Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.

The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution.

The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-"perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect." On these incalculable formulae-- and they are incalculable--rest the science council's claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council's choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an "abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation." After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.

The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall '07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get-go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazon.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, Walmart.com and questforright.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.

For those reading this, there is a lot of good science in evolution and creation, but none give definitive answers. I have a BS in mathematics, having written my honors project in discrete math. I have an M.D., and am currently doing research at the National Institutes of Health while completing a fellowship in neonatology. I have been a Christian for 25 years. So, in both realms - that of science and religion, I think I meet the qualifications to comment.
The DNA evidence that exists does suggest a common ancestor, but does not prove it. Common ancestry is not a proven fact as some would suggest. Prove and implied are two different things. I do however acknowledge with the current scientific evidence, it would take a miracle for there to be another explanation. But, then again, I have always believed that it was a miracle that created us in the first place. To the scientists and the evolutions, be intellectually honest. Is common ancestry a fact (ie, proven without doubt) or just was the facts presently imply?
Creationists, I would warn you to add humility when arguing the scientific merit of evolution. If you were a neutral observer, ie, you had no opinion about God, you would come to a lot of the same conclusions that macro-evolutionists have come to.
Also, a word of caution about the use of "intelligent design" or "unlikely to occur by random chance" when arguing for creation. The complexity of creation suggests an intelligent designer, but in no way proves an intelligent designer. Yes, the probability of the Earth being created just the way it was created to support life is very small, but so far, it has happened one out of one times. I personally do not use the intelligent design or mathematical probability arguments to argue for the fact that God created the World because I find the arguments are not consistent. As a doctor, I am amazed by the progression of understanding we are learning about the human body. In the Dark Ages, the flu was blamed on spirits and demons. No one could explain how it was happening, so they said it must be from God. Hundreds of years later we know a virus causes the flu. What will they find 100's of years from now? Whatever they find, God will still be God.
Science over its existence is doing a good job of telling us how the world might have been created. What it can never tell us is why. And, and this is just my belief, I do not think it will ever conclusively prove we evolved from the same thing as monkeys, or any other living thing.
All science aside, to you Evolutionist, the harder question: Do you believe in Jesus Christ and do you believe he died for your sins? All the science in the world can not answer that question for you. It takes faith. And from my point of view, it is the only one that matters.
I will be discussing this at the Apologetics Forum at McLean Bible Church at 12:30 this Sunday, May 27th.

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

By your thinking Grandpa, all theories, Hindu, Buddhaist, Native American, Mayan, etc should be taught in public schools as well. And they should. In a theology, history, culture or mythology class. An important part of understanding the world and its inhabitants is to understand their various religions. But evolution is science. In science class, only science should be taught.

Gramps, you overlooked the first part. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means that no specific religion should be endorsed or favored by the government. Our public schools are an extension of our government, so teaching religion as scientific fact in school would in fact be a direct violation of this establishment clause. You must read the entire text, not cherrypick the part that suits you.

Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. The scientific evidence, be it the fossil record, genetics or observation point to evolution as the scientific answer to our origin. Bronze age theology has nothing to do with science any more than science has anything to with religion. To teach religion to our impressionable youth in a scientific context lowers the bar of their understanding of the scientific method and poses the risk of diluting the scientific standards of our young future researchers who we will need to be competative in the global marketplace of ideas and commerce.

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

Listen to the wording of this... "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise of [religion]" --The way I read it, teachers and students should be allowed to teach/learn creationism in schools. It should be perfectly ok to believe creationism. Evolution and Creationism are both theories of how this universe came to be, and it's hard to impossible to prove either through science. It really comes down to what you choose to believe.

There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate government action. Bertrand Russell

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

Sorry, that last post was to Tarheel, not from him.

Also, actually: I've taken two advanced courses in logic, one at the undergraduate level and one at the master's level; I have also taken symbolic logic (mathematical logic) at both those levels. I hold advanced degrees in engineering and work for a large research lab in New Jersey as a scientist. I hold a B.S. in Chem. Engineering, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering. I never complected my PH.D, which was also directed at engineering. I have published many peer-reviewed articles, but none on Evolution.

My favorite logician was Wittgenstein. I've read his works extensively, especially his theory of tautologies.

Tarheel, who is your favorite?

Tarheel:

Accolades from science sources for this site.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/awards/

Including Scientific American, Science magazine, the Smithsonian, etc.

Go ahead, knock yourself out telling me what idiots those guys must be. I'm happy to stand in their shadow.

So, what evidence do you have again?

"Now try to evolve into someone who looks for evidence, not excuses why the evidence isn't there. And I'll take my two college degrees from a prominent college and look for evidence to support the things I'm researching." -- by Tarheel

Ouch! that stings. Well I've certainly been put in my place.

I stand with a mountain of evidence, complied by prominent scientists from prominent universities who have won significant agreement from their peers.

