|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2005 08:39:01 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
I, on the other hand, would be interested in the creationist explanation of the numerous examples of flightless birds and their distribution, especially those found on remote islands: examples include kiwis, the extinct dodos, emus, flightless cormorants, and penguins. This question is particularly interesting when you take into account the biblical flood story. How these did flightless birds get to New Zealand (kiwis), Australia (emus) Antarctica (penguins), the Galapagos Islands (flightless cormorants) and Mauritius (dodos) from Mount Ararat in Asia Minor? If you propose microevolution for the change from flight to non-flight, you are proposing an evolutionary speed much faster than any evolutionary biologist would. |
The creationist would not feel compelled to propose any kind of evolution for a "change" from flight to non-flight. Emus, penguins, and dodo's were created just as they are ( or were, in the case of dods's )- flightless. Why? you may ask. Well, simply to give non-creationists a "reason" to deny God's involvement, that's all.
1 Corinthians 1:19-20 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:03:29 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...there are no intermediate fossil records of any of the itermediate steps. |
Really? You're basing this assertion on what research exactly? Archeopteryx, Homo Erectus, early horses... there are hundreds, if not thousands, of intermediate fossils. If you have any interest whatsoever in the subject, THIS is a good resource for answering your questions.
Originally posted by RonB:
why don't we find flaps with feathers |
Those are called wings. Look out your window and follow the chirping sounds. ;-)
Originally posted by RonB:
...or wings without feathers. |
Penguins
Since bats are mammals, and therefore not part of birds' evolutionary lineage, I'll assume you were joking on that one.
Originally posted by RonB:
...or birds with fur instead of feathers |
Kiwis
Originally posted by RonB:
..or birds with external ears |
If birds evolved from dinosaurs with no external ears, then why would you expect birds to develop something less aerodynamic?
You should flip on the Discovery Channel from time to time.
You didn't answer Milo655321's question on flightless birds. If created as-is, they obviously didn't fly to their islands. Did they hold their breath for 40 days, or did the Ark make stops to drop everyone off?
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 21:17:40. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:09:38 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The creationist would not feel compelled to propose any kind of evolution for a "change" from flight to non-flight. Emus, penguins, and dodo's were created just as they are ( or were, in the case of dods's )- flightless. |
Ok. I hope youâll address the rest of my post. But while we wait for your more detailed answers, Iâll ask you these: How did the flightless cormorant travel from Mount Ararat in Asia Minor to the Galapagos Islands? How did the flightless kiwi travel from Mount Ararat in Asia Minor to New Zealand? How did the flightless dodo travel from Mount Ararat in Asia Minor to the island of Mauritius some 500 miles east of the island of Madagascar?
Originally posted by RonB:
Why? you may ask. Well, simply to give non-creationists a "reason" to deny God's involvement, that's all. |
Thatâs an interesting answer. Do you mean to say that God wants certain people to deny His involvement? Why would he do that? Does He want peopleâs disbelief? Does He want people sentenced to an eternity in hell for their disbelief which, if Iâm to accept your answer, He wanted in the first place? |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:41:55 PM · #204 |
It sure takes a lot of faith to not believe in God.
For myself, I don't wish to make such a wager of betting my eternal life.
Won't it be great to learn the answers to these questions? I wonder if satin will share the answers with you. I doubt it will be on your mind though, with all the heat. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 10:22:02 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
It sure takes a lot of faith to not believe in God. |
That which is physically observed requires more faith than unquestioned belief in documents written by man thousands of years ago that contradict those observations. I love the irony. ;-)
Originally posted by David Ey:
I don't wish to make such a wager of betting my eternal life. |
That's a good strategy to keep the kids in check right before Santa Claus arrives. The consequences of not being good are too horrible to imagine. At least if there ISN'T an afterlife you won't be conscious to contemplate events like the Crusades and the Inquisition. I find it amusing that the most devout believers preach irrevocable doom for those who don't heed the Bible, yet when a tsunami hits Indonesia and India, they pray for the souls of the predominately Muslim and Hindu victims.
