12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
-
My take is that a truely secular government should only recognize marriage as a civil union and nothing more. All this banging on about the "sanctity" of marriage is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state (IMHO). The government should have no role in deciding the sanctity of anything. All marriages should be considered civil unions by the government and the church can decide if they are sacred or not. That way homosexual couple can have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (civil unions) and be recognized by the government to have the same status, but no church is going to be forced to like it or endorse it. People's churches can continue to be the comfortable little bastions of bigotry they've always been and the rest of society can move on.
the little bastions of bigotry seem to be intent on voting you grey... remember, these are the same kind of folk that belonged to the Crusades, the Klan, Al Quaeda, and similar bastions of bigotry. well put by the way... Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
I don't know what Bible you're reading, but if you're reading the same Bible that I am, your interpretation is abnormal. (Besides, anyone can make strange claims without pointing to references or backing them up.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.Here's some...I don't have time to find the rest right now Daniel 4:7-8, "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." The earth would have to be flat otherwise people of the other side of a spherical earth wouldn't be able to see it. Also Matthew 4:8 claims there is a mountaintop from which one can see “all the kingdoms of the world” (impossible on a round world) The value of pi is implied Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2
-
Thanks for the reference, but I took a look at the FAQ and it is basically just another pro-evolution site. The arguments are the same as they have been for a long time, and contrary to your opinion, the Creationist arguments haven't been "roundly debunked by modern science". In fact, modern science is the source of several of the Creationist arguments. Your statement is also out of line with the simple existence of people like this: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/READING/BeDBB.html[^] John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: _Your statement is also out of line with the simple existence of people like this: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/READING/BeDBB.html\[^\]_ Sorry, but Behe (at least, as far as I, a nominally educated layman in this can tell), has been thoroughly debunked too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html[^] THe IDist agenda is just creationism in another form. I suppose you have heard of the "Wedge" Strategy.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Rob Graham wrote: The geologic record (and I don't mean fossils, but just rocks and rock formations) makes it quite clear that the world has been around for millenai befor man arraived on the scene (by whatever mechanism - I don't need evolution to contradict the 7 day bullsit, just physics). The geologic record is simply a pile of rocks. There is stuff in them. None of those things have date labels. All of the methods that evolutionists use to date them are based upon unproven assumptions. This is not proof. Again, the problem is with interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. (As an interesting aside, the origins of the geologic record are based solely on circular reasoning -- i.e. the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils.) Oh, and these piles of rocks are actually one of the stronger evidences for Creationism. The only good way to get layers of rock like that (and the fossils in them) is to bury things quickly (like in a flood or volcanic eruption). [edit] This sort of thing has been observed just a few years ago at Mt. St. Helens. I would tend to call that evidence... [/edit] Rob Graham wrote: There is no evidence that supports that timescale for creation of the universe to the emergence of humankind. There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. Take a look at www.answersingenesis.org or any of the other sites that provide it. Just because you believe otherwise doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. (And just to remind you, evidence doesn't come with built-in interpretations. They come as people try to dicipher what the evidence means.) Rob Graham wrote: The fundamental theory is unchanged since Darwin, a few refinements on the mechanisms at work, but no substantive changes. Then what about the people who changed the model from Darwin's suggestion to mutation? How about the evolutionists arguing among themselve about things like the "hopeful monster" theory. Why the arguments between solid-state and big bang theories? Why so many variations on the big-bang theory itself? These are not minor disputes, they affect the very basics of the evolutionary explanation. (The only thing truly in common between all the evolutionary theories is that the world and universe are really, really, really old.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as shttp://www.answersingenesis.org[^] Nice website, BTW - I couldn't actually find (in a fairly quick 10 minute look through, admittedly) anything which debunked or even discussed the science and evidence which supported evolution - all I could find was a series of articles describing why Christians should believe in Biblical inerrancy and Y-E Creationism (using what appeared to be little but biblical references and quotes from Christian speakers - which hardly counts as scientific evidence, does it?) If it's just a case that I've missed something, then please would you mind providing links directly to the relevant articles for my perusal? Oh, and I might point out the fact and science of biological evolution is somewhat distinct from astrophysics and the origins of the universe, and having a big-bang or solid-state theory of universal creation doesn't affect the ability of life to evolve on a planet a few billion years later on (unless you have a reference that says differently? Please tell)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