I'd love to see the research you are doing. Please tell me more. I invite you to publish your own ideas in the scientific literature.

Could you cite some of your stuff for me?
Oh please, please tell me. I can hardly wait.

Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. The family Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, collectively known as the "great apes". The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna around 200,000 BP (Before Present), descending from Homo erectus, had colonized Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 BP, and finally colonized the Americas approximately 10,000 years ago.

Here is what the web site says:"Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant."

Note "uncommon" not non-existent.

And later:"The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record."

I must be in hell, I'll write really slow so you can understand. We are not evolved from apes. Please take a high school level course in rudimentary logic before posting your unsubstantiated remarks. Your web site you posted bases all its conclusions on, as its admits, nothing. It explains its lack of evidence by saying the fossil records are so old that some evidence is logically missing. Then explain why fossils of creatures that predated man by millions of years are perfectly preserved. Even small birds, sea creatures, fishes, and rodents with delicate bones and skeletons are preserved. These were preserved for millions of years before man appeared. Yet conveniently there's no evidence of your missing links from what scientifically would be considered recent times. There's no evidence because it doesn't exist. Now try to evolve into someone who looks for evidence, not excuses why the evidence isn't there. And I'll take my two college degrees from a prominent college and look for evidence to support the things I'm researching.

If you want a clear, concise view of the science behind evolution, please read this FAQ

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

The site, as a whole, is well presented and documented.

I have also noticed that many universities now have free online short courses in Evolution available to all. I'm guessing that the are doing so in response to some of the blatantly false representations of evolution presented in blogs, chat rooms and evangelical web sites.

I invite those who hate evolution to at least walk through these resources before posting their private theory of evolution evolution on the net.

And my final word to all you "can't we just get along and believe what we want" folks out there. While you intentions might be in the right place, you ignore the rather immediate problem of well funded political action groups who are:

1) Actively trying to remove the teaching of evolution from our public school systems
2) Want editorial control over your children's textbooks
3) Spend millions in influence money upon politicians
4) Spread misrepresentations of evolution across the internet and other media to convince the public that evolution is evil

I can't wait for someone to ask if any of the candidates believes in a flat earth! And I thought "W" was a primitive!

While on earth, I studied the science of the mind and body. I obtained a doctorate in psychiatry.

However, that wasn't enough for me.

So I experimented with various chemical compounds, LSD being the most effective in my quest. I've flown the astro-planes and have had songs written about me. And when a left this corporal body, my ashes were sent into space.

You may know me as Timothy Leary. While continuing my voyage, I've come to the conclusion that the universe is nothing but a large being. The planets and suns are atoms, making up the molecules which are the body of this larger being.

We earthlings are a cancer to our host. Or some form of nano technology gone horribly wrong.

Excellent post, Yaweh.

I've been having a laugh reading the various postings.

1st: I'm an orphan, I have no idea where I came from or how I got here.

2nd: Yes, some events in the Bible have occurred however, few should be taken literally. Remember, your intellects are not fully developed today, imagine how simple I needed make things 6,000 years ago.

3rd: I live with an advanced evolved people, who, if you follow the tenets you've been given, you may evolve to as well.

4th: Yes, I'm your creator. But not in the manner in which creationism is represented in the Bible. Remember, you are a simplistic people and like children constantly asking why or how, I needed to break it down to a very simple explanation. You've not evolved enough to this day to grasp the complexity of your origin. Science will supply you with the answer, but well into the future. Making Adam out of clay seemed easier than explaining that the earth was a smoldering cauldron with life's building blocks which would adapt itself to the various environments. To those who question why some peoples are placed in areas that do not allow sustainability, I apologize. I could not foresee exactly how the Earth would settle. Though I did promote caring for others. I even sent an ambassador to address the importance of caring for each other, as men had corrupted my message. I'm saddened that to this day, men continue to corrupt the simple tenets I've laid out for you. There are no holy men or prophets, just listen to Jesus' message. It's self explanatory.

5th: Ignorance in science, ignorance in faith, ignorance in accountability will be your downfall. Science and faith should co-exist. Science does require a degree of faith that with hard work, you will find an answer. Faith alone will not sustain the vessel upon which you live. For there are people who will set their needs above the good of all. Faith is also to easily hijacked by some men to drive their own ambition, feed their egos, burnish their pride. I've told you all, beware false prophets. Falwell, Dobson, and Robinson, I've not spoken to you. I have listened to you and it's apparent you are perverting the very foundation of that to which you claim to have an understanding of. If I need something done or changed, I have the ability to do so. I don't need to allow planes to fly into buildings to express my displeasure with sins against my teachings.

6th: I don't have time to respond to every prayer or provide guidance and advice on a micro level. I've given you free will, the ability to expand your knowledge, and laid out some simple rules for living and co-existing. That is the only part I play. It's not my will for an outcome it's your actions or inactions.