Originally posted by David Ey:
Won't it be great to learn the answers to these questions? |
Either you're making an enormous assumption or you're about to crack open an encyclopedia. Good luck with the learning.
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 22:23:51. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 10:24:46 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
...there are no intermediate fossil records of any of the itermediate steps. |
Really? You're basing this assertion on what research exactly? Archeopteryx... |
If you believe the archeopteryx fossil to represent an intermediate step, please tell me what the 'before' and 'after' steps are.
Originally posted by scalvert:
...Homo Erectus... |
What species did Homo Erectus evolve from? What species followed? What are the differences in DNA between Homo Erectus that makes it a MACRO evolutionarily different species than Homo Sapiens.
Originally posted by scalvert:
...early horses... |
Again, what are the species that early horses evolved from? evolved to? from a MACRO evolutionary perspective?
Originally posted by scalvert:
...there are hundreds, if not thousands, of intermediate fossils. If you have any interest whatsoever in the subject, THIS is a good resource for answering your questions. |
Been there, done that.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
why don't we find flaps with feathers |
Those are called wings. Look out your window and follow the chirping sounds. ;-) |
Just because they are CALLED wings doesn't make them analogous to BIRD wings, any more than it makes them analoguos to the wings of a 747.
FLAPS, such as are found on flying squirrels or bats, are supported by SOLID bones. BIRD wings are supported by HOLLOW bones. Try again.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
...or wings without feathers. |
Penguins |
Penguin "wings" are more accurately called "flippers". And, the bones in their flippers are solid, not hollow.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Since bats are mammals, and therefore not part of birds' evolutionary lineage, I'll assume you were joking on that one.
Originally posted by RonB:
...or birds with fur instead of feathers |
Kiwis |
Do the research. Kiwi's have feathers, not fur. From this site "Kiwi feathers lack the interlocking structures that "zip" feather barbules together in most birds, so their plumage has a spiky, fur-like appearance." ( emphasis mine)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
..or birds with external ears |
If birds evolved from dinosaurs with no external ears, then why would you expect birds to develop something less aerodynamic? |
I wouldn't "expect" any animal to "develop" something from a completely different animal. It's only the anti-Creationists who have that expectation.
Originally posted by scalvert:
You should flip on the Discovery Channel from time to time. |
I do. And enjoy immensely seeing the wonder of God's creation.
Originally posted by scalvert:
You didn't answer Milo655321's question on flightless birds. If created as-is, they obviously didn't fly to their islands. Did they hold their breath for 40 days, or did the Ark make stops to drop everyone off? |
No "leeway for circumstances"? I have to choose one or the other? Well, I choose neither. Rather, I believe that they could have swum ( penguins ), walked ( ostriches & emus and dodo's ), paddled ( cormorants ), or perhaps hitched a ride on some floating debris ( kiwi's ). If you believe in pangea, as most evolutionists do, how do you see this as a problem?
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 22:25:21. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 11:51:47 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
It sure takes a lot of faith to not believe in God.
For myself, I don't wish to make such a wager of betting my eternal life.
Won't it be great to learn the answers to these questions? I wonder if satin will share the answers with you. I doubt it will be on your mind though, with all the heat. |
See, that's the problem with Pascal's Wager, David Ey. First, you have to believe that you have an eternal life post-death on Earth. Second, you have to believe that you either spend this eternal life in either a place of eternal bliss or a place of eternal punishment. Third, you have to believe the only way to get into this place of eternal bliss is through your religious beliefs. Itâs not just non-belief and your version of Christianity. Itâs non-belief (or agnosticism) and Christianity (Roman Catholic and its several incarnations, Baptist and its several incarnations, Lutheran and its several incarnations, Methodist and its several incarnations, etc., etc.), Judaism and its several incarnations, Islam and its several incarnations, Buddhism and its several incarnations, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Paganism, Wiccan, Shamanism, etc., etc., etc. Itâs not just belief versus non-belief. Itâs non-belief/agnosticism (and their several philosophies) and a multitude of types of beliefs.