http://www.answersingenesis.org[^] Nice website, BTW - I couldn't actually find (in a fairly quick 10 minute look through, admittedly) anything which debunked or even discussed the science and evidence which supported evolution - all I could find was a series of articles describing why Christians should believe in Biblical inerrancy and Y-E Creationism (using what appeared to be little but biblical references and quotes from Christian speakers - which hardly counts as scientific evidence, does it?) If it's just a case that I've missed something, then please would you mind providing links directly to the relevant articles for my perusal? Oh, and I might point out the fact and science of biological evolution is somewhat distinct from astrophysics and the origins of the universe, and having a big-bang or solid-state theory of universal creation doesn't affect the ability of life to evolve on a planet a few billion years later on (unless you have a reference that says differently? Please tell)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ah! First time I've been nabbed by the clickety police. :-O This[^] provides a summary of a few evidences for a young earth. And the Q&A area[^] has most of the scientific articles (as well as some others). This site has a lot of references to other locations, some of which may be more in the style you were looking for. A lot of the information isn't very deep, but there is some in there. (They also publish a "Technical Journal" that is very hard for non-scientists to understand, and serves mostly as a peer-review journal.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Fisher wrote: _Your statement is also out of line with the simple existence of people like this: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/READING/BeDBB.html\[^\]_ Sorry, but Behe (at least, as far as I, a nominally educated layman in this can tell), has been thoroughly debunked too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html[^] THe IDist agenda is just creationism in another form. I suppose you have heard of the "Wedge" Strategy.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
The link you provided certainly is against Behe's book, but I don't see anything that thoroughly debunked it. The links I looked at appeared to each focus one specific argument (or a small subset) of his book rather than the whole of it. Separating things and causing confusion is a common tactic (which I believe you called the "Wedge" strategy :)). BTW, I don't know whether ID people are part of an under-cover creationist agenda, but the Creationists that I admire would not do that because of the deception involved. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Fisher wrote: _Your statement is also out of line with the simple existence of people like this: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/READING/BeDBB.html\[^\]_ Sorry, but Behe (at least, as far as I, a nominally educated layman in this can tell), has been thoroughly debunked too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html[^] THe IDist agenda is just creationism in another form. I suppose you have heard of the "Wedge" Strategy.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Here's some...I don't have time to find the rest right now Daniel 4:7-8, "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." The earth would have to be flat otherwise people of the other side of a spherical earth wouldn't be able to see it. Also Matthew 4:8 claims there is a mountaintop from which one can see “all the kingdoms of the world” (impossible on a round world) The value of pi is implied Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2
Daniel 4:7-8 is a prophecy, and is using a figure of speech that is quite easy for people to understand. This is not a scientific statement about the shape of the earth, but is everyday language being used to describe the size of a tree. People today still use "the ends of the earth", but there is no such thing, since the earth is a sphere. 1Kings 7:23 gives measurements of an object. Just as every measurement you're likely to run into today, they aren't completely precise. When you measure the rim of your cup, are you measuring the outside or the inside? How thick is the cup at the point of measurement? Saying that these verses teach an incorrect value of pi is a real stretch. The basic principle of any writing to be understood is to read it at face value. If the text indicates it is allegorical, then it is. If the text indicates it is a scientific statement of fact, then read it that way. If the text is using figurative language to describe something, treat it that way. If the text is giving a general description of sizes and shapes, don't assume it's accurate down to the nano-meter. (Etc.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
The link you provided certainly is against Behe's book, but I don't see anything that thoroughly debunked it. The links I looked at appeared to each focus one specific argument (or a small subset) of his book rather than the whole of it. Separating things and causing confusion is a common tactic (which I believe you called the "Wedge" strategy :)). BTW, I don't know whether ID people are part of an under-cover creationist agenda, but the Creationists that I admire would not do that because of the deception involved. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: but the Creationists that I admire would not do that because of the deception involved. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages. You really believe that don't you? Despite the total lack of "evidence", despite the total lack of legitimate qualification of these quacks and despite the total lack of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
-
