masses.

Julio, who taught you grammar? In any case, please address the issue that you yourself brought up. You claimed that both Hitler and Hirohito were atheists, which is an incorrect statement. Please quit dodging that point.

Julio, if you're going to just act like a child, this discussion is over.

Last chance, kiddo. Ball's in your court.

Toasty,you totally ignored my question. Once again, you say it was an expansion of matter that was already there; and my question is the same.......where did that matter "that was already" there come from? I mean, all things have an origin, so where did that existing matter come from?

Clearthinking, try doing a HALO jump from an airplane (high altitude low opening) and then try to explain it to someone who has never seen an airplane. Then imagine they call you a liar.

Let see; it goes like this:

I have faith in God and they say I was indoctrinated since I was a child - UNTRUE; no one in my family believed in God; not even in my extended family.

Tell of credible testimony about a miracle, they say it's hearsay evidence UNACCEPTABLE

Relate true testimonies of acts of God I have personally seen, been involved in, or were done to me - they say it's anecdotal evidence UNACCEPTABLE

But then they turn around and tell me that I'm a liar, indoctrinated, only parroting what I heard in church, and they mock God and people who believe in Him. Consider, what is our motive?

1. We don't want our children growing up in a world without belief in God.
2. We don't want people to be separated from God for eternity/go to hell.
3. We want people to know what we have found in this relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ.

Now for 1. We can take care of that at home, undoing the atheistic half science/half supposition they get during the daytime with dinnertime conversation at home:

Incidentally a side note. A survey was done of students recorded in the Who's Who Among High School Students as to what made them special. Why did they excel when so many merely were mediocre, or C average. It wasn't intelligence, it wasn't hard work alone, it wasn't some gifting, or tutelage. It wasn't high family income, low family income..it wasn't even that they had both parents at home. The difference was the majority had dinner at least 4 nights a week with their family where they discussed school, the day, homework, etc.

For 2) This is from our perspective, and it's a real concern for us. Doesn't matter that you don't believe. We believe it whole-heartedly and it is a very real fear for us; a fear for you.

For 3) The love God has put in us makes us want others to know His love as well. We are not God. He is indeed patient with us, but we are limited, finite, and imperfect. When our God is mocked, or we ourselves are disrespected for our faith, we react, and sometimes forget who it is we represent. We are told in the Bible that "The wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." and "Vengeance is Mine," says the Lord. "I will repay."

And as for the Big Bang...so that's how God did it! I'm believing all science is finding is how God did it, or what makes things that He made tick. We are also told in the Bible that "It is the glory of a king to search out a matter, and the glory of God to conceal a matter."

Would not it surprise you to know that scientific pursuit is actually something God put in man?

Toasty, your scaring me again. Please think critically. You are displaying a fanatic thought process that similar to one that motivates some to strap a bomb on their body in the hopes of spending eternity with 77 virgins.

Your Napoleon example is so irrelevant, I don't know where to start. How small would I have to break the pieces?

My dog thinks I'm smart, now don't dodge that point!

Feisty Redhead, post #1:

I would like to challenge yourself and the writers of the news report to provide me and others with proof that the Constitution contains the words "separation of church and state". You can not violate something that does not exist.

I contend there is no such thing as "The separation of church and state" as a law or a part of the Constitution.

don:

I AM a scientist! BS and MS in Geology, and I would be happy to discuss this "theory"with you. But why would I want to bother doing so with an @!$%# who has no better argument than to tell me I'm ignorant?

I'll explain spider: Ready for this shocking revelation? WE DON'T KNOW! Science never claims it has all the answers. There are many questions that we have no answers to. Yet. Science readily admits whenever it does not know something and works towards finding the answer. Other groups (who shall remain nameless) profess they have an answer, provide no testable hypothesis or hold any factual proof, then get angry whenever anyone disagrees with them

American Man, you are correct. The actual words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. But there is a clause in there that states EXACTLY what a separation of church and state entails. So rather than rattle off the entire section, it has been abbreviated to the separation of church and state. Do you actually see the phrase "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution? No? Does that then mean that they don't apply?

They said this in their own words, Julio. That's the point. They weren't atheists, which is what you claimed. Quit trying to change the subject.

The answer to your new question, Spider, is "we don't know yet." Our tools aren't able to look that far back in time yet. There are some very promising developments in this field, however, so stand by for what will no doubt be absolutely fascinating cosmological discoveries in the coming years and decades.

Clearthinking, you can't just dismiss a point because it defeats your own argument. If you don't like it, stop making really stupid arguments.

And finally, AmericanMan, I present the refutation of your statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

- "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Phew, new Toasty record. Four separate responses in one post.

okay madd dawg, so its us vs. them? us obviously has the right perspective and them are obviously bigoted morons? That's how you explain the discord?

"profess they have an answer, provide no testable hypothesis or hold any factual proof, then get angry whenever anyone disagrees with them" (kind of the point I was making earlier)

Don't you see how the other side is no different? What could account for such blatant blindness?

Toasty, I have a 7 year old, I know what constitutes an argument

Didn't we learn what a scientific theory was in school? How to people confuse that with beliefs?

Theory's are repeatable hypothesis that should result in the same results so long as you follow the prescribed scientific process, but if we learn something new the theory must adapt, change, or be voided.

Religious beliefs are not repeatable hypotheseis that produce the same results, it has no scientific data to back it up. It is a belief not a theory.

Dumbed down version of course but you should get the general gist of it.

Not surprising, considering you yourself stated as follows:

The more I hear the mantra chanted "proven science" the less credibility it has with me.

Thank you JVSimp. "produce results" why is that part always lost?

Toast- huh? (I can't follow your leap-frog logic)

Uh, Julio? You tried to discredit the lack of religion with those people. Call me all the names you want, because I can it's become habitual for you at this point, but I was merely correcting you.

Fiesty

You are pushing a corrupted opinion of what the forefathers intended. In no wise did the forefathers intend for the Government to be totally devoid of religion, nor did they want it to be totally dominated by religion.

Therefore they said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

I.E. Congress should not establish a state religion. FYI – A religion can be a system of promoting a belief in a god, or gods, angels, devils, demons or even one proclaiming that there is NO creator (Atheism, Main-stream Science).

Nor did they mean to outlaw any religion or it’s practices except of course if the religion advocates polygamy, murder, rape, pediphilia, incest . . . . .

For nearly 180 years every Jurist seem to understand this. Who are we to re-interpret what the Forefathers intended to some twisted concept that they would not recognize and certainly what they did not fight and die to give us?

Uh, DB? How is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not the EXACT definition of the separation of church and state? I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to think of a more perfect definition.

Anyway, Julio. Hitler was a self-admitted Catholic, while the Japanese war leaders were all practitioners of the Shinto religion. Now, I would be more than happy to continue this very fascinating discussion, but I would ask that you openly admit to everyone that you were wrong when you said that Hitler and Hirohito were atheists.

I see, the "no true Scotsman" argument that believers always resort to when you bring up evil people who were religious. Very predictable.

Julio, if you're just going to keep changing the subject like a little kid, we're done.

"Flintstones the documentary" is a big seller in Texas

Someone said something about there not being one organism that is not evolving. I can think of one right off the top of my head- any politician in DC.

In other news, Texas actually started it's severe downward spiral on education shortly after Ann Richards left the Governorship. Yes, she was the last Democrat to hold the Gov. office. Coincidence that Texas is now 47th in the nation in education since the Republicans took over the state? I doubt it.

I'll continue this conversation with you if you will admit that you were wrong when you said that Hitler and Hirohito were atheists, Julio.

If a god created the universe - what created the god? I know this question is basically the same as the Big Bang question: how did matter spring into being from nothing? but I'd like an answer anyway.

And I'd like to point out that there is nothing wrong with teaching creationism in schools - as long as ALL creationism is taught (at least, the five major religions). Unfortunately, creationism would seem out of place in a biology class. We were taught about the major religions in a humanities class, including the versions of creationism.

Point being, evolution ought to be taught in science classes, not creationism, as evolution is a scientific concept while creationism is more theological; fitting in with a World History class more than a science course.

Alright, I tried to have an adult conversation with you... Again. If you're not willing to act like a grown-up, we're done.

Good night, Julio.

Every one is AGNOSTIC aside from the clowns who claim only they know.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable.

To mike-3936137, who said, "If you do believe in evolution then yes you are atheist."

Are you saying that the Pope is an atheist?

To alice-2882644, who said, "I believe that evolution is BS and I don't agree with having it rammed down my throat or that of my kids...then what? What if I feel that evolution is nothing more than another theory of the beginning of life,"

Do you not believe in gravity, either? What about the shape of the earth? Should schools
not teach that the world is round because the Flat Earth Society doesn't believe it?

To NorthstarDFL, who said, "I went to Catholic school for 12 years. Of course we were taught about evolution and" Mendel's peas" natural selection and good solid science."

Good point! Besides being a scientist, Gregor Mendel was also an Augustinian priest.

"Proven science?" What is proven about evolution - absolutely nothing. You people crying about religion should know one thing, if indeed God created the universe, that has absolutely nothing to do with religion. That would be a scientific fact - a creator created the universe -what does that have to do religion? What are you afraid of - fewer people will believe we came from a big rock that existed from all time and exploded from unknown causes and created the universal and the ROUND objects that remain in perfect motion and that man and all life crawled out of the sea, using gills in the sea and magically growing lungs on land? Wow. Just wow.

"...But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."" (Revelation 12:12)

Ok, there is a bunch of just plain blatant wrong in #1

Yes millions have been killed in the name of religions but millions have been killed in the name of atheists. You have not forgotten, Lenin, Marx, Mao, Hitler, Japanese Emperor etc.

Hitler was a Christian. If you want to say "Oh but he wasn't a true Christian", goody for you, whatever lets you sleep at night.

He stated he was, believed he was, presented himself as one, gave speeches to that effect, and justified his slaughter of Jews with it.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

[Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

---

The Japanese Emperor claimed to be directly descended from the Shinto Goddess of all creation Amaterasu.

In fact, the WW2 terms of surrender we wrote specifically demanded that he sign a document disavoing any divine heritage. He ruled with impunity and was never questioned because he was viewed as divine and infallible by a large portion of the populace.

Personally I think that was a very important part of their surrender and it turned the country around from a backwards country ruled by unquestionable divine authority to a productive modern society.

The usage of "just a theory" in describing the Theory of Evolution, demonstrates the misunderstanding of what amount of experimental validation goes behind a scientific theory. This is much more than saying, I have a theory that the earth is the center of the universe. That would be more in the realm of an hypothesis. Which is defined as, conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the standard of a theory.

In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way that is consistent with scientific method. In other words, an explanation of observed facts where the empirical work(test constructed to proove the theory or parts of it) is published for peer review and which methods are documented in order to validate the results.

So, if the theory explaining Evolution is the mechanism for biological change on earth is "only a theory" Then it is a generally accepted explanation of the phenomena. In fact, as stated above, there are no credible true scientific bodies that do not support this "theory". Even Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project and a devout Christian believes that evolution is not inconsistent with Christian belief. Is view is shared by many devout Christian believers.

The concept of Creationism has not been empirically validated in any serious scientific approach. So, it in not a Theory in the sense of a Scientific Theory. It is a matter of belief not different than many other beliefs. And as a Christian creationism is not a relevant aspect of my faith.

Julio I have to say, Toasty has showed you more patience than I would have been able to. You are seriously making me wonder about your mental capacity.

The basics - you claimed Hitler was an atheist. Hitler wasn't an atheist, nor was he particularly antagonistic towards Christian religions (that was the Communist Russians, for the most part). He quite often contrasted his own (and the average Germans) Christianity against the people he chose to persecute and scapegoat (jews, gypsies et), and claimed to be defending it (rather than acting as an aggressor).. He ACTIVELY used religious rhetoric to further his political goals. You seem to be asking Toasty to prove what was true in that monster's heart, and frankly we do not know that, we can't know that. I imagine he used whatever gave him power, like so many men before him, and religion has often served that purpose.

I'm not sure the point of contention over the Japanese (from what I can tell Toasty isn't claiming the Japanese took the actions they did to further some religious goal, only that they had religious beliefs) Shintoism and Buddhism are barely comparable as organized religions to the Christian sects. They don't require the same uniformity of beliefs or worship practices among adherents, for one thing.

You're original statement was kind of confusing, were you trying to intimate that atheism was responsible for the actions of Japan in WWII? I don't religion was of any consequence one way or another, unlike in Germany.

The amount of ignorance in some of these postings regarding the simple definitions used in the Scientific Method is kind of an appalling indictment of our education system. Every time I read or hear " it's just a theory" I want to go slap a science teacher, but honestly it's probably not their fault, this kind of @!$%# is more than likely preached at home. The answer to the Big Bang question is - we don't know. We're only human, we don't know the answer to everything, and we probably never will - but we know a hell of a lot more than we did a century ago. Our scientific theories are an attempt answer to the facts we observe - the universe exists, and stuff exists within it, we exist here on Earth as do a myriad of other lifeforms, and trillions of extinct species. We don't bounce off the surface of the planet, and the Earth is locked into an orbit around the sun, along with the other planets in the solar system.

Theories - The Big Bang, evolution, gravity, relativity, atomics, quantum mechanics etc etc etc - all theories, all culminations of humanities observations, measurements, experimentation, recordings, rejections, refinements, etc. The only facts in science are the initial observations - we know gravity exists (watch out for falling apples), we actually KNOW for a FACT that evolution happens, we know that matter is made up of smaller and smaller particles, and a lot of empty space. The Theories are our attempts to explain and understand HOW these observed facts occur, work, and can be shaped to our needs. This is such a necessary, fundamental thing to understand if you are going to have a serious, adult discussion regarding anything to do with science.

also there are very few round celestial objects, Timothy. The Earth certainly isn't, that globe on your desk notwithstanding.

Feisty dominatrix, first on first read again. The usual suspects follow. They are a tiny minority in America but want to believe they represent the majority. Fine, you don't believe in God. Fine you want others to believe what you don't. But the reality is that you have nothing to back your beliefs. You say science determines all but science can't explain all. It can't explain the big bang. It can't explain life. It can't explain why the uneducated think they deserve welfare. The best it can do is say "just because."

That is the problem with the wrong. "Just because" is their answer to everything. They don't believe in God, so "just because" is their answer. Why does the "just because crowd believe in "just because?" Because they have no answers. They want everyone to believe in "just because" because they are ignorant. Ignorance begets ignorance. Let's all believe that because the ignorant cause nearly all violence that ignorance is good.

Feisty and 'friends' are ignorance incarnate. They want violence to engulf the world. Afterall, they are paid for by MSNBC to be crazy to incite idiocity. That is working so well for the ratings at 3rd and sinking.

There is no denial that Feisty and crowd are always first to respond at First Read. Look at the archives, if MSNBC will let you see them. Feisty/Bev are always first in line. Coincidence? Only if you believe Obama is a great president and gremlins rule the airways.

Msnbc is so low in the ratings that it will employ any shill it can to get them boosted. The only Obama supporters here are the few that are shills. They always stay away from any thread that they didn't get first crack at. Toasty, that is you. A true Obamite as well as Eric, Ewent and a small minority of others. Nothing he does is disagreeable to you. That makes you a phony. No one agrees with everything any president does. Only shills back them without scrutiny.

BTW, I challenge anyone to show any valid evidence that shows creation was not the cause for everything. Good luck with that. No one has ever shown any.

Now that's just a special brand of crazy Bob. Kudos.

also science can answer why poor people want welfare. It's a little thing called psychology, you may have heard of it. It gets derided by the more "hard" science subjects, but it's still in the family. There's also one called statistics, related to a little something called math, that can help you figure out HOW many poor people will be needed and expected checks this month.

You just used the Giant Spaghetti Monster argument to try and prove creationism. classy. You trollin?

What a mixed up, opinionated thread. I didn't see anyone that actually addressed the real point, which is our founding father wrote the Constitution the way they did because they knew that allowing Church into state matter could easlily lead to a repeat of the Catholic Church's hold over the old world. The separation of church and state should be sacrosanct for that reson alone. No one cares at that level who has what opinion about how we got here. Public schools are state schools so no church. Period. Private schools are everywhere that will do your job of teaching your beliefs to your kids. Or better yet, do it at home, where it belongs. I'm a Christ-follower, and I DON'T want the church messing with state affairs. One Inquesition was enough for human history, thank you very much.

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Tell me where that statement says students can't pray in school, or talk about Creation.

It doesn't. But it does mean that Congress cannot write laws favoring any religion, or prohibiting religion. Congress cannot make a law requiring prayer in schools, or make a law requiring the religious doctrine of Creationism to be taught in public schools. The Supreme Court decision so often misquoted didn't ban prayer from public schools, it banned requiring prayer in public schools - a subtle but important difference that too many people miss.

hungrymongoose, I suggest a heavy dose of Iron Maiden's Number Of The Beast for you. Listen to it a few times and get back to me. LOL!!

Bob, can you show valid proof that creationism is the cause of everything without using the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran? Hmmm..

Bob-a-lot-of-numbers,

Turn your question around. Why don't you provide irrefutable proof that creationism caused everything.

Good luck with that.

The vast majority of Americans want America to remain the top country for science in the world. So why then do so many support candidates that are so anti-science? Perry is advocating for a return to the 1920's, when America was a scientific backwater country. America has already lost it's prominence in industry and education, with science and the economy next to go. Why continue supporting candidates like this? Is it so important that your children hear creationism from their science teacher? Can't the parents take the kids to church or teach them themselves?