Threatening me (or scalvert, in this case) with hell is about as useful as me threatening you with the Norse day of destruction, Ragnarok. Besides that fact that I donât believe in Ragnarok either, threats of punishment donât work unless you believe that punishment even exists. Oh, and while weâre at it, please, please, please, for the love of Jiminy Cricket, learn how to spell âSatan.â Itâs difficult to take you seriously when you donât even know how to spell the name of your chief adversary. Havenât you ever read the Bible?
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 00:41:25. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 12:02:27 AM · #208 |
Archeopteryx was an intermediate step between dinosaurs and birds. It had many dinosaur features not found in birds (skeletal structure, lack of bill, etc.) There's a complete description HERE.
Homo Erectus came after Australopithecus, but before Homo Sapiens, with perhaps a few steps between each. There are major differences in brain size, skeletal structure, etc. HERE ya' go.
Fossils provide a fairly continuous record of horse evolution, starting with Hyracotherium (a dog-like creature less than 2 feet tall) and progressing through many stages. Plenty of REFERENCE material on that subject.
Flaps with feathers are bird wings, not 747 wings. Pluck the feathers off and you'll find flaps. Flying squirrels and bats are mammals, not birds.
Of course penguins have flippers. Wings have feathers (see above). If you remove the feathers, you have flippers, flaps or fins.
You are correct that kiwi birds have feathers, hair-like though they may be. Before I go searching for a hairy bird, please explain why any bird descended from dinosaurs would have that mammalian characteristic. Same question with the bird ears. If neither model predicts external bird ears, why would you expect me to show you examples?
Ostriches and emus walked to their islands from a Creationist point of view, or are you just avoiding the question? Obviously penguins and cormorants can swim, but how is it that emus, dodos, cassowaries, ostriches, kiwis (not to mention kangaroos, etc.) got from the Middle East to islands around the globe? Do you theorize that breeding pairs of each species hitched rides on floating debris for thousands of miles to their new homes? Hope they remembered to pack a bag lunch, though I suppose they had experience from traveling TO the ark in the first place. Oh wait... no flood yet, so no floating debris. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 12:35:23 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by RonB:
No "leeway for circumstances"? I have to choose one or the other? Well, I choose neither. Rather, I believe that they could have swum ( penguins ), walked ( ostriches & emus and dodo's ), paddled ( cormorants ), or perhaps hitched a ride on some floating debris ( kiwi's ). |
So, let me get this straight, youâre saying that your religious beliefs require you to believe that the flightless cormorant walked across Europe (or south through the Middle East and across Africa or across Asia), swim (or float) across the Atlantic Ocean (or Pacific), walk across North America (or Latin America or South America) and swim (or float) approximately 600 miles west of the South American coast to the Galapagos Islands? Not only that, but that you are required to believe similar things about kiwis (who, incidentally, canât swim) and dodos? |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 12:42:53 AM · #210 |
| Hmmmmmmmmmmm .... oh yeah... My mind is made up...Don't confuse me with facts. :O) hehehehee |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:24:07 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
No "leeway for circumstances"? I have to choose one or the other? Well, I choose neither. Rather, I believe that they could have swum ( penguins ), walked ( ostriches & emus and dodo's ), paddled ( cormorants ), or perhaps hitched a ride on some floating debris ( kiwi's ). |
So, let me get this straight, youâre saying that your religious beliefs require you to believe that the flightless cormorant walked across Europe (or south through the Middle East and across Africa or across Asia), swim (or float) across the Atlantic Ocean (or Pacific), walk across North America (or Latin America or South America) and swim (or float) approximately 600 miles west of the South American coast to the Galapagos Islands? Not only that, but that you are required to believe similar things about kiwis (who, incidentally, canât swim) and dodos? |
Whoa, Milo - step away from the trees and you will see the forest. I can't speak for RonB, but me thinks you are losing sight of the fact that most of the billion or so who believe in the God of the Bible (myself included) believe that God parted the Red Sea, destroyed Sodom and Gamorah, flooded the earth, brought plagues upon Egypt, etc. - and of course, God created the universe. Your questions about believing those things related to dodos and kiwis are trivial and irrelevant in comparison.