Daniel 4:7-8 is a prophecy, and is using a figure of speech that is quite easy for people to understand. This is not a scientific statement about the shape of the earth, but is everyday language being used to describe the size of a tree. People today still use "the ends of the earth", but there is no such thing, since the earth is a sphere. 1Kings 7:23 gives measurements of an object. Just as every measurement you're likely to run into today, they aren't completely precise. When you measure the rim of your cup, are you measuring the outside or the inside? How thick is the cup at the point of measurement? Saying that these verses teach an incorrect value of pi is a real stretch. The basic principle of any writing to be understood is to read it at face value. If the text indicates it is allegorical, then it is. If the text indicates it is a scientific statement of fact, then read it that way. If the text is using figurative language to describe something, treat it that way. If the text is giving a general description of sizes and shapes, don't assume it's accurate down to the nano-meter. (Etc.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Daniel 4:7-8 is a prophecy, and is using a figure of speech that is quite easy for people to understand. This is not a scientific statement about the shape of the earth, but is everyday language being used to describe the size of a tree. People today still use "the ends of the earth", but there is no such thing, since the earth is a sphere. Well I glad for you that you have the supreme wisdom to tell what parts of the infallible word of god really are supposed to be taken seriously and which are not. You must be extremely wise, wise enough to know the meaning of gods words when she's being delibrately vague. Good job. Perhaps the hating gays part was just a figure of speech? John Fisher wrote: 1Kings 7:23 gives measurements of an object. Just as every measurement you're likely to run into today, they aren't completely precise. So you are telling me that the infallible word of god is only approximate????? Holy crap! What else was only approximate? Perhaps that bit about how evil gays are? :laugh::laugh:
-
John Fisher wrote: but the Creationists that I admire would not do that because of the deception involved. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages. You really believe that don't you? Despite the total lack of "evidence", despite the total lack of legitimate qualification of these quacks and despite the total lack of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
It's extremely difficult for me not to be hurt or angry at your comments. You continue to accuse me of ignorance and unfounded belief. Have you ever seriously considered what the opposition proposes? Have you ever attempted to understand the entire framework, since that is the only way to verify its claims (the same as any scientific theory)? I could make claims that you believe in unfounded, ingorant, misguided, deceptive men's ideas too. But, would that convince you of anything other than that I'm mean-spirited? Bible-believing Creationists are primarily creationist because of belief in the Bible. (Other people are creationists, too though.) The Bible also happens to teach that lying is sin. So, the people who truly believe both (the ones I admire most) wouldn't be intentionally deceptive. No matter what you might think. You also keep saying that there is a "total lack of evidence" for the creationist position. This is patently absurd. Evidence is evidence. Interpretation within a framework is what matters in this sort of discussion. Water is evidence, layers of rock are evidence. Life is evidence. Both sides have the same evidence. Take the evidence and prove that the framework can't adequately explain it -- that's how a debate like this should go. I would like to think that our discussion is fruitful, but another similar response will neccessitate that I stop responding to your posts for now. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Fisher wrote: Daniel 4:7-8 is a prophecy, and is using a figure of speech that is quite easy for people to understand. This is not a scientific statement about the shape of the earth, but is everyday language being used to describe the size of a tree. People today still use "the ends of the earth", but there is no such thing, since the earth is a sphere. Well I glad for you that you have the supreme wisdom to tell what parts of the infallible word of god really are supposed to be taken seriously and which are not. You must be extremely wise, wise enough to know the meaning of gods words when she's being delibrately vague. Good job. Perhaps the hating gays part was just a figure of speech? John Fisher wrote: 1Kings 7:23 gives measurements of an object. Just as every measurement you're likely to run into today, they aren't completely precise. So you are telling me that the infallible word of god is only approximate????? Holy crap! What else was only approximate? Perhaps that bit about how evil gays are? :laugh::laugh:
It appears that you have ignored the part of my post which would answer the question you just raised, so I'll post it again. The basic principle of any writing to be understood is to read it at face value. If the text indicates it is allegorical, then it is. If the text indicates it is a scientific statement of fact, then read it that way. If the text is using figurative language to describe something, treat it that way. If the text is giving a general description of sizes and shapes, don't assume it's accurate down to the nano-meter. (Etc.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Ah! First time I've been nabbed by the clickety police. :-O This[^] provides a summary of a few evidences for a young earth. And the Q&A area[^] has most of the scientific articles (as well as some others). This site has a lot of references to other locations, some of which may be more in the style you were looking for. A lot of the information isn't very deep, but there is some in there. (They also publish a "Technical Journal" that is very hard for non-scientists to understand, and serves mostly as a peer-review journal.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.What a load of junk, just one example: 10 Dangers of theistic evolution Werner Gitt First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 17(4):49–51, September–November 1995 The atheistic formula for evolution is: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods. In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added: Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God. In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians. So theistic evolution can exist exactly because it challenges their beliefs. What the hell kind of arguement is that? What you say can't be true because it means something I say will have to change? They should try that as a defense in court rooms: "Your honor, I suggest the last witness' testimony be rejected because it makes my client look guilty." That site is so full of nonsense it's laughable.