Yes millions have been killed in the name of religions but millions have been killed in the name of atheists. You have not forgotten, Lenin, Marx, Mao, Hitler, Japanese Emperor etc. And don't forget all the state dictatorships, the mongrels, the immoral rulers who treat people as animals and believe they live by divine rule.

What? "Millions have been killed in the name of atheists"? Name ONE.

Hitler - Christian (Lutheran) Lenin and Marx believed that religion was a way to control people. Mao Zedong - Buddhist. And what Japanese emperor are you talking about?

Plus your statement of "the immoral rulers who treat people as animals and believe they live by divine rule." Umm.... divine rule... that indicates a theist belief.

Normally, I wouldn't have jumped into this hotbed, but what the heck? Millions killed in the name of atheists? I'm agnostic (and do NOT say that is the same as atheist), but I take great offense at the statement that millions have been killed in the name of atheism.

what can be taught to schoolchildren about evolutionary theory is a tiny sliver of what it actually is. Modern evolutionary theory is built upon ideas from population ecolology, population genetics, molecular biology, paleontoloty, and much more including, of course, Darwin's theory of natural selection. Creationists question Darwin while they remain completely ignorant of the vast bulk of scientific evidence that corroborates his brilliant work. Nothing was known about genetics, one of the pillars of evolutionary theory, during Darwin's time. Creationists are quite simply ignorant people who invoke Gods to explain that which they don't understand because they're too lazy to try.

I know about the Big Bang. It is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis. How do atheists account for it, that was my question. Something out of nothing? Sounds hard.

#1: Stop confusing "Atheist" and "Scientist".

#2: The big bang wasn't "Something out of nothing". It was just the start of our CURRENT universe. It began at the end of the PREVIOUS universe collapsing on itself. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Nobody who ever studied the theory of the Big Bang ever said "And it just happened from nothing!" The entire idea behind the big bang is that it was the previous universe, collapsing in on itself, until it exploded outwards. The Big Bang theory states that our universe is currently expanding, but through entropy, will slow down, then because of gravity start to contract until... guess what? Another Big Bang!

Ok, so the bottom line is, either Perry lied to the kid to pander to the evangelicals or the State of Texas is violating the Constitution. So which is it?

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE, day 231.

Alice: they can learn about evolution and creationism and Buddism and whatever other THEORIES there are that teach the beginning of life.

Please leave Buddhism out of your diatribes. You don't know what you are talking about.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was
founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been
afforded freedom of worship here." -Patrick Henry

THIS IS HISTORICAL FACT.

But so is the Scopes monkey trial decision....

I believe the point is that YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. In other words, you can NOT make or force someone to either believe or not believe in God...that is between them and God.

IMO Perry should stop being such a Republican in this regard and cease attempting to instill his convoluted thoughts and beliefs on others and make them accept and think and believe as he does. IMO he needs to be more concerned with his OWN relationship and standing with God; but that is just my opinion.

Let me address some flaws in the arguments here :

1. Scientific theory is a definition of phenomena through the use the scientific method, where the key component is the ability to make predictions how the phenomena reacts to stimuli. Scientific theory is interchangeable with scientific law.
2. The Theory of Evolution, is a theory about the evolution of species based upon variations in the genetic code. The Theory of Evolution is not about how life began, that theory is called Abiogenesis.
3. Science is not Atheistic, nor based off of any religion. Science is based off of observations and facts, not faith. Many scientists are religious, they can be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and so on.
4. Atheism is belief, and as such, is considered as a religion and therefore cannot be taught in public schools by itself, comparative religions, yes.
5. Creationism is not science due to #1. God is neither provable nor unprovable and is unobservable. You cannot make a prediction that God is going to do something in a controlled experiment.

Creationists, you are arguing against the wrong theory. You do not use empirical analysis in your arguments. Your pastors do not know what they are talking about, when they make arguments against science. Here's a question, why is it that most followers of Christianity and this is the only religion, that rejects science?

First, EdukatedMan, The student was never sued. The student was asked to remove the references, and SHE sued. I don't know if the school would have let her go on anyway. The other student you could be referencing threw out her speech and took the entire time asking people to turn over to Jesus and to see their local church and then was asked to e-mail everyone an apology. However she sued because she was asked to apologize for turning her Valedictorian speech into a recruitment opportunity. in BOTH cases the Valedictorian is SUING THE SCHOOL.

Second, from the comments I've seen we keep referencing Hitler and Hirohito. I keep seeing the same argument, they CLAIM to be religious but were secretly atheists. And that the attacks they perpetuated had to be religious or not religious. Who said they have to be one or the other? You claim that since they were not religious people then that means the attacks were in the name of atheism. How does the jump come about? Not all attacks of any kind were made in the name of religion or in the name of not having a religion. Horrible things are done and they don't have a SINGLE thing to do with Religion or not having a religion.

AND in the same breath they claim that when people DID do things in the name of religion they weren't doing it properly so it wasn't in the name of religion. So let me get this straight, if someone does something horrible but does not claim to be religious its automatically in the name of Atheism? But if they do it in the name of religion its not actually in the name of religion? AND if they do something good in the name of religion (or not but just are religious) its religions fault? So in effect, anything good done=religion anything bad=atheism, and all arguments boil down to that? That is a very precise loop of logic....

Next Evolution does not equal atheism. Atheists want to claim it because its awesome, Religious people want an enemy to galvanize their base. Its another "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument, its not about the children they just want to have a pulpit. Evolution does not claim there is no god, it just claims "hey this is probably how things further become other things". It is a scientific theory, and its the same argument as we hear all the time "he claims the earth isn't the center of the universe! He doesn't believe in God making us the middle!"... no thats not what he's saying.

Hmmm. It's funny that I see the same Creationism proponents on here every day, spouting the same arguments, only to have them proven wrong over and over again.

Are ya'll masochists or something? You are wrong. Deal with it, accept it, embrace it, re-evaluate your life.... whatever.

It's not like your arguments are even good, the same ol' tired 'watchmaker analogy' and 'irreducible complexity' arguments have been getting shot down for DECADES now. Your blatantly dishonest creationist lies are like a turd that just won't flush. It's incomprehensible how your arguments can be proven wrong, emperically, inarguably WRONG so many times - yet somehow the lies are still spread.

Willfull ignorance is another version of lying. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Oh, and here's a link to a partial list of transitional fossils (there are hundreds of thousands) It's on wikipedia for Christ's sake - how can you sit here and actually say "durrr...Where are all the transitional fossils?" when THE LIST IS ON WIKIPEDIA.

You want the human "Missing Links" too? That's on wikipedia also... very well documented with pictures, references, and everything, just for you.

Facepalm - unbelievable. You guys live under a rock with a connection only to newsvine or something?

spider

If you truly are a scientist the university from which you graduated failed to teach you the basics of the scientific method. That college should be ashamed to have issued a Bachelor of Science in Geology to a guy who is so lacking in knowledge that he refers to one of the Theory of Evolution, one of the cornerstones of the study of the life sciences as "only a theory." A scientific theory is a big deal, spider, an explanation of nature with overwhelming evidence behind it and overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community. Anyone who talks about a scientific theory as "only a theory" does not know what they are talking about. I think that your college is probably guilty of malpractice.

Alice: they can learn about evolution and creationism and Buddism and whatever other THEORIES there are that teach the beginning of life.

Please leave Buddhism out of your diatribes. You don't know what you are talking about.

Seconded on that one. Buddhism does not have a creation story, and Buddha himself viewed pondering creation a complete waste of time that could be better used helping others and concentrating on self improvement.

Now why all these Abrahamic extremist sects like Evangelical bible literalists and orthodox Muslims concentrate on more on debating Creationism instead of self improvement and helping others I have no idea. Is denying science that important?

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” ~Siddharta Buddha

So? Which is it?

Did Perry lie to the kid? Or, is Texas violating the Constitution?

And in either case, why is Perry promoting an unconstitutional act?

C'mon guys, inquiring minds want to know.

"When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

America Held Hostage, Day 231.

But, the court added, "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

So discussing the topic of 'creationism' is not a violation of the Constitution.

Sounds pretty simple and straightforward to me.

ROY WILSON

Creationism is not a scientific theory any more than "the moon is made of green cheese" or "the Earth is the center of the Universe" is a scientific theory. In order to qualify as a scientific theory an explanation about the natural world must be backed by substantial evidence and have substantial support among scientist of the field of study. There can be no credible information which discredits the idea.

Absolutely no proof exists for Creationism and it would be wrong to teach anything about Creationism in a science class other than "Creationism is a religious myth without any evidence to back it."

Roy, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that "...teaching creation science for any reason was a form of religious advocacy" and it was, therefore, not appropriate subject material for public schools. Please refer to Webster v Lenox school District for more details.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

Bob-1887910

Ironic, since the teachers union is left-wing, pro-Democrat, and doesnt miss a chance to propagandize students to its statist Big Government way of thinking. It wants to create a generation of zombie "left wing" students.

Booby trap you are a sponge bob. Everything you say is filled with holes.

Leave booby alone Bev - he has his tight fitting 'square pants' just like pretty boy Perry... lol

Bob, you do realize that Texas is a "right to work" state? Right?

I will just laugh...that was a funny joke..lol. Seriously? I used to be a science teacher...your scenario is way off base and you obviously have no clue what teachers actually do in school...lol.

Nice try though...lol. I guess in your world the unions come in and hand out leaflets to students so they will all become Democrats...lol.

Does that explain the little Bible verse I see in my kids' classroom that I could complain about if I wanted and get it removed? Yep...all that left-wing propaganda again...lol.

ram ~ Thank you.

I was a teacher, too, but Bob won't listen to me. Hopefully he will listen to you.

Sir Bobs a lot won't listen to any sane person, he's in his own little world. But we keep him around 'cause he's an amusing fellow.

Bob:

Help me out here. How does the teachers' union have any relevance? It's teachers who teach, not unions. They didn't seem to convert you to shameless liberalism, did they?

Christians feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but Christians have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

So, Dominico, you see the tape.

I did, lots of other people did, and the general consensus is that the mother needs to be visited by a social worker.

That woman shoved an obviously terrified six year old in front of the cameras. The boy said not a word- his mom did all the talking. Perry was soothing in talking with the child.

Nice attempt at spin. Try addressing some of the real issues.

Obama is going to lose because he is an an absolute unmitigated disaster as president. You in the 53% who thinks he's doing a bag up job on the economy? One of the 60% of the cultists who think he's doing great creating jobs?

You remember anything at all from journalism 101?

You aren't supposed to be a paid propagandist. Try some objective fact.

I promise, it won't hurt for too long to admit the truth- Obama is a failure.

KD, Christians have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

What makes us special isn't the dirt, but that God breathed the breathe of life into Adam. We are our purest and most innocent when we are little kids. No wonder mudpuddles and mud pies are so fun!

And we don't feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientistis declare Creation to be a myth. What we don't like is the overt hope that people of faith will all die off as science indoctrinates the next generation into their atheistic, Godless worldview. What scientists fail to realize are the lessons of history. Tertullian tried killing off all the believers in this Jewish Messiah, and ended up remarking that "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church!" God will have His people on this earth until He deems it time for them to be removed. The best the anti-God crowd can do is wish very hard that doesn't happen in their lifetime.

Levi, just curious. If Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and they had Cain and Abel as their children. When Cain killed Abel and ran off to a village, where did that village come from if his parents were the first people on earth? I have never gotten an answer to this question and am wondering if there were too many parts of the Bible that have been ommitted and thusly, I will never get an explanation because of it.

Bob,Bob,Bob..... Get back on your meds. It's time.

I guess they just built more people out of ribs and clay, Brent. I mean, since it's totally possible to make a living human being out of ribs and clay. Clearly a scientific and fact-based argument, of course.

Yeah Toasty, it looks like I still won't be getting any answers. BTW, would those be pork or beef ribs? LOL!!!

Even better. ADAM ribs. So I guess there was a maximum of 23 additional humans, assuming there is an appropriate supply of clay in the general vicinity.

There used to be a small chain restaurant here in Texas called The Magic Time Machine and all of the employees had to have a get up/costume to be a character and portray it while serving you (God forbid someone as where the restroom was as they would have some of the servers escort you to the restroom holding a cherry top light shouting "potty patrol"). Anyway, they used to have their prime rib on the menu listed as "Adam's Rib" (16 oz.), and the 12 oz. was called Eve's portion. I always found that rather amusing. Too bad they don't exist anymore, as they went out of business for some reason. It was always and"experience" to go. Godd night all.

Hi Brent...that's a good question. Thanks for asking. Of course if this is one of those "let's see what he says so we can make fun of him" then you can just go get stuffed. But let's hope for the best here.

We modern Western civilization-mongers tend to think linear in time and narration. The writer of Genesis (Moses) did not do so. First, let's correct something:

Cain did not "run off to a village". He hung out. He built a city after he got the heave ho from the family unit. Of course we have no idea what the mark was that God put on him. The Mormons say it was that God made him black, but that's ingenious at best.

Anyway, I get the drift. Where did Cain's wife come from. The thought is that there was such a rich diversity of genetic material in Adam and Eve that they could indeed be the progenitors of the human race. Today when cousins marry they run the risk of genetic mutation. Not so with Adam and Eve. Note that people them days lived a LONG time. After the flood, the lifespans began to get appreciably shorter as people began to fill the world. Could you imagine what it would be like if people lived 900 years today?

When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he wrote an overview, then went back and filled in details. That's why there seems to be two different accounts of the creation of man. In one respect, there was a general linear overview, then there was a further explanation of events pertaining to those revealed in that overview. Got it? It's literary style.

But again. Good question. One thing we must be careful of, and is a very easy trap to fall into, is interpreting ancient events, and even modern other-culture events, through our modern western mindset.

Levi - I am not making fun of you but I have a problem with your claims like "people in them days lived a long time" and the fact that there was no risk of genetic mutation. Where is your proof for assertions like that - where is your primary source? Where is your secondary source? Do you have any suspicion at all (even just the tiniest bit) that they sound suspiciously like stuff that evolved to answer questions arising from the material inconsistencies etc in the Bible?

How do you know Moses wrote two versions - where is your irrefutable proof positive that this occurred.

I think that you are operating from a standpoint of faith, not fact.

Thanks for the answer Levi. I had heard before that Moses himself had lived to be about 900 years old. I had also heard that Adam and Eve were actually the first "immortals" on the planet and that there had always been lesser mortals, but that isn't what the Bible states. So at least part of your explanation is already out there in the open. Figuring out where that village came from is still going to be a mystery. We have no idea who actually cut what parts of the Bible out, since what is now the Bible is only about a quarter of what was written for it. Seems censorship was big even back then. While the Bible may give some direction and some historical value (since several other sources concur with some of the stories within) it seems to leave quite a bit of it for us to "just believe in" (faith, if you will). I guess we will never know the real answer to my question, as nobody actually knows for sure. I will give you kudos for your valiant effort. It seems we almost end up with another post hoc, in trying to explain such things. Thanks again.

Here is the difference between creationism and evolution:

Evolution has a body of evidence that can be independently verified by people of a particular educational background, and most importantly, it provides for a test case in which there is room for it to be wrong. To deny evolution is to willfully ignore fact, even if faith is the driving force for doing this.

Creationism has a body of evidence that was written in a book passed down from generation to generation. The accuracy of this account is faith. Creationism provides no test case for which it can be wrong. That is because God is all powerful and may create the Earth in any form He sees fit. To believe or disbelieve creationism is an act of faith.

But again. Good question. One thing we must be careful of, and is a very easy trap to fall into, is interpreting ancient events, and even modern other-culture events, through our modern western mindset.

Maybe we should be careful of unquestioningly accepting ancient interpretations of events that were much more ancient than the original interpretation.

Here is some good information on Noah, his age, and the age of his descendants.

I thought little girls were made from sugar and spice and everything nice! Works as well as Adams rib from a religious standpoint, from a scientific standpoint not so much.

Jane, of course we cannot prove that people lived to 900 years and so on. I don't know that it's all that important an issue on which to build a monument, so to speak. It sure would explain some things. But fact is, we can't prove that people didn't live that long. Our current world is no gauge for all that took place 10,000, 20,000, however many thousand, years ago. The only thing we can know for sure is that people had babies that survived.

And thank you, Jane, for not mocking me. It's so much better if we can discuss without the sarcasm and bad attitudes.

Here's an interesting thing: People who try to point out contradictions in the Bible end up looking like idiots. The best that atheistic science can say about the Bible is that it has sections that are unproven. As Brent pointed out, extra Biblical sources verify some of what's in the Bible. Don't ask me what they are. Use Google and do the work yourself. So, if the Bible can't be proven false, what does that mean?

Okay, I can gauge the response; "OF COURSE IT"S FALSE!" Yeah? What part? How do you know? Unproven does not equal false, and with the Bible we have proven, and unproven. So if false equals a negative, and unproven is neutral with proven a plus, all we have is neutral and plus for the Bible, and that makes it worthy of note.

Y'all are fond of saying faith and science can't mix. Gee, you better hope you're right, because if indeed what science is discovering is the fingerprint of God, only they declare it to be some wildly imaginative, unproven theory, they'll be left looking like dimwits when God shows up.

Levi- to add to what you said (terrific post btw)

there are some really great scientific theories out there that have proven it is possible for people to have lived that long. According to the Bible when God created Adam and Eve he created them without sin and the ability to live forever, then of course they sinned which lead to pain in childbirth, death and the creation of the first murderer (Cain)

Now everyone who preceded the "great flood" lived on average 900 years, after the flood something caused a change or a "natural decay"

"The fossil record reveals that prior to the Flood, most of the earth appears to have had a tropical type of environment. Following the Flood, there was clearly an environmental change resulting in an ice age that covered nearly 30 percent of the earth with ice (primarily in the northern latitudes). This, together with other changes following the Flood, could have adversely affected life spans." answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/04/did-people-live-over-900-years

Now obviously this is all based on Genesis

Many writers have noted that life spans began a slow and steady decline after the Flood, showing evidently that they were connected with the Antediluvian (pre-Flood) climatology (climate conditions) and environmental conditions.

(Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood,

Creation-Life Publishers, 1976, p. 155).

Before the Flood, there was a great canopy or envelope of water around the earth, in the atmosphere above the air-layer (cf. Genesis 1:6-8). This vast blanket of water above the troposphere made the earth a paradise compared to what it is now, "A global greenhouse, maintaining an essentially uniformly pleasant temperature all over the world…windstorms would be unknown…there could be no rain" (Morris., ibid., p. 60).

"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (Genesis 2:6).

"A vapor canopy would also be highly effective in filtering out ultraviolet radiation, cosmic rays, and other destructive energies from outer space. These are known to be the source of both somatic and genetic mutations, which decrease the viability (length of life) of the individual and the species, respectively. Thus the canopy (of water around the earth) would contribute effectively to human and animal health and longevity" (Dr. Morris, ibid., pp. 60-61).

Dr. Henry M. Morris holds a Ph.D. in hydrology and geology from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Morris goes on to say:

The congenial climate…and the radiation-filtering effect of the canopy (of water around the earth before the Flood) enabled the people of that age – and probably animals as well – to live to much greater ages than is now possible. In recent years, it has been demonstrated in biomedical research that both the existence of such high pressures and the absence of mutation-producing radiations in the environment do contribute significantly to longevity. In addition, of course, the pristine purity of the human genetic system and its bloodstream, with so few accumulated mutant genes, together with the primeval absence of disease-producing organisms (which only gradually developed, through the outworking of the curse [of sin] ) from the originally created beneficient microorganisms, served to maintain life through great age-spans (Morris, ibid., p. 143).

another really good article that "integrates science and faith"

reasons.org/theology/bible-difficulties/why-arent-there-any-900-year-old-human-fossils

Our current world is no gauge for all that took place 10,000, 20,000, however many thousand, years ago. The only thing we can know for sure is that people had babies that survived.

there are also paintings in caves depicting animals of the time at various places around the world that date back as much as 30,000 years ago. They may just be representations of reality or they might have a more evolved meaning of conveying the power of God in pre biblical times.

I look at all the scientific discoveries we now have and I find myself even more convinced than our ancient cave painters, that there is an unknown universal mystery that holds everything together, much like God as we have learned from the Bible. So for me science only strengthens my faith

There is a huge amount of physical evidence to prove humans existed well over 20000 years ago and that life has existed for hundreds of millions of years on this planet. Christians have the distinct tendency, when faced with irrefutable facts that contradict their myths, to manufacture false evidence to support their untenable position. To put a finer point on it, they lie.

well I am for anything that helps make the world a kinder, gentler place. Many take religious text as actual fact while others give it no level of truth at all. If you live a life of compassion toward others then you already intuitively know much of what is written in Religious text.

You mean like the divine instructions given to the Israelites to slaughter the Midianites, keeping only their virgin daughters for other purposes? How about god's instructions as to how to treat the inhabitants of Sihon:

Deuteronomy 2:33-34

³³And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

³⁴And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

Or perhaps Psalm 137:9 in which is written:

⁹Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Is that what makes the world a kinder, gentler place??? I think I will stick to other, more rational texts for moral instruction...

cat

no, you went a completely different direction ......

That's the typical reaction of hypocritical christians when they are faced with the violent nature of their cult's teachings.

well perhaps you are right but there are many christians that do not fit your profile either

there are some really great scientific theories out there that have proven it is possible for people to have lived that long. According to the Bible when God created Adam and Eve he created them without sin and the ability to live forever, then of course they sinned which lead to pain in childbirth, death and the creation of the first murderer (Cain) Now everyone who preceded the "great flood" lived on average 900 years

Or they didn't understand the Septuagint decimal age system when they translated the Bible.

---

You mean like the divine instructions given to the Israelites to slaughter the Midianites, keeping only their virgin daughters for other purposes? How about god's instructions as to how to treat the inhabitants of Sihon: Deuteronomy 2:33-34

God was so much nicer when he was still married to the Sumerian Goddess Asherah in the original Hebrew Jeremiah before the edit by the Deuteronomists. He just got mean after that. He must miss her.

He will probably be gone in a couple of months.

OH Puhleeze NO - I want him to be the Tealiban nominee...

One thing is for certain this willl go down in history as to the time the tea baggers (formerly known as the GOP) main streamed CRAZY!

Feisty: I think you mean mainlined crazy. Mainstreaming crazy would seam to make us believe that there are normal parts to the crazy Tea Party line of thought and that it will improve by exposure to normal, neither of which is possible.

Mainlining, on the other hand, involves full injection of the belief system, with the consequent destruction of the body. Just as a heroin or crack user mainlines their drugs and has the resulting destruction of their bodies and brains, so the mainilining of the TeaParty crazy will destroy the Republican party. The GOP needs to go to NarcAnon ASAP or they will be DOA.

My bad dirp - I stand corrected... lol

Feisty: "sallright"

I wonder, what will happen to the GOP when the TeaParty (hopefully) implodes. Maybe the real crazies will actually go off and try to actually form a new political party and the remaining Republicans will get back to governing the country. Maybe they'll take all the "job creators" with them and leave the wealthy to actually do some good for the country.

well ya know those educated types...can't trust 'em once they get some skoolin...

Well of course. Once you go to a university you're exposed to dangerous stuff like "science," and "facts."

Especially since Texas and Oklahoma and surrounding states are considered the BIBLE belt. Texas as is OKlahoma are big republican states.

Amazing how he loves fossil fuels but doesn't believe in fossils.

Don't you know, God put it there so he and other good thinking christians can frack it out of the soil and sell it.

I agree. They like to say that teaching atheism or evolution is not pushing a belief down someone's throat and I beg to differ. Teaching atheism or evolution is no different than teaching creationism. All are theories on how life began and where it went from there and why. It's just that atheists like to scream foul every single time creationism is brought up. Heaven forbid that a student learn more than just evolution as a possible means of the beginning of life on this planet and decide for themselves what they believe.

So explain to me how your kids are going to be able to compete in a global job market, if all they know is religion instead of science.

I think creationism is something parents and churches should teach. Teaching creationism in school is exactly going to help someone prepare for college.

No, it's "not true" because it's demonstrably full of sh!t. And yes, there is harm in filling childrens' heads full of retarded nonsense. We need an educated workforce - not a bunch of knuckle dragging dimwits like the ones filling the minimum wage jobs in Texas.

As for you christians "loving people", I'm sure you meant, "hating gays, muslims, blacks, women, atheists, non-true christians,....."

Yes there is harm in it if it isn't anything but a religious story with no facts at all to back it up that is presented as a reasonable history of events. It is perhaps your viewpoint and that is fine, but my kids will not go to a school where religious doctrine is taught as science, and the law happens to back me up on that.

And equating a person with being loving just because s/he is Christian tells me you haven't read much history. I won't begin a list of all the people who have been "loved" out of existence in the name of one God or another. If you want to teach that a God created things you can do it at home and at church. My kids know it is what some believe and they respect their right to believe it, but even they at 7 have reasoned out that it isn't literal or reasonable and not at all related to any facts.

I'm sorry.

1. Where did I say that you should only teach one and not the other? I said what is so wrong with teaching it all and being balanced and allowing students to decide on their own? I said teaching only one is not right. Teach it all or teach none of it.

2. How exactly does believing in evolution or believing in creationism decide how a person will be competitive in a global job market? There is a lot more to science than evolution you know. In fact, there are books and books and more books about all kinds of science things that have nothing to do with evolution. You don't have to believe in evolution to graduate with a degree in virtually all science fields.

Being competitive in a global job market requires education in one's chosen field. Many of which are not even science related. Personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Brent, God will give them all jobs. Right after he makes it rain in Texas.

Alice, the only place atheism will be taught in a public school in this country is if it is part of a history of religion or similar class. Who teaches atheism in your schools?

And evolution isn't anyone's religion, but is science with facts to back it up. Nothing is known 100%, but evolution is not based on any particular religion or lack of it. No one said students can't learn about creation...they have church, home, and friends for that, and you can teach your kids anything you want....just keep your personal religious views out of my kids' classrooms or send them to private school.

Numbers and Alice, The bible is a book of religious truths for believers. It is not a book of scientific truths.

Teaching atheism is akin to teaching evolution as the only possible truth. As you can clearly see from the posts on here, if you believe in God then you are a moron and your beliefs have no place in school. However, if you believe in evolution, then there is no God, and it should be taught as a valid indenible only truth and all other thought systems should be trampled on and those with them should be ridiculed, just like Pedestrian-in-SF does.

Alice , you do not get to make a decision on weather you want to teach facts or fantasy. We teach facts and show the science that backs up those scientific facts. No, they dont get to decide to teach fiction and teach it as a possible alternative to fact. The children who come from religious homes really need to be presented with facts.

Actually Alice, my comment was for the poster above you, 3936045, but thanks for attempting to answer anyway. Think about it. The reason our country is behind much of the rest of the industrialized world is because they are lacking in math and science, and losing the competition for jobs in the global markets/economy. If all that is taught is religion, then we are hurting ourselves. That was my point.

Pedestrian, we are still waiting on that rain. LOL!!

You make it sound like the theory of evolution has it all figured out. Well that is a lie. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Yes, things evolve to adapt to their environment. Bacteria and viruses are prime examples of this. But you think that you should make the decision WHETHER (I corrected your spelling for you there) one belief is more valid for every single person than another and that is very paternalistic of you. One student may decide that they believe in God rather than the theory of evolution as presented. Or perhaps another student may want to pursue further education in a religious field because they were taught different theories and got to make a choice about what they believed to be the truth. Or maybe another student decides to do further research into evolution and thinks that that theory is the one they believe. Each theory should be presented in a non-biased manner and the students can think about it and make their own decisions.

You don't teach "atheism". Children are born atheists. It's when you start stuffing their head with inaccuracies of the world and robbing them of critical thinking skills that they are no longer competitive in a technological society.

Why do people believe that not teaching creationism=atheism?One is not necessarily replaced by the other.This discussion is about teaching material that has scientific facts supporting a theory vs.teaching stuff that is based in religion with no science to support it.I don't want my kids to be taught make believe or magic,but you are free to teach your kids that at home.

1. Where did I say that you should only teach one and not the other? I said what is so wrong with teaching it all and being balanced and allowing students to decide on their own?

Because if my child is an atheist child, or a Hindu child, or a child of any other religion that does not beiieve YOUR particular creation myth, it's totally inappropriate to teach your creation myth in a public school that my child also attends. Or do you believe that they should ALL be taught, and if so, wouldn't that be incredibly confusing?

Teach YOUR mythology in your own church, for God's sake, and stop wasting school time and MY money on your personal delusions.

Alice: you're more than a bit fuzzy on the concept of "theory". Gravity is a theory. Should we ground all flight why you and your ilk try and work out whether flight is real or not? Creationism is religious dogma. it is not science. This is America. This is not Iran. We are not a theocracy. You might benefit greatly by picking up a 7th grade American history textbook--dare I say, even one in Texas---and then a 5th grade science texbook to learn these very basic concepts.

They like to say that teaching atheism or evolution is not pushing a belief down someone's throat and I beg to differ. Teaching atheism or evolution is no different than teaching creationism.

First off, nobody is "teaching atheism", there is no need to teach unbelief. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that denies the existence of any God, nor does it require any God - just like Math and all the other Sciences. Math and the Sciences are the same for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons - and Atheists.

But "Creationism" is different, it is tied specifically to certain fundamentalist religions and it is not the same for all. More importantly, Creationism isn't a science, it doesn't look for any evidence but relies on revelation and assertions, it isn't open to change, it isn't testable and it makes no useful predictions. Basically, it doesn't look for any real explanation of observations, Creationism is just "I don't know, so God did it"

I must have missed something here. What does Creationism (or Intelligent design) have to do with being a Christian? Are you saying that teaching Creationism is training to be a Christian?

Darn, I wanted to believe in it but it sounds like it's religious, and I think they can't teach that in government sponsored schools. Do they teach it in churches?

And does that mean if I believe in it I am a Christian?

And what does Jesus Christ-ian have to do with any of it? This is a GOD issue, not Jesus - he wasn't born then!

Let me put it in an easy way for you. Not all Christians are creationists, but almost every single creationist in America Christian. The others are either Muslim or Jewish.

CM - What in evolution is testable and makes useful predictions?

I'm so glad you asked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

ClearThi, Tiktaalik is another beautiful example. It was a transitional species the location (in time, environs, position) was predicted and located, and was precisely the kind of transition predicted.

Another prediction, testable, are endogenous retroviral sequences in our genome. And another is the chromosome number 2 having the entire inactivated 'missing' chromosome from earlier primates embedded within it (telomeres and centromere and all).

It seems the hardest thing for people to fathom when it come to evolution is time. We operate in hours, days, months and years and it is only recently (relatively speaking) that our lifespans have even approached reaching 100 years old. So it's understandable that we can't come to grips with the sort of time spans involved in evolutionary terms. 10 Thousand years for a species that reproduces as slowly as us is a blink of the eye from an evolutionary standpoint.

When you think about it though, evolution is akin to watching a child grow. We don't see the child grow but every now and then we notice they are getting bigger. The change is so small that we can't see it, it's the accumulation of change that we see.

Similarly with evolution we only notice when a population accumulates enough change for it to be "different". The word population is key here. Although we might notice some individuals that are different, the whole population represents the child in our analogy, it's the population that is accumulating change. Every now and then we say that part (or all) of the population has changed enough for us to call that a new species, sub species etc. Over very long time spans (hundreds of millions of years) the changes in populations can seem massive, but really it's the time that is massive, the change is small.

Given enough time, pigs can fly*.

*where pigs are a population subject to the necessary evolutionary pressures over sufficiently long enough period of time (i.e. millions of years).

Just because you don't like what the bible says doesn't mean it isn't true.

Just because you may like what the bible says doesn't mean it's true either.

There is no harm in teaching creation in public schools.

Sure there is: It's unconstitutional!

What is the worst that could happen? Your children might want to become christians and start loving people?

Or they might become dumbed down and think fantasy is the same as reality. Besides, loving people is hardly exclusively a christian, or religious trait.

Teaching atheism or evolution is no different than teaching creationism.

I'm not aware of atheism being taught or promoted in public schools. Evolution is a valid scientific theory with lots of supporting objective, empirical evidence. Creationism is not!

All are theories on how life began and where it went from there and why.

Evolution does not deal with how life began.

It's just that atheists like to scream foul every single time creationism is brought up.

Only when creationism is pushed in the classroom, where it doesn't belong, especially since it's a religious fable.

Heaven forbid that a student learn more than just evolution as a possible means of the beginning of life on this planet and decide for themselves what they believe.

When you have evidence to support creationism and/or discredit evolution, then present it for scientific scrutiny and validation. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a story and not one bit factual. Actual facts are not subject to personal beliefs. They are subject to the collected evidence which either supports or refuts them.

I said what is so wrong with teaching it all and being balanced and allowing students to decide on their own?

Facts and education are not popularity contests. That's like trying to teach the Iliad as suitable alternative history.

if you believe in God then you are a moron and your beliefs have no place in school.

You're half right!

However, if you believe in evolution, then there is no God, and it should be taught as a valid indenible only truth and all other thought systems should be trampled on and those with them should be ridiculed, just like Pedestrian-in-SF does.

Evolution doesn't deal with god. But if you have a valid alternative theory to evolution, then by all means, present it. Otherwise, you're just ranting and shooting your mouth off.

There are many holes in the theory of evolution.

None of which actually discredits the theory itself in the least. Creationism is a black hole of facts. There's not one fact to support it. Yet, you want that taught on parity with evolution? Seriously?

Yes, things evolve to adapt to their environment.

Then you also know adaptation is one of the engines behind evolution, right?

But you think that you should make the decision WHETHER (I corrected your spelling for you there) one belief is more valid for every single person than another and that is very paternalistic of you.

The difference is, evolution is NOT a belief. It is a sound and valid scientific theory and field of research. Creationism is a belief. So you are allowed to argue the validity of one's beliefs regarding creation over another's. But that doesn't apply to evolution, unless you can present a logical and scientifically based argument.

One student may decide that they believe in God rather than the theory of evolution as presented.

Again, evolution does not deal with god, or the supernatural, in the least. You display a profound lack of understanding of evolution with comments like that. Scierntific theories are n ot subject to "belief."

Or perhaps another student may want to pursue further education in a religious field because they were taught different theories and got to make a choice about what they believed to be the truth.

Sounds like philosophy classes. "Truth," in the scientific sense, is determined by the known facts and evidence. Truth in the philosophical sense is deterrmined by beliefs or opinion. The two are not even on the same playing field.

Each theory should be presented in a non-biased manner and the students can think about it and make their own decisions.

Creationism is not a valid theory. It is an intellectual disservice to try to present it as such.

You can't teach Creationism as an "alternative" because then logically you'd need to teach EVERY religion based creation story. If Biblical Creation is taught then, we'd need to teach the Nordic creation story where a cow licks salty ice until the first Giant is born, Or what about Amaterasu? Maybe we need to teach that Brahma created the world from a lotus growing in the navel of Vishnu while he rested upon the coils of the great cobra?

The reason we can't teach creationism is that we live in a secular society that doesn't favor one religion over another. If we allowed one religion to invade our schools for forced consumption then we have to allow all of them. Further no creation story has any support within the scientific method. Children go to school to learn about facts, not to have their time consumed by various religious view points. Children can go with their parents to Church, temple, mosque and synagogue to learn about the spiritual world. School teaches our children how to deal with and progress in the physical world.

Even if we wanted to toss out the Constitution and go with teaching Christian creation stories in school, which version do we use? Some Christians believe there are two creations one in verse one of Genesis and then one that occurs in the more detailed version that follows. Some believe that it all took place over a long period of time, some believe it occurred with days counted on the lunar calendar, others that the solar calendar was used. Some believe evolution actually was the instrument but God guided the process. And ALL of the version rely COMPLETELY upon individual humans injecting pure speculation into them to over come apparent inconsistencies. Like non-mutating genetic matter, maybe other humans were created but Eden was a special testing ground. Maybe some were the nephelim, breed by the Gregori.

Which version do we use? The answer? None. Because they have no basis in demonstrable fact. Not saying there is anything wrong with believing any of it. But ultimately its the same as saying "I have no idea but I like this version!" That's fine but I certainly hope that's not the kind of education you send your kids to school to receive.

Wow Gordy, you tore his post to shreds.

Gordy: Good job with your answers.

Toasty: Thank you for the link! I never thought of "Stimulating" evolution on a creature with a short-lived life cycle... the information seemed well researched and well presented. I was unaware of that project, but it certainly takes the "theory" of evolution towards a fact. :)

Well done, Gordy! You get two ears and a tail for your performance! Thumbs up!

Thank you everyone for your kind words. :)

The article does not bring up atheism. Beliefs are not taught in public school, as that would be a violation of separation of church and state. Beliefs and science based theories are absolutely not equivalent. Beliefs are handed to you by established authority with the intention that you do not question them. Beliefs are designed to cement your submission to the authority that designed the beliefs.

Science is based on observations of physical world we live in. Although in school, it may seem that science teachers are declaring what reality is, it is based on testable theories. Science is based on the observation of physical reality, not to cement a conclusion, but only to add to knowledge. Creationism is a logical fallacy intended to be a psychological thought-stopper. The basis of creationism is, "since I cannot presently understand how the universe came about, it must be so complicated that God did it." Such falsely constructed knowledge has no place in government funded public schools in which people of all religions (or no religion) should expect to send their children to learn the facts, and nothing but the facts because they do not want the state interfering with their child and indoctrinating the religious beliefs of someone else.

Alice-where do you get the notion that schools are teaching atheism?How about this "evolution has nothing to do with religion" ergo there is no need to mention religion or the absence of it(atheism).It is SCIENCE!!!

Atheism isn't taught in school, Evolution is. you want to take us back prior to the 1800's and unwind all science so YOU can feel better?

I've never heard of a school shoving atheism down a student's throat and I grew up in the hippie, socialist bastion you right-wingers call California. More specifically the San Fransisco Bay Area. I will say that real science was left to our science teachers for which I am forever grateful. All of the area schools also offered religious studies courses as electives and my high school had a religious philosophy course as well. One religion's idea of creation has no place in a science classroom.

Atheism can't be taught, it's a belief (or lack there of).

Evolution is taught, because it's fact.

Creation can't be taught, because it's a belief. Therefore, it doesn't belong as a topic in schools. If it were brought up, it would be basically state-sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional.

Now don't go banging on the constitution, or you'll have to give up your guns.

So if something is a theory, then it can't be taught, or if taught, there HAS to be a counter-theory taught?

Alice? Then why do you allow the THEORY of gravity to be taught? And what is the bibble-based counter-theory to be taught when gravity is taught in schools?

I think Perry has done what almost no one else has been able to do: make Mitt Romney look like a viable candidate.The White House has got to be celebrating the fastest implosion of a Presidential candidacy since Michael Dukakis rode on that tank.

Thats because most professors are open minded. Doesn't mean they are democrats.

Sacred,

I do believe, the study was in the context of Liberal vs. Conservative, to identify political leanings.

So, yes. It does mean they are mostly democrats.

Candice- Do you know what LIBERAL means? Look it up! Like Martha Stewart would say, It's a GOOD thing! Also Perry isn't talking about College.

But all teachers are not college professors, and in fact most teachers are not college professors, so that isn't even relevant to this discussion. Really do you think people who would tend to believe in having open minds are cramming their religious beliefs down students' throat? Sorry...they are teaching subjects if they are decent teachers.

And by the comments on this board, "open minded" seems somewhat disputable.

hummbird - do you know you are on a POLITICAL site? Liberal: adj. a characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with the principals of social and political liberalism.

ram - True. I'm not aware of a similar study that pertains to elementary, middle or high school teachers. Teachers should teach subjects. All subjects. And offer different points of view. Our kids would grow up learning how to sort out different ideas and rationalize thought. That would be a GOOD thing. Don't you think?

That might also depend on one's definition of "open-minded".

That's just happens when one gains an education.

I wonder how many Teapartiers have PhDs....

So we're marching into the information age and you want to take us back to pre-Darwin? You are really embarrassing yourself and it's hard to believe your an actual adult with a computer. Pick up a book for heaven's sake...Darwin didn't argue that we came from apes. Of course you don't care what Perry has to say about this. The man who wants to lead this country has proven himself an ignorant fool that is the laughingstock of educated people everywhere but you dismiss all learning (as he does) with a carefree, "who knows". Well we do. We'd know even if we never invented archeology and paleontology, because unlike you, we actually have evolved as a species. Boy I'll bet you would have been right there outside Cupernicus' jail cell urging his death for the heresay of "theorizing" the earth wasn't the center of the universe after all. We survived that ignorance. We'll survive yours and Perry's.

you know ap-1414066, you don't know crap about what I know or the degrees (4) I hold, but suffice it to say that you obviously have issues with the truth. I don't recall speaking of Darwin, but maybe you are hearing voices from the grave after all. You must be one of those who are really scared. The species into which you and those who think as you do have evolved, have closed your minds, refused to look beyond your own understanding, and figure that just because you can not see it, it must not be there. So sad. Sooner than you think, the truth will stand before you all and call you all out. Oh... wait a minute... I guess ya'll think truth is relative and also evolves. By the way, it is not my intellect or ignorance that you will have to survive. It is your own and the judgement by the one who knows your denial.

Alright Mr. Four Degrees, let's see if you learned any science in college. Present the evidence supporting your creationist assertions.

Well, Toasty, I will let those much more educated in those areas present to you the volumes of info. Or, you can do as I have done, go to the nearest university library and start the research. You must look at all sides and interweaving theories in order to form an educated understanding of the real question at hand. Science proves itself, over and over again. So do the proper hermeneutics who understand that scripture also interprets itself. I can only assert that somewhere there is a point which these two will be in harmony. But the ignorance of mankind is standing in the way. someday, that wall will be nothing but rubble.

AP - The Bible is a book, pick it up and read it, you might learn something.

Toasty - Can you, for just one more time cause I seem to forget since it is absolutely retarded, how everything came to be based on your evolutionary mindset?

Evolutionists call believers....ignorant? Really? We are ignorant? How many times has science been wrong on something? How many studies prove other studies wrong? This shows that science is not as pure as you all seem to think. I know someone who doctors said, based on science, he has less than 4 weeks to live due to the cancer that spread through his whole body. He was prayed over, and now, over a year later, is perfectly healthy with no trace of the cancer. Since they said he only had 4 weeks they did no treatment on him. What does science say about cases like these?

Science is a great thing...I 100% agree with that. However, if I can watch, over a course of a summer, a tree sprout out of the ground from cells forming, or corn, beans etc., why are animals or people still not growing from that special super awesome cell that started everything? Did, at some point during evolution, that cell decide that now only humans can be grown inside humans instead of randomly on the ground?

How everything came to be? That's a pretty long story, bru.

Hot Sauce,

Science works in part by finding where it is wrong, so it's actually a cause for celebration when this happens because it means we have learnt something new about the world around us. So I am afraid your entire post suggests you are rather ignorant of what the process of science actually is.

What is you alternative to science? We tried religion and it failed miserably.

Here's a question for christians: If we are made in god's image, why aren't we unknowing, uncaring, and invisible?

Jimbo, how about my grandchildren in Georgia, I dont want them spoon fed fiction in place of scientific facts. I realize a lot of folks in Georgia would be happy to see my girls uneducated and uninformed, but not my family.

No, we're all Americans and American kids in Texas are needed in this country like all others. Only 30% of Americans now have college degrees (my gosh, look at the creationists in this country and look what our lack of education has already wrought). We do NOT want to sacrifice ANY child because of such flat earth ignorance and I don't care where they live.

No one has suggested that Greek Mythology be taught in science class. Creationism is not an alternate theory of anything. Creationism is a psychological thought stopper designed to confuse and cause doubt in impressionable young people while they are still developing the ability to thinking logically.

Yes, Candice, you took a course on World Religions in college and that is a wonderful idea if you choose to do that. It is a fascinating topic and I am glad many colleges offer it! That isn't what we were discussing here, though, and isn't related to teaching creationism alongside evolution to schoolkids as a reasonable theory of how we got here. There is a huge difference, and I agree the more we learn about various religions the more educated we can be when we comment or in daily life. That is totally different than saying to kids that God or some intelligent design created the universe...totally different.

Sure, it's good to explain different ways of thinking, but I don't want science teachers presenting creationism to kids as an optional scientific theory. It isn't and doesn't belong in public education when presented that way.

Candace, you should have spent that time taking a logic course. We know Greek and Roman legend is called "mythology". There is no "all sides" to creationism: it's religion, it's not science. You want your child taught religion than teach your child in your own home.

Greek mythology is taught as just that; mythology!

No kidding. These miserable, worthless leftists lead dismal lives.

Really?

And here YOU are lurking in the darkness... lmao!

Now there is ignorance at it's best!

Creationism isn't a theory. It's religious dogma. No, children should not learn religious dogma in public school, needless to say and it would be unconstitutional to try. Evolution is science. Don't be confused by the word "theory". That's how science proves itself.

I suppose we should teach that babies are delivered by storks alongside the sexual theory of human reproduction.

or that 1+1 = 6874 in alternative mathematics.

Well, there is a "non-fantasy" alternative to scientific storkism. It's called "Intelligent Delivery." Now, they don't explicitly say that the "intelligent deliverer" is the stork, but it's pretty obvious it still is...

listen whats the difference the- we know about the big bang, explain it , and time it back to the very second - the bible which is where creationism is derived from tells a story about some garden that has a TALKING snake hanging around - is that how you think life really began - the bible is filled with fairy tales - please do not compare fantasy with science and knowledge and learning and reality - its silly

Try a "Bible as literature" course... really quite interesting.

Well, Michelle Bachmann thinks that black children were better off under slavery!

Science vs. Religion

Early mythology was good because it had to do alot with looking up and asking questions about the night skies. Then a point came in history where people wanted to know more but were unable to travel to the Moon due to technology. Then the most disasterous event occured. Jesus was crucified upon a cross that has sent thousands to their graves fighting over the Holy as well as creating hate for even the basics of science, math. The reason why science is not as prevelant is because most of the higher functions of math are based in Muslim discoveries. The basics of math such as the militaristic maths of adding, dividing, subtracting and multiplying are all that the fundamentalist Christian thinks that they need. Adding more men to your army, dividing your enemy and then subtracting your enemies numbers where after the victory you multiply your numbers to replace the dead soldiers and civilians with your own. Muslim math actually deals with various variables that involve volume, depth ect that were beyond the comprehension of the Christian who only sought to conquere all before them for the prophet they murdered upon the cross. Another reason why science is not prevelant in American society is because of the promise made by Jesus to one day return. Christians do not see the need for science and advanced concepts in math for the main reason that such math would not be needed if Jesus returned so why even bother learning such nonsense.

During elementary school I loved to learn about everything including math. I dreamed of one day being an astronaught and working for NASA. This was around 1981-82. Upon entering middle school I soon noticed that people would harass me especially when it came close to math class time. But I never really understood why. I had problems with math but made it into high school. In high school the problems continued. During the first year I was constantly picked on by a bully who would constantly thump me on the head with his class ring. At home when ever something happened I would get a knuckle into the middle of my head from my stepfather that would throb for days. It even got to the point of the hate of me taking science classes and advanced math classes that a group home kid from Canton was sent into the school who beat me up a few times. For a science class project I wanted to work out a way to come up with an idea to generate electrical power from a volcanoe. I thought it would be pretty cool to do. I was all excited about the project until I started having flashbacks of being ringed and knuckled for learning math as well as talking when i should have just shut up and been silent. This type of abuse led me to not complete the science project of which I received an F on because I was afraid to talk as well as doing the math for fear of being beat on again. I made it out of highschool and joined the Marine Corps where I was discharged do to my roomate leaving marijuana in my car that I was charged with possesion of. After returning home I decided to go back to school knowing that I could learn the math needed to become and engineer and work at Gradall where my spark of engineering had taken place after an employee had drawn the Enterprise on the CAD system which I thought was cool. I began to take the drafting and engineering courses. After one semester I began to be harassed by a female, she knows who she is, constantly trying to make me change my mind about engineering and instead learn welding. After all welding doesn't have all of the fancy Muslim math associated with it that engineering does. Once again the tough math came around and I began to have flashbacks once again like I did in highschool of being beaten for learning such math. Eventually my morale dropped and I dropped out of school. I tried again a few years later but the same problem with the abuse flashbacks continued to happen. I then moved to Columbus, Ohio and after two and years of working as an armed security officer I decided to better myself. I enrolled at E.T.I to become a computer engineer. I had always thought computers were cool and thought it would be even cooler to design them. Once again I made it through the first semester but when the harder math was needed to be learnt I once again had the flashbacks of the abuse associated with learning this type of math and dropped out. During my time at E.T.I. my mothers husband stayed at my apartment a few times. One night while doing my math homework he said that the math was really not that important and grinned thus causing another flashback of the abuse all the way from highschool to then. After a few semesters I dropped out not able to deal with the migranes associated with the re occuring thoughts of being abused.

To this day I still love science and what science means as well as the math and geometry involved with the sciences and will die loving what I grew up dreaming to be.

So one of the main reasons that science is not prevelant in American society is because the higher functions of math are associated with Muslim math. In order to keep both sides at odds people like me would be abused in the manner that I have been so that when a war came around I could be used as fodder to fight the Muslim of whom I do not have any hate towards what-so-ever. Rather the hate is directed towards the very facility that tried to cause me to hate and that is the Conservative Party and their all martyring belief of persacuting anything that is Muslim and not Christian.

One aspect of reading about the ancients that I close to me was that Don't ever attack someone that you are being made to hate. Instead attack the person that is making you hate.

Dwight, sorry that happened to you. It seems though, in the end, you realized what the problem was and identified it (at least seemimgly correctly) and hopefully, you are better off now than you were then. Good luck to you.

Creationism is not Science, it is not a theory, it can not be tested to see if it is right or wrong. It is a bronze age fairy tale.What sets it apart from other fairy tales such as Greek mythology is the fact that there are unstable human beings out there in churches across this great nation who would like to see you punished in some way for not beliving in their fairy tales.......Christians what to talk about the evil of Islam well O K but let's first agree that christianity is possibly the greatest source of hate in the world

will- well put

Many scientists support the biblical view of creation; you can look up their names on Ken Hams web site.He has been teaching this for many years: do your own research if you want

• Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
• Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
• Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
• Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
• Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
• Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
• Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
• Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
• Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
• Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
• Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
• Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
• Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
• Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
• Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
• Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
• Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
• Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
• Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
• Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
• Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
• Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
• Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
• Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
• Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
• Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
• Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
• Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
• Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
• Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
• Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
• Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
• Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
• Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
• Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
• Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
• Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
• Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
• Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
• Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
• Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
• Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
• Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
• Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
• Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
• Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
• Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
• Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
• Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
• Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
• Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
• Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
• George T. Javor, Biochemistry
• Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology

Many of these so-called scientists received their doctorates at christian teaching institutions and currently teach or work at similar schools. At least one of these people is dead and one I looked up died ten years ago at age 90. This list has been making the rounds for a long time and does not in any way validate the position in favor of creationism.

Paul - Is that all you got? That surely looks like less than the 2% of scientist's that agree with creationism. That sure sounds like a majority. Is that new math? BTW, including MD's on the list is a stretch, no offense to MD's, most of their schooling is in the application of their practicing medicine. This doesn't exactly qualify them as experts in evolutionary biology or cosmology, they just have a little better educated opinion. Here's a thought, if you think that any of the MD's on that is okay to treat you for a serious disease, then go to them. The reason creationism cannot be taught as science is because it does not follow all of the tenets of scientific method, the most important piece of the scientific method is that everything in theory is provable via empirical analysis. God is transcendental, that is, provable nor unprovable. It doesn't matter if creationism is correct or not, it's just not science. So, for the MD's agreeing with creation should be taught as science, you have to ask, if this guy is that flexible with scientific method, do you feel safe with him. And my brother-in-law is a MD who believes in creationism and we disagree about specifics.