Not sure what religion could actually require one to believe in anything really. One first believes, then maybe practices a religion. Or not. I see them as two separate things.
One thing I must say is encouraging is that all those in this thread who have put much effort into disproving God, or trying to win the debate, or convince non-believers that they are wrong, are unwittingly seeking God themselves. Obviously that's just my opinion, but I speak from experience as a former staunch atheist who spent a great deal of time trying to convince believers of their follie. Now I are one.
The question is - Why would you be trying to convince someone to "switch" sides? The answer for Christians is obvious - we know that God would like to see all his children saved. The answer for the non-believer...?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:48:06 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
The question is - Why would you be trying to convince someone to "switch" sides? The answer for Christians is obvious - we know that God would like to see all his children saved. The answer for the non-believer...? |
Speaking for myself as a non-believer, I would never attempt to talk someone out of their religious beliefs. I don't care one whit what your religious beliefs are, even if you choose to believe in and worship the Easter Bunny. That's your business. I would, however, object to teaching Easter Bunny worship in secular schools. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:54:40 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by kpriest:
The question is - Why would you be trying to convince someone to "switch" sides? The answer for Christians is obvious - we know that God would like to see all his children saved. The answer for the non-believer...? |
Speaking for myself as a non-believer, I would never attempt to talk someone out of their religious beliefs. I don't care one whit what your religious beliefs are, even if you choose to believe in and worship the Easter Bunny. That's your business. I would, however, object to teaching Easter Bunny worship in secular schools. |
Fair enough. Do you think it is reasonable for a believer to object to teaching against the existence of God in public schools? |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 02:08:53 AM · #214 |
| I attended public schools and I don't recall any such thing. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 02:14:35 AM · #215 |
Just as a reality-check here: I don't think the issue is that "non-believers" are trying to convince committed believers NOT to believe. Way back in the dark ages this thread began, more or less, as a complaint that that the Theory of Evolution was being taught as FACT in the public schools, and the creationists don't believe it is fact. So the non-believers are trying to attack the creationists' position, and the creationist camp is trying to attack the evolutionist's position, both on what they perceive to be logical grounds.
So I don't see this argument as one of "conversion" in either direction, really; it's more a matter of whether it should be required that Creationism be taught in the schools, for this is one of the agendas of Christian Fundamentalists.
My position, as a Christian but not a fundamentalist, is that the Old Testament account of Creation is an allegory. I think it's silly to think everything was created in 6 days as we know a day to be now, but that who knows what is the measure of a day in God's terms? I believe that evolution is one of the means of His creation. Assuming that He's a reasonably efficient God, wouldn't He set up a PROCESS and let it run on unimpeded, rather than micromanage the whole thing?
I could go on in this vein, but don't feel compelled to. Suffice it to say that such a position explains a LOT, if you operate from the hypothesis that there IS a God in the first place. Einstein certainly did...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 02:16:39.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 02:39:51 AM · #216 |
Having raised 3 kids to adulthood and my fourth in 7th grade, and having attended both private and public schools growing up, I can attest to the fact that public schools are systematically teaching against the concept of God, including many of the moral and spiritual foundations this country was founded on. They purposefully remove any religious references regardless of their historical context and accuracy (referring to religion's role in the founding of America).
Aside from the expulsion of God from schools, or maybe as a result of it, Public Schools are turning out more and more uneducated, unprepared, unsocialized young people every year. Again - that's from my experience. Yours may differ.
My personal position on the issue is simply that I want my tax money spent on the education I want for my children. Give me vouchers.
And good points, Robert - I understand how the thread started, but it seemed to digress into a battle of positions or debate on the existence of God. As I mentioned, I used to engage in these debates intensely and at one point in high school I managed to convince a couple of girl friends of mine that there could be no God. I reveled in "talking sense" into people. And when I became a believer, it was not intellectual debate, preponderance of evidence, or anything like that - it was simply a series of experiences in which God let me know he does exist.
Anyway - I HAVE TO stop jumping into this thread. What does this IGNORE button do... :)
edit: spelling
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 02:52:05. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 02:58:43 AM · #217 |
Well, I don't have children, and probably never will, yet I have had to pay school taxes regardless. So if we live in the same school district, the school taxes I pay benefits your children and there is no direct benefit to me. That's the way the system works. At least you have a choice -- you can send your kids to religious schools if you so desire.
If the schools are turning out more and more uneducated and unprepared kids every year, I would respectfully suggest that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of religious education. But if you think otherwise, then by all means teach your kids whatever you believe is necessary to socialize them properly. That's your responsibility as a parent, no? |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:27:40 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, I don't have children, and probably never will, yet I have had to pay school taxes regardless. So if we live in the same school district, the school taxes I pay benefits your children and there is no direct benefit to me. That's the way the system works. At least you have a choice -- you can send your kids to religious schools if you so desire.
If the schools are turning out more and more uneducated and unprepared kids every year, I would respectfully suggest that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of religious education. But if you think otherwise, then by all means teach your kids whatever you believe is necessary to socialize them properly. That's your responsibility as a parent, no? |
Judith, would you say that if your house never catches fire and you never require a paramedic team, you have gotten no direct benefit from the tax monies you have paid for the fire department? It's a fuindamental prinicple of our system that all members of the community pay for municipal services. I believe it's fallacious to say you receive no "direct benefit" from the edcuational system since you have no children to use it. We ALL benefit in countless ways from a better-educated citizenry.
I don't think kpriest's point is that the schools should be actively "teaching God"; I think he's saying they've gone too far in the other direction, and are expunging the idea of God from the schools altogether, even in cases where it's clearly appropriate (IMO) to acknowledge the influences of religion on our lives; the prime case, of course, would be in the area of history, much of which is comprised of religiously-motivated changes.
I believe the Founding Fathers (I'm speaking of the uSA here) would be simply appalled to see where our schools have gotten to on this. I don't believe that it was ever their intent, nor is it "in the constitution", that religious references be expunged from the formal fabric of our communities' lives.
"Separation of church and state" is a much misused phrase in these times; the goal was to be sure that the government could not make laws regarding "official" or "accepted" religions, that each individual be free to worship (or not worship) as s/he chose. Some of the more recent "church vs state" rulings are complete travesties IMO. To REQUIRE our children to publicly pledge allegiance to the state and FORBID them to publishly acknowledge belief in a Creator is dangerously skewed IMO. It would be equally skewed, btw, to REQUIRE them to voice a belief in a Creator.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 04:00:20.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:37:04 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...then by all means teach your kids whatever you believe is necessary to socialize them properly. That's your responsibility as a parent, no? |
You are correct! :)
btw, in my experience, being a parent really helps to understand God and what he has to deal with - unruly, rebellious, disrespectful unappreciative, spoiled, whiney, think they know more than Dad - and yet, there is nothing you wouldn't do for them. :)
Not having kids is certainly a personal choice - I am just always curious as to why anyone would not want to have children. No need to answer unless you feel like sharing that. I try to appreciate and respect all viewpoints. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 09:06:24 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Whoa, Milo - step away from the trees and you will see the forest. I can't speak for RonB, but me thinks you are losing sight of the fact that most of the billion or so who believe in the God of the Bible (myself included) believe that God parted the Red Sea, destroyed Sodom and Gamorah, flooded the earth, brought plagues upon Egypt, etc. - and of course, God created the universe. Your questions about believing those things related to dodos and kiwis are trivial and irrelevant in comparison. |
There has been and still is a faction in the US which wants their literal interpretation of their holy book taught with âequal timeâ taught in the American high school science class. All Iâm doing is applying some of the rules of logic to show what must have happened if the Biblical flood story is to be taken literally and still end up with the world we see today. We started with the proposition, which Iâll call âA,â that global flood story happened and Noah and his family and two of every kind of land animal came to rest on top of Mount Ararat in Asia Minor at some time in the last ten thousand years. We then agreed on the conclusion that there are flightless cormorant on the Galapagos Islands, which Iâll call âDâ and, for the sake of this discussion, we even agreed that the flightless cormorants could not fly at the time of their departure from said Mount Ararat (âBâ). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that this cormorant walked and swam thousand of miles across oceans and mountains terrains to arrive at the Galapagos Islands which weâll call âCâ. A+B+C=D. If one of those propositions sounds silly to you donât worry, they sound silly to me too. But you are welcome to challenge any one of the propositions with evidence so that the hypothesis is more reasonable.
I have a few suggestions. There is no geological evidence for a catastrophic worldwide flood. The suggestion that hundreds of million of people believe otherwise doesnât carry any weight in the realm of scientific discovery. It a logic fallacy called argumentum ad populum or an appeal to popularity. The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
You can believe in invisible sugar plum fairies dump bucket of water from the sky to make it rain for all I care. Itâs your right under the first amendment. But as soon as you demand that the sugar plum fairy rain theory be given equal time in the American science class, I will demand a higher standard of evidence other than a whole bunch of people believe so it must be true.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 10:16:29 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Judith, would you say that if your house never catches fire and you never require a paramedic team, you have gotten no direct benefit from the tax monies you have paid for the fire department? It's a fuindamental prinicple of our system that all members of the community pay for municipal services. I believe it's fallacious to say you receive no "direct benefit" from the edcuational system since you have no children to use it. We ALL benefit in countless ways from a better-educated citizenry. |
Robert, you made my point better, apparently, than I did -- a good reason to not post messages at 3am. :) What I meant to say is I don't benefit directly in the sense that my education tax dollars are paying for the education of my own children (since I don't have any children). I DO benefit indirectly in that my education tax dollars pay for the education of the children who live in my community, and the better educated the children in my community, the happier, healthier and more civilized the community will be. kpriest said he wants his tax money spent on the education he wants for his children. I was responding by suggesting how destructive it would be if we all individually could choose to opt out of the system because it wasn't working in precisely the manner we wanted it to, or because, for example, those of us without children didn't perceive any direct benefit. Your examples of the fire dept. and emergency services is another good one. The system doesn't work that way, and I don't think it should.
The reality is that kpriest and many other people in this country (at least those with enough money) have choice in terms of the education their children receive. One can move to a different community with better schools; one can send their children to religious or private schools; one can home school. But everyone has a responsibility to the community in which they live, whether their kids attend the schools in that community or not, whether they have children at all.
Originally posted by bear_music:
I don't think kpriest's point is that the schools should be actively "teaching God"; I think he's saying they've gone too far in the other direction, and are expunging the idea of God from the schools altogether, even in cases where it's clearly appropriate (IMO) to acknowledge the influences of religion on our lives; the prime case, of course, would be in the area of history, much of which is comprised of religiously-motivated changes.
I believe the Founding Fathers (I'm speaking of the uSA here) would be simply appalled to see where our schools have gotten to on this. I don't believe that it was ever their intent, nor is it "in the constitution", that religious references be expunged from the formal fabric of our communities' lives.
"Separation of church and state" is a much misused phrase in these times; the goal was to be sure that the government could not make laws regarding "official" or "accepted" religions, that each individual be free to worship (or not worship) as s/he chose. Some of the more recent "church vs state" rulings are complete travesties IMO. To REQUIRE our children to publicly pledge allegiance to the state and FORBID them to publishly acknowledge belief in a Creator is dangerously skewed IMO. It would be equally skewed, btw, to REQUIRE them to voice a belief in a Creator. |
I honestly can't speak knowledgeably to this issue. I'm not familiar enough with what's currently being taught in public schools. I certainly wouldn't personally argue for expunging every reference to all things religious if doing so would result in a skewed version of history. But I must admit to having a huge reservoir of skepticism when I hear people like kpriest complain about this. First of all, with all the problems that public education in this country is experiencing right now, should this issue really be at the top of the list? I fear we are all victims of a propaganda campaign that we are even talking about it. Second, who decides how these issues are taught? When is it properly history and when does it cross the line into proselytizing? Should we also teach about the overwhelmingly negative role religion has played in world history? I don't think the bible-thumpers would be too happy about that. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 10:21:48 AM · #222 |
| I might also add that with one billion followers worldwide, I think Christians are doing a mighty fine job of getting their message across. So what's all the hullabaloo about anyway? |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:06:42 AM · #223 |
There are many influences in today's society as to why we have kids that are as how you described them below, including economic, sociological and psychological. From reading your posts it sounds like the only means to attain a moral society is for the inclusion of god and religion into a secular society. However, I don't see why religion believes itself to have a monopoly on ethics. It's certainly possible there may even be more rebellious kids trying to rid themselves of the influences of religion should it impose itself in the public domain. Especially with the many instances of sexual abuse that has gone on in the church towards boys and girls, as well as, the many stories I have heard years ago regarding parochial school punishments meted out, I would think many children today may have a hard time with the concept of religion and trust of religious authority (and, authority in general). The message of "love thy neighbor" can come from many sources.
I always thought that man/woman was created in god's image, not vice versa...so why do you keep referring to god as "he?" Seems that religion, practised in the west is about maintaining a patriarchal AND heirarchical structure.
Originally posted by kpriest:
btw, in my experience, being a parent really helps to understand God and what he has to deal with - unruly, rebellious, disrespectful unappreciative, spoiled, whiney, think they know more than Dad - and yet, there is nothing you wouldn't do for them. :)
|
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:31:44 AM · #224 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
...as soon as you demand that the sugar plum fairy rain theory be given equal time in the American science class, I will demand a higher standard of evidence other than a whole bunch of people believe so it must be true. |
Exactly! I don't expect to talk anyone out of their beliefs (faith is a powerful thing). Only wars can destroy an indoctrinated belief system (my army beat your army, so my god must be greater than your god). If we are asked to give equal time to teaching religion as "history," then you'd have to include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. as there is no compelling reason why one belief system should be more true than any other.
I'm just curious to know how faith can withstand the onslaught of simple observation and common logic. It's entertaining to hear some of the responses as the believers try to reconcile things that don't make sense. If all people came from Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago, then why were there so many totally different languages among pre-Christian civilizations? If God created everything, then why hide concrete evidence for Biblical history while providing divine hoaxes like the fossil record that point to an alternative history (then hold us accountable for drawing the logical conclusions)? If everything revolves around man, then why bother creating the billions of other galaxies in the univers? Is there any provision in the story of Noah's ark for trees and plants only found in distant lands? Let me guess... two seeds migrated from Uruguay to the Middle East, then found their way back without any trace of the journey. Wouldn't it have been FAR easier for an omnipotent being to just wipe the slate clean and RE-create life than bother with the whole ark thing and arranging roundtrip airfare? What did these brave cruise passengers eat for over a month (not to mention after everything was destroyed)? Two (or seven) of each species isn't going to sustain the carnivores for long. How can clouds support continuous rain at a rate of several hundred inches per hour for over a month, and could ANYTHING actually float under those conditions? Ships with modern materials and engineering can't withstand far more pedestrian maelstroms of the sea, yet we've found no remains of this necessarily massive and sturdy structure. If you're going to discount known physics and geology in favor of stories no less fantastic than Greek mythology, then I'm going to need something more than, "It was a miracle," or "you just have to believe it's true." I'm funny that way. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:49:38 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Archeopteryx was an intermediate step between dinosaurs and birds. It had many dinosaur features not found in birds (skeletal structure, lack of bill, etc.) There's a complete description HERE. |
Thanks, but I had already seen that site. For what it's worth, here are a couple of quotes from that site:
"Morphologically, Archaeopteryx clearly appears more closely related to theropod dinosaurs that any other group and is grouped with birds over theropod dinosaurs due to the possession of only two main characters, presence of feathers, and presence of a fully reverted hallux (toe)."
BUT...as for "feathers", the site acknowledges that
"The identification of the sturctures (sic) is equivocal however, (e.g. Unwin 1998), with some doubting that the structures are feathers."
and
"However, it is not known whether this feather is from Archae, or where on Archae the feather was situated if it is an Archae feather."
As for the fully reverted hallux ( toe ), the site acknowledges that
"This also is a character of birds and not of dinosaurs. Although opposable big toes are found in other groups, they are not, as far as I am aware, found in dinosaurs. A reversed big toe is found in some dinosaurs however, and the condition is approached in some theropod dinosaurs."
Originally posted by scalvert:
Homo Erectus came after Australopithecus, but before Homo Sapiens, with perhaps a few steps between each. There are major differences in brain size, skeletal structure, etc. HERE ya' go. |
Sorry, but the story of Archeopteryx doesn't adequately explain the "transition" of man. ( bad link ). However, I am sure that you are aware of studies on mitochondrial DNA that "the majority of scientists" concur indicate a "common female ancestor" to all currently living homo sapiens - dubbed "mitochondrial Eve". The general consensus WAS that this "mitochondrial Eve" lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago, based on the ASSUMPTION that mitochrondial DNA mutated at a fixed rate. Well, Anne Gibbons, writing in SCIENCE Magazine, in 1998 published the results of new evidence that indicates that the rate of mutation is NOT constant - it can be shown that it could be as much as 20 times faster than the original estimates. She goes on to say:
"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"-- the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."
Interesting that. Eve only 6,000 years old.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Fossils provide a fairly continuous record of horse evolution, starting with Hyracotherium (a dog-like creature less than 2 feet tall) and progressing through many stages. Plenty of REFERENCE material on that subject. |
Again, that very site has this to say:
"There's no discernable "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush"."
My question is this: If "there's no discernable "straight line" of horse evolution" then how can you say, with a straight face, that the horse "evolved"? Logically, there would HAVE to be a "straight", that is, continuous line of horse evolution, if you wish to maintain that position.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Flaps with feathers are bird wings, not 747 wings. Pluck the feathers off and you'll find flaps. Flying squirrels and bats are mammals, not birds. |
No, you'll find featherless wings. With hollow bones - not solid like those in "flapped" animals.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Of course penguins have flippers. Wings have feathers (see above). If you remove the feathers, you have flippers, flaps or fins. |
Still not getting the part about HOLLOW BONES IN WINGS are you?
Originally posted by scalvert:
You are correct that kiwi birds have feathers, hair-like though they may be. Before I go searching for a hairy bird, please explain why any bird descended from dinosaurs would have that mammalian characteristic. Same question with the bird ears. If neither model predicts external bird ears, why would you expect me to show you examples? |
Let me try this one more time. As a creationist, I do not attempt to defend that which I do not believe - and I do not believe that birds descended from dinosaurs.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ostriches and emus walked to their islands from a Creationist point of view, or are you just avoiding the question? Obviously penguins and cormorants can swim, but how is it that emus, dodos, cassowaries, ostriches, kiwis (not to mention kangaroos, etc.) got from the Middle East to islands around the globe? Do you theorize that breeding pairs of each species hitched rides on floating debris for thousands of miles to their new homes? Hope they remembered to pack a bag lunch, though I suppose they had experience from traveling TO the ark in the first place. Oh wait... no flood yet, so no floating debris. |
Let's put the ball back in your court. What evidence can you provide that in the fifty years after the great flood, the "islands" were, in fact, "islands"? Do you not believe in the "scientists" postulation that at one time all of the continents were joined into one giant pangea?
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 13:51:34. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 03:02:55 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 03:02:55 PM EDT.
|