-
What a load of junk, just one example: 10 Dangers of theistic evolution Werner Gitt First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 17(4):49–51, September–November 1995 The atheistic formula for evolution is: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods. In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added: Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God. In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians. So theistic evolution can exist exactly because it challenges their beliefs. What the hell kind of arguement is that? What you say can't be true because it means something I say will have to change? They should try that as a defense in court rooms: "Your honor, I suggest the last witness' testimony be rejected because it makes my client look guilty." That site is so full of nonsense it's laughable.
Haven't you understood any of this? We speak from the basis of one framework of understanding the world (creationism). You speak with a completely different framework in mind (evolutionism). The frameworks are very different, so of course things will initially sound ridiculous. However, the question isn't whether one framework makes sense when analyzed from the perspective of the other. The question is which framework has the fewest problems with the available evidence? Being more familiar with one side and completely unfamiliar with the other puts you in a bad position to be making judgments like this. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Ah! First time I've been nabbed by the clickety police. :-O This[^] provides a summary of a few evidences for a young earth. And the Q&A area[^] has most of the scientific articles (as well as some others). This site has a lot of references to other locations, some of which may be more in the style you were looking for. A lot of the information isn't very deep, but there is some in there. (They also publish a "Technical Journal" that is very hard for non-scientists to understand, and serves mostly as a peer-review journal.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: This[^] provides a summary of a few evidences for a young earth. Well (and I apologise for this, as it's getting late in the UK so I'm cutting this short for now, although I will bookmark that link for further examination later on), looking for resources discussing the first problem on that list (The so called "winding up dilemma"), I cannot find any reference to this dilemma outside creationist literature on googles web search. Google groups is much more enlightening on the subject - this list has been thrown around somewhat, it seems. Most of the refutations there are somewhat short, so I'm not going to claim that it's a bunk claim outright, but the lack of scientific documents covering this dilemma certainly makes the claim look dubious. The other points also appear to have dubious origins or suffer from a lack of data, where later observations obselete the points. The talk.origins newsgroup appears to have several lenghty posts covering the various points on this list. The original author of this list (AFAIK, a D. Russel Humphreys) also appears to have little credibility within the scientific community. Looking for articles on the original article title led me to this[^] page, which appears to be a systematic index of Creationist claims made in various articles (such as the first one specified), and references to discount them. As I haven't spent that long on this, or am an expert in any of these fields, I cannot vouch for the quality of all of these refutations, although I am well-acquainted with some of them. I should state for the record that I do not have a problem with people who wish to believe in Creationism - I just have a problem with Creationists (even those who pretend to hide under the respectable sounding ID banner) who wish to undermine scientific efforts through what appear to be intellectually dishonest and scientifically unsound methods.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
It appears that you have ignored the part of my post which would answer the question you just raised, so I'll post it again. The basic principle of any writing to be understood is to read it at face value. If the text indicates it is allegorical, then it is. If the text indicates it is a scientific statement of fact, then read it that way. If the text is using figurative language to describe something, treat it that way. If the text is giving a general description of sizes and shapes, don't assume it's accurate down to the nano-meter. (Etc.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: It appears that you have ignored the part of my post which would answer the question you just raised, so I'll post it again. No you appear to have missed the point. You say the tree thing isn't meant to be taken literally, but yet you claim the whole creationist thing is and the whole gays are evil thing is. How can you claim parts of the bible are literal truth and other parts aren't. Is that arogant of you to the extreme to suppose to know which parts of a supposedly holy text are actually true and which aren't? The tree thing is clearly false, so you write it off as not meaning to be taken literally, the creationism thing is false (despite what you think - the facts speak for themselves) and the majority of biblical scholars have writen that off as being "just a story". So why should we give any credit to anything else in the bible? So much of it is clearly wrong, so why accept any of it all? If I had a science text book with this many errors I'd confine it to my trash can.
-
Haven't you understood any of this? We speak from the basis of one framework of understanding the world (creationism). You speak with a completely different framework in mind (evolutionism). The frameworks are very different, so of course things will initially sound ridiculous. However, the question isn't whether one framework makes sense when analyzed from the perspective of the other. The question is which framework has the fewest problems with the available evidence? Being more familiar with one side and completely unfamiliar with the other puts you in a bad position to be making judgments like this. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.My framework springs from the data, it doesn't attempt to fit the data to the theory. My framework makes testible predications and is falsifible, yours if not. Every part of the mechanism of my framework can be demonstrated, no part of yours can. My framework fits neatly within the sum total of human knowledge and is logically consitent, yours is not. You framework requires magic, my requires nothing but math and the laws of physics and chemistry. My framework is subject to peer review and stands up to critism, your is insulated and hidden away whenever somebody tries to challenge you on specific points. My framework can produce evidence to back up it's claims, yours cannot. If my framework is proven to be false, I'll change it, you never will.