7th: Peoples in other places, in other times required different answers for the question of their origin and moral code. Christianity is not the only path to salvation. It's not your place to threaten others with eternal damnation or discount their beliefs. I have no preference on religion, only in the effort to live a life of kindness towards others.

8th: Arguing is not productive. Arguing and calling those who disagree with you of a lesser stature, only causes a hardening in the position of the person you are arguing with. Debating in a constructive manner the differences various factions have can and do often lead to solutions.

My final thought to all of you is this. If you knew your method of origin, would it change the basis of living a moral life? Secular people are no more and no less moral than those of faith. Persons of faith are no more ignorant than secular people.

None of you should abandon the manner in which you have chosen your path to enlightenment. You should also listen to those on a different path, for the forks in the road will combine into a single path at one point in the future.

The apocalypse is not written in stone. You have the option to harness the science you have discovered for purposes within the tenets I've set forth. Not for devastation and destruction. Work together.

Yahweh out. May peace be with you.

If you believe all complex, highly organized beings need a creator, then where did such a creator, with the power and intellect to spontaneously make a universe and all the life in it come from? Magic?

Is there any leap at all from micro-evolution over thousands of years to macro-evolution over billions? Aren't they both the same? To acknoledge one implies the other.

Those who say that a living organism couldn't have lived in the past without senses, locomotion, eyes, hearts, complex integrated systems etc have not really looked at life. Sponges, plants, bacteria, etc get along fine without these later adaptations. Even single-cellular organisms have primitave simple and newer, more complex forms.

Those who ask why there are not "super- cat-proof-mice" or why other monkeys or we ourselves aren't smarter fail to realize 2 things:

1. the stage of evolution we are in now is only the current step of an ongoing process. Not the end. As mice get more nimble, cats get better at catching them. Or die out. Evolution will continue long after we are gone. There is no "final form" or ending point as long as there is a place for life to live.

2. Evolution is blind. The goal of an organism is to reproduce. If it can get by and pass on its genes in as simple a form as possible, it will. Often, the more complex forms require more resources, are more susceptable to hazards, environmental change, disease, etc, and die off because they become too specialized and too dependent on very specific environmental conditions. The fossil record shows that it is the adaptable, generalist, less specialized forms that survive in the long run. That is why primative creatures often survive mass extinctions which kill off their more advanced, specialized cousins. which leads me to my next point.

What is this nonsense about "Yet the same proponents of "simultaneous extinction" of a species reject the simultaneous creation of a species?" A person can develop and live for decades only to be instantly killed by a single bullet. Species can exist for eons only to fall to an asteroid impact or ice age. Life itself can arise and flourish for billions of years only to be exterminated when our own sun dies. Saying that a long, steady, progressive process of development eliminates the possibility of a short, violent end is ludicrous. Study entropy. It is easier to destroy an ordered system than to create and maintain it. If it takes hundreds of years for a tree to grow, do you believe by your convoluted logic that it cannot be randomly felled in a flash through natural process by a random bolt of lightning? It is a tenuous, precarious existence we lead, my friend.

If you believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, then ponder this: Light travels through the vaccuum of space at a fixed, definite speed. This has been proven (see Michaelson/Morely experiment). It takes light from the nearest star years to reach us. We can see stars millions of light-years away which means that as you gaze upon the night sky, you are seeing starlight that is millions of years old. We know this because the doppler redshift of very distant stars and galaxies are a dead giveaway of their distance.

Those who deny science have not studied it, are afraid of or aren't honest enough to consider ideas that challenge their worldview.

Tarheel - Stop with Einstein, already!

He was a mathemtician; not a philosopher.

He is not an "authority" on the subject.

Tom Pain wrote:
"Though I did challenge an earlier poster with my paradox to counter his unwillingness to see that just because some unidentified scientist couldn't tell his wife where the goo came from, that proved creationism is right, evolution is wrong."

I believe at some point several days ago, I did refer to this sort of situation. But I think I was misunderstood. I didn't write that to prove that creatonism is right and that evolution is wrong, I wrote it to prove that the theories of creationism and evolution aren't that different. Because both theories are based on something that can't be proven, which leaves you with the belief or faith that this is how it happened.

This is why I think the problem is unsolvable. Neither can be fully proven. Really both sides are making arguments based on the same thing, beliefs/faith.

Tom, I also applaud your ability to stay nuetral during this argument, because I agree with both sides but still feel myself getting emotional while argueing a point. I apologize if I seemed anything other than civil in my second response. It wasn't necessarily directed at you, I just find it amazing how anybody, on either side, can continue to try to force others into agreeing with a theory they can't prove, while spouting about how the other side can't prove anything. It seems that both "sides" are trying to do the same thing, but basing it off of different theories.

I haven't been able to read all of the posts but knowing that you are a criminal investigator allows me to understand why you aren't able to compeletly agree with either side.

Is evolution an unassailable fact that cannot be disproven by vigorous scientific research and new discoveries that require new explanations? No, in fact we will probably see new explanations for the origins of species like Einsteinian gravity has replaced Newtonian gravity.

Can evolution be rationally considered to be disproven by a bunch of psuedo-scientists searching to validate a centuries old explanation that is in direct conflict with more than evolution with flawed methodology? No.

Is evolution the best current logical fit for observable occurances, measurable past records and known biological processes? Yes, but it might not always be. The one thing I can assure you is that any future theory to replace evolution will bear no resemblance to the Bible or Creationist dogma.

Oh, and for those who drank the kool-aid God hates you so much he has given us multi-drug resistant TB and the potential for the bird flu to kill us all and these do not happen through changes to organisms to adapt to new surroundings so we hav no way to understand them.

To (Blank)

Indeed, my questions to both sides (creationists and evolutionists)of the argument is a paradox, and is meant to be so.

Nobody I've encountered or read about can supply a completely repeatable experiment to support their believes, though both sides use strands of evidence from which the draw or support their conclusions.

My comments regarding being on the scene at the time, is an attempt to focus both proponents that at this time, we don't have all of the information necessary to draw anything other than a conclusion.

My comments on a jury was first and foremost an example of the system we employ in this country to have both sides present a case to people who were not present at the time of the incident or dispute. In Voire Dire, (Questioning of the jury pool prior to picking the actual jurors) representatives of both sides attempt to weed out those with a bias against their side. My point here being that based upon the majority of posters' comments, they 'd be the ones each side would seek to exclude as it's doubtful these parties could put aside their personal beliefs until both sides concluded their case.

My second point with the jury analogy is that even if one was capable of finding 12 people completely open and unbiased, the conclusion the jury reached would not necessarily be the truth, just a censuses reached based up the evidence submitted, their likes and dislikes of various persons presented, and of course, their own life experiences.

In my view, OJ Simpson, based upon the evidence I saw while watching the trial, was guilty as all hell. And like many people, I scratch my head wondering how those 12 jurors could have reached such a wrong consensus is such a brief period of time. However, based upon my experience with the legal system, I've learned that my opinion is just that, my opinion or belief. So it appears with the various posters on this forum.

To FYI,
You wrote:
"If, however, you are trying to address not things about God, but rather the hypocricy or blind faith of believers and their stance on creationism, then let's deal with that."

I hope that I've not shown a bias either for or against either side's views.

I do not believe that people of faith should be ridiculed or have their faith be denigrated.

To the best of my recollection at this point, I've not made any statement to the contrary. If I have, it wasn't meant to be so.

On the subject of Jesus, whether or not he was real, whether or not he was the son of God, or God himself in human form, is not a particularly relevant issue to me regarding his moral and ethical teachings. I for one do not discount the many fine points Jesus is purported to have made, regardless if he really said them or not.

For me virtue is
it's own reward, and Jesus is attributed to pointing out many avenues of virtues and using language simple enough for almost anyone to understand.

Regardless of once stance on whether or not Jesus' teachings will get you into a place called heaven in the afterlife, his teachings, in regards to how to live with others and treat others, will make this life much easier not only for those you come into contact with, but for yourself. How many of us can truly live with the guilt of wronging another? I know I can't, and when I tried, I became an alcoholic. The steps, regardless of your faith, or lack of faith, give you one very important tool, ridding yourself of guilt and keeping you out of situations which could induce more guilt into your life.

So, if you feel I've denigrated faith believers in any way, that has not been my intent.

Though I did challenge an earlier poster with my paradox to counter his unwillingness to see that just because some unidentified scientist couldn't tell his wife where the goo came from, that proved creationism is right, evolution is wrong.

You will note I've also submitted a similar question to evolutionist, such as where exactly is the universe? How can they know that evolution wasn't started by God? God could very easily have populated many planets throughout the universe with DNA to watch how that DNA evolved in the different environments.

Soon enough I'll be finding out if God exists, or if this life is all we have.

Either way, I choose to live my life according to a code of morals and ethics, not for the promise of a reward, but for the simple principle that life is difficult enough without man's inhumanity to man, that I would like to believe that strangers are treating my friends and loved ones in the same manner the strangers would like to be treated if the roles were reversed.

Whether it was the "Great Spirit" of the indigenous people who first populated this country who said before judging a man, walk a mile in is moccasins, or Jesus telling us that he who is without sin can cast the first stone, the messenger isn't important to me at least, but the message is.

I do however reject the notion that only people who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior will make it to heaven. To believe Gandhi or Buddha will burn in the eternal flames of hell because their culture had a different path to reach pure spiritual existence, and that through the Catholic Church, a family member could buy a non believer, immoral dead relative a pathway to heaven via an indulgence, is beyond my understanding of a kind and understanding supreme being.

I appreciate your unwillingness to cease attempting to change my mind. As I believe your intentions are less to convert me, than to share what you have within yourself. It's something I understand as I try to explain to people charged with crimes, that they are not beyond personal redemption. That when their time has been served they still have the ability to make their time on Earth worthwhile by doing things for people without an expectation of a reward or even an acknowledgment.

I'll try to find sometime to read the items you've directed me to, however I can't say it will be soon. I've got 40 hours of tapes to review, multiple reports to write while the information is still fresh in my mind, and a number of people to locate and interview for an upcoming trial. But I appreciate your taking the time to point them out to me.

Take care, one and all, and have a great week.

I think it's fascinating that Brownback doesn't believe in evolution. He converted from Protestantism (where some don't believe) to Catholicism, where the official position of the Vatican is that evolution is true. It would have been nice if Matthews ( a Catholic ) could have asked Brownback about that.

Tarheel:

Please take a college-level course in evolutionary theory at an accredited school before posting such inaccurate representations of the theory of evolution in public. Man did not evolve from Apes, they are Homonid. There is plenty of archaeology that supports it.

To get a better grasp of how Einstein and other scientists recognize and revere God's creation one needs only to read Einstein and God by Thomas Torrance at: http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm. Einstein spoke quite eloquently about the existence of the Creator.

It's so intellectually insulting when numerous posters use Einstein as an argument against God when in fact he argued eloquently about the existence of a creator. I guess they're just hoping us uniformed, unintelligent Christians won't bother to check the facts. Sorry, but Einstein agreed with us.

As for the guess or theory of evolution. Species evolve within their own species. Species do not evolve into another species. It has never been proven, ever, and can't be that man evolved from apes. It is much more scientifically sound to dismiss evolution for its lack of evidence than it is scientifically, and intellectually sound, to accept evolution without any evidence to back it up.

Again with "nothing can be known so believe in what makes you happy." This is sophistry, by the way.

Science attempts to vacate the darkness of unknowing based on evidence and some logical rules of hypothesis testing and falsity proofs. The last page of scientific knowledge has not yet been written, and as any scientist will tell you, the books are revised as technology and understanding bring us a more complete understanding of the universe and ourselves. I would venture to say that almost no scientist considers science to be absolute unchanging truth. Hence the word "theory", used in its special sense by scientists for science; which is not at all to be taken in its vernacular sense that we commonly use it today.

It is significant that much of the noise on this thread pivots on the use of the word "theory". It shows something about the imprecision of language. Similar arguments have, do, and will occur regarding each word of the ancient forms of the Bible. As some scholar pointed out here, sometimes the actual Hebrew word used isn't known for sure, because the vowel markings have been lost or are otherwise ambiguous. To make matters worse, most of us read the Bible in translated form. In the case of KJV, in a highly stylized form and in a now mostly obsolete form of the English language. You know how hard it is to understand Shakespeare when it is preformed? Guess about when the KJV was published?

For some, science is a very unsettling universe of ideas that shakes their faith. For me, it had the opposite effect. Go figure.

Science isn't anti-God or anti-religion. But the activities of these anti-evolution groups, like the ICR, are undeniably pursuing the crushing of evolution in our schools through our court systems. That isn't where the validity of science should be decided. And that is what makes them so dangerous.

Tom Pain:

I see you have not been posting as much lately. Did you read my replies?

You put it well yourself when you wrote:

"Almost every poster believes they are right and the other side is wrong, yet none of them were there. A jury is supposed to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, they don't know either. / In this matter, almost every poster should be excluded as a juror as they've formed a belief before all of the evidence is in."

You wrote the truth: none of us were there. If that's the level of personal authority you're looking for from any of *us*, none of us can satisfactorily speak to your question of where God came from.

I'm not going to give up on convincing you, my friend, but you have to admit you are being stubborn and know very well that this is the kind of question you are asking. No doubt there's stubborness on both sides of this issue. My only point to you is: if you questioned my existence or origins, the only person who really matters that you deal with one day would be me myself. So you to, the nature of your question does not directly address me, but God himself and the question of his "origins".

If, however, you are trying to address not things about God, but rather the hypocricy or blind faith of believers and their stance on creationism, then let's deal with that.

Waiting for clarification...

BTW, do check out that resource I cited, scrollpublishing.com . The bulk of the resources are authored by David Bercot who has become a sort of expert on early Christianity. If you want people who were eyewitnesses, who were there, read the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome - these people were personal disciples of Jesus' apostles. Bercot is also a lawyer who values the practice of going to original sources, rather then depending on secondary, tertiary ones, etc. I believe you would value his approach.

Oh, and on a more personl note, regarding your statement, "I was 'born again' by a Wesleyan Minister about 18 years ago" - accordng to Jesus' teaching, is one born again by a man, or by water and spirit? I'm not an "Evangelical" per se, but I do believe in Jesus' statement regarding re-birth. And it's not about building a new life on men or a denomination, but on Jesus himself. Why is it so hard for people, esp professing Christians, to acccept the simple words of Jesus on this? They taint his good name by dividing over personalities, human teachings, race, debatable issues, personal preference, an so on. I for one am sorry for the contributions I've made to that shameful mess and am resolved to have nothing more to do with it. I hope that you will push all that's of man aside and look fresh at Jesus himself.

Tom Pain - It seems to me that you're asking for the answer to a paradox.

Like Can the omnipotent God create an object so large that they could not lift (encompass) it? There is no answer.

Where did we originally come from? How can there be Eternity going backwards? What was there before Creation? Who moved the Unmoved Mover. What caused the Uncaused Cause?

There are no answers which humans are capable of comprehending - at least right now.

if evolution is not a theory than why is it refered to as the "evolution theory"

didn't darwin rebut is intial conclusions before his death?

Saying that evolution is "only a theory" is like saying that "Earth is a planet" is only a theory. There are in fact those who do not believe that the Eath is a planet or the sun is a star...There are people who believe that fire is an element. Denying the facts of geology and geophysics, astronomy and astrophysics, biology and biophysics do not make them any less factual.Observed, Measured. Demonstrated. Anyone who wants to disprove Copernicus is welcome to try...

It occurs to me that Bible literalists

(as the result of confusing
--ontic hamartia "a state deprived of th energies of Grace, God's Life" in Greek
with

--deontic hamartema "sin")

end up with the doctrine of inherited sin or guilt (not part of Eastern Christianity) DESPITE those passages in 4 Kings and 2 Chronicles that explicitly teach that sons are not to be held to account for the sins of theIR Fathers.

You see the contradiction between "literal" interpretation and what the book says.

It is the same with evolution. If your paradigm says time is kosher, then evolution is okay; if your paradigm says time is out (and "everlasting" is confused with "eternal"), then of course evolution is out.

Talk about pickin' and choosin'!!!

Just checking in again. Sorry that Christian blew a fuse on the last reply to me and said all those nasty things about Catholics and adherents to science. But it served to show the true face of Creationism.

Thank you to those Creationists who have come right out and admitted that this argument is really about the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. It is a refreshing bit of honesty and a step in the right direction. I can respect other opinions, but not when they are presented as sophistry.

The Institute of Creation Research is not an accredited scientific institution.
It is a group funded by evangelical churches and conservative think tanks to spread as much anti-science rhetoric as it can--the better to crush evolution in our schools. It is a blatantly political operation.

Creationism is repackaged Book-of-Genesis literalness, thinly disguised as something science-like to make it more politically palatable. Is science-ish a word?

Working research scientists avoid argument with Creationists, because:
1) Creationists will never accept evolution, whatever the evidence
2) Any effort to provide evidence that contradicts Creationism will be interpreted by them as blasphemy, and by some of their ilk as the direct work of the devil
3) Creationists can be a surly lot; they don't like science on general principles--i.e., it isn't Biblical.
4) Urinating in the well of science gets young Creationists brownie points with the Big Guy
5) Faith is a long limb to climb out on. There isn't a whole lot of evidence on their side. They make up for the relative lack of evidence with bluster and arrogance.

Many, many scientists believe in God and accept evolution. Of course, to the Creationist, those people are damned to hell (like me).

I wish I could put a smiley face on Creationism, but read it here in this blog and judge for yourself.

If the Creationists manage to gain control of the public classroom, then they will use it as a pulpit for their brand of Christianity. They see separation of church and state as am evil obstacle to God. They don't give can Angel's fart about science. Calling it Creation Science is the cynical lie that gets them through the door.

Beware. We live in a statistical rarity. There are many more non-democratic countries in this world than there are democracies. In the course of history, liberal democracies are extremely rare. Tyrants, dictators, kings and theocracies are far more common. Even among the current existing democracies, religious violence is unfortunately common.

Take a look at the problem other countries have today with Islamic Fundamentalists. In some Islamic countries, you say the wrong thing about God and your are dead meat under their religious laws. The thing is, our local Christian Fundamentalists seem to be a bit envious of that kind of religious control of society.

What we have here will not last forever if we fail to protect it.

Where is the universe? That's a hard question to answer, given that the universe IS everything. There's nothing else (at least, that we know of, or has been observed- there are plenty of weird ideas floating around regarding parallel universes). I won't deny that thinking about what happens at the boundaries of the universe makes my brain hurt. But this is another semi-trick question like "What came before the Big Bang?" (answer: nothing, that was time=0)
I'm really not sure how to explain this beyond that.

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.

However, I'm not surprised that my first question, and by extension my other two, have yet to really be answered.

To Capnboost who wrote:"I answered your question here:

Posted by: capnboost | May 4, 2007 03:51 PM

You apparently didn't read it."

You're right, I hadn't read it, I've read it now. I'm glad you believe "God always existed." however you have no evidence or proof of that. It's your believe. I have no problem with you having such a belief and I'm somewhat jealous that you can accept this concept.

However, I can state just with just as much certainty, a belief my Asian Culture teacher taught us.

Creation began with a cosmic egg. Inside the egg was a chaotic mixture of yin/yang, male/female, cold/heat etc. From the egg was born a giant by the name of Phan Ku. He separated the earth and sky. He grew in stature by ten feet a day, raising the sky above the earth by that distance. He also created the heavenly bodies, and carved out the mountains and valleys with a huge chisel and mallet. When he died, the fleas in his hair became human beings.

There are many people who believe this, and to the best of my knowledge, it cannot be disproved to those who believe it.

Another teacher exposed me to a Mayan's faith:

Tepeu and Gucamatz, feathered serpents, created the earth, mountains, trees, animals, etc. by speaking them into existence. They asked the animals to praise the deities, but they could not. So the gods made the first humans out of clay; they broke apart. Wood was tried next, but the resultant humans were inflexible and caused a great deal of trouble. Tepeu caused a great flood to destroy most of the humans; a few escaped into the jungle and survive today as monkeys. The third try was successful. Four humans, one for each of the four directions, were created; they praised the gods appropriately.

Now, I do not find either of these creationist views to be any more or less valid then Christianity.

I've always had one question about God's manner of creating Adam (out of clay) and Eve, out of Adam's rib. Why did God need a substance to create Adam from if he was able to create the universe out of nothing? Using the same logic, why did Eve have to be made of a part of Adam?

I've no answer, just posting the question.

To Scott. I really enjoyed the tone and civility of your first response to me. However I found your second response lost that tone.

In an earlier posting, I listed what I do for a living. I'm a criminal investigator. I follow up after the initial reports are taken. My statements relating to Man's innate goodness, spoke of a time long ago when I was young and optimistic about the world. I listed the various religions I'd tried from the age of 5-48 (I was "born again" by a Wesleyan Minister about 18 years ago. However, the hypocrisy of cherry picking portions of the Bible being literal such as homosexuality (no, I'm not gay, but have met many fine gay people of both sexes) and not see the utter contradictions in enforcement in the same book of Leviticus such as 20:9 "Anyone who curses
his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has
cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life." 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and
the adulteress shall be put to death."
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

a.. permits polygamy
b.. prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
c.. bans tattoos
d.. prohibits eating rare meat
e.. bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
f.. prohibits cross-breeding livestock
g.. bans sowing a field with mixed seed
h.. prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
i.. requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says
she was raped but no one heard her scream.

I don't hear a strong outcry from these folks citing the Bible in support of
their hatred and calls for discrimination towards gay couples asking that
adultery and cursing one's parents be punished via Biblical law. One must
surmise that is in part because these are "cafeteria" Christians. By that
I mean they walk through the lines of the Bible, picking and choosing what
they like rather than accepting the Bible as literal when there are
consequences they disagree with. All the while ignoring Christ's message
"Judge Not Least Ye Be Judged" and "Love Thy Neighbor unto Thy Self".

I've no problem with people of faith, I have no problem with the concept of God. I do have a great big problem with people who are Cafeteria Christians.

In my work, I respond to some of the most horrendous aspects of mankind's inhumanity to each other, including their young children. Sexual assault, physical assault, neglect, turning a blind eye while a step parent abuses their children. The list is never ending. Yet, I hear these same people telling me go talk to their pastor, to know what kind of people they really are.

In my line of work, I have to depend on evidence, not people's beliefs. Many people "know that so and so did it" yet when I ask them if they saw it, heard it or heard the person confess to it, the answer is usually no, but they know it. In the matter of charging someone with a serious crime, taking away their children, their liberty, their future, requires a little higher threshold then "I know it". The how you know it is important.

My question about where did God come from was originally a reply to a poster who proved evolution didn't exist because "my wife asked this scientist where the Goo came from that the lightening struck and he couldn't answer." Therefore this person knew Creationism was correct.

I challenged him to explain where God came from and I received a rash of replies that He always was . . . Some people were not that polite.

I'm the first to admit I don't have the answers. I've never been asked to investigate any situation I was involved with, so I never really know the truth. I just gather whatever evidence I can find, follow up the leads I've found, and pass it on. I find I can't be effective if I enter an investigation with a preconceived notion of what happened.

Almost every poster believes they are right and the other side is wrong, yet none of them were there. A jury is supposed to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, they don't know either.

In this matter, almost every poster should be excluded as a juror as they've formed a belief before all of the evidence is in.

To Ricardo Fernandez who wrote "What I think is that blowhard Matthews--who has taken over from McLaughlin as TV's loudest and most harrumphing mouth--did his job well, given his politics: to make the Republicans look, by turns, timid and calculating and out of their depth..."

I don't know what you normally listen to, but Mathews is now a Republican, ever since Reagan. His brother ran in 2006 for a Congressional Seat in Pennsylvania as a Republican, (He lost).

As for the liberal media slur, Please. MSNBC has only one liberal host, Keith Olbermann. Joe Scarborough was a Republican Congressman from Florida, Tucker was the Republican Talking Head on CNN's Crossfire.
If you had watched Hardball for the two day's leading up the debate, all you would have heard about is how great Reagan was. I had to turn it off.

To Derick who wrote:"Well this was entertaining. I enjoyed reading everyone's comment. I wish the best to all of you and I do respect ya'lls opinions. All I ask of you is just to do the same.

But what came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

I can forsee that comment going on forever!"

How right you are brother. Better minds then ours have been trying to answer our origin since man figured out how to think.

And I've still not heard a substantiative answer to my question from Creationists.

Where did God come from?

To evolutionists.

Where is the universe?

Posted by: capnboost | May 6, 2007 08:42 AM

Reply to the person masquerading as GOD Himself and her/his assertion that ALL religions lead to selflessness. Unless you mean unselfishness (and many haven't led to that), I don't get you. The aim of many (who knows whether "most"?) religions is some kind of (non-self-aggrandizing) self-fulfilment, whether spoken of as higher life. You might look at Plotinos or Porphyry (who influenced much Renaissance and Reformation thinking) before you write statements with "all"! Another factor of a different sort was summarized in the difference between the controversy between
jussum quia justum "commanded because right" and the "justum quia jussum "right because commanded" of the Ockhamism of the Protestant Reformation. It's the latter that I don't like.
I leave it to you to see how it relates to self-fulfillment.

"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."

Sorry Derek - There is zero scientific evidence for The Creation. The best scientists can do is estimate the beginning of time for us. Even that is just an estimate.

Keep mixing apples and oranges.

Postscript to ye foregoin':

One reads of so-called experts on religion
leaving out worship. (Just as eth;ics can exist without religion, religion can exist without ethics . . . but not without worship. See an earlier posting about true worship's offering to the Creator the best of creation as an acknowledge of the divine ownership of all.

One "expert" on religion calls ceremonies
rituals. Doesn'the know the difference???? Argh/argh/argh!!!!

I do wish a couple of postings would spell
y'all correctly--not as ya'll.

Why "her" for an angel? Angels are (so the story goes) sexless. I agree that "it" would be unseemly, so why not just say "(an)angel's"?????

Concerning freedom. I think that whatever our position is, we should defend other's freedom to disagree, unless it's a fact (or unfact like "the" Bible).

Concerning education, or rather public schools, only what is acceptable to the
experts in each discipline should be paid for by the taxes of us all. (Private schools are not so constrained.) If the experts disagree, this should be noted. If a factual error--like a mistranslation of crucial verses of the Bible or the earliest fossil in Alaska--can be established, it should not be allowed in any schooling.

I haven't got time to proofread the foregoing, which was written hurriedly by an 81-year-old Orthodox Christian.

The Greek of Gen. 1:1f says (responding to whoever asked)

At the outset [or; in the begining], God made (the) Heaven and the earth. The earth was unsightly and unfurnished (or formless); and darkness [was] on the abyss. And God's Spirit was borne (or moved) over the water.

Derek:
The egg came first, since it was laid by a creature that was not entirely a modern chicken, while the egg (with the slightly different embryo inside) was more chicken-like. It's hard to draw an exact line when they change species, though.

Derek, you're confusing "evidence" with "testability." And frankly, that evidence is not really very good at all.
Cosmology: the universe is too big to be 6000 years old.
Thermodynamics: the Earth is not a closed system, so the prized Second Law argument is worthless.
Paleontology: oh, I'm REALLY curious to hear the arguments from paleontology. Especially given the evidence of transitional forms, rock strata, and other fossil evidence for evolution.
Biology: well, the fact you can use DNA to trace the date when species diverged, homologous structures point to common ancestry, and many other things I can't recall due to finals stress all say evolution is true would seem to suggest that biology is evolution, and evolution is biology.
Probability: read the chapter in the 4th Darwin Awards book on the probability of noodles to see this argument put to rest.
Geology: my mother the geologist would be stunned to hear she's supporting creation with her work on rocks that are millions of years old. As for the "flood strata," why is it that we don't find fossils of mammoths with those of sauropod dinosaurs? Why no australopithecines with Permian amphibians?
As for ancestry, I'm comfortable knowing my great^x grandfather was a hominid. Not a monkey. Look at the skulls they've found, and the skeletons. For that matter, look at a chimpanzee. Don