-
The link you provided certainly is against Behe's book, but I don't see anything that thoroughly debunked it. The links I looked at appeared to each focus one specific argument (or a small subset) of his book rather than the whole of it. Separating things and causing confusion is a common tactic (which I believe you called the "Wedge" strategy :)). BTW, I don't know whether ID people are part of an under-cover creationist agenda, but the Creationists that I admire would not do that because of the deception involved. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: BTW, I don't know whether ID people are part of an under-cover creationist agenda, but the Creationists that I admire would not do that because of the deception involved. I can respect the last part, but the people behind the Wedge strategy would appear to be exactly that - a creationist agenda - the original fulcrum figure of the ID movement (Phillip Johnson) was a convert to Christianity (not necessarily a problem, I will admit). Johnson appears to be the individual who started (or was at least involved with early on) the Discovery Institute's "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" (SRSC) I would point out that "Renewal" is not a commonly used term within the scientific community, but I do know it's a big term within Christianity (particularly the evangelical wing). It would seem that this has not gone un-noticed, because they've since dropped the "Renewal" bit on the website - although it still appears in some of the documents om the site, (the one I'm reading also get very wordy over their non-bias. If they weren't a Creationist think-tank pretending to be a genuinely scientific research centre, or individuals genuinely concerned over the data for evolution, then they're going a very funny way about refuting it :-D) Anyway, the author of the book you originally pointed (Behe) out is a member (and Fellow, I think) of this Institute. And the most telling thing is from this[^] document on their own site:
The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.While not necessarily meaning that Behe himself has a Creationist agenda, he's certainly not complaining about his work being used by it. Anyway - I'd like to thank you for this debate. -
It's extremely difficult for me not to be hurt or angry at your comments. You continue to accuse me of ignorance and unfounded belief. Have you ever seriously considered what the opposition proposes? Have you ever attempted to understand the entire framework, since that is the only way to verify its claims (the same as any scientific theory)? I could make claims that you believe in unfounded, ingorant, misguided, deceptive men's ideas too. But, would that convince you of anything other than that I'm mean-spirited? Bible-believing Creationists are primarily creationist because of belief in the Bible. (Other people are creationists, too though.) The Bible also happens to teach that lying is sin. So, the people who truly believe both (the ones I admire most) wouldn't be intentionally deceptive. No matter what you might think. You also keep saying that there is a "total lack of evidence" for the creationist position. This is patently absurd. Evidence is evidence. Interpretation within a framework is what matters in this sort of discussion. Water is evidence, layers of rock are evidence. Life is evidence. Both sides have the same evidence. Take the evidence and prove that the framework can't adequately explain it -- that's how a debate like this should go. I would like to think that our discussion is fruitful, but another similar response will neccessitate that I stop responding to your posts for now. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: It's extremely difficult for me not to be hurt or angry at your comments. Well, this is the soapbox. But I'll assume that you must be a reasonable intelligent person to be visiting this site. That's why it infurates me so much that otherwise intelligent people can honestly allow themselves to be so completely fooled. How can somebody be a programmer (a job that requires a mastery of logic) be so totally illogical? John Fisher wrote: So, the people who truly believe both (the ones I admire most) wouldn't be intentionally deceptive. No matter what you might think. Well, I'm sure you're say this isn't a creationist you admire, but here you go 300 Creationist Lies Index[^]. Maybe you really don't realise just how much blatant lying these people are doing to deceive you, but for god sake take off you blinders for a second. These people are neither christians or scientists, they are frauds and con-men who are playing on your deeply held believes for power and profit.
-
I forget which one it was, but one of our founding fathers sort of predicted this sort of thing. (I really wish I could remember the quote.) Basically he said that the U.S. Constitution would only work as long as people treated God and His Word as authoritative, and acted responsibly. Now, we simply see an evidence of this. When absolutes are ignored, whoever talks the loudest, the most, or with the most voices can change the law because people no longer have a non-emotional reason to stand against it. Many people who oppose homosexual marriage are doing it based upon principles of morality taught in the Bible. This is a principle, and not an emotional feeling -- thus a very valid reason to oppose homosexual marriage. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: This is a principle, and not an emotional feeling -- thus a very valid reason to oppose homosexual marriage. it may be a valid reason to oppose homosexual marriage. but that doesn't make it a valid reason for making laws. The US Is Not A Theocracy. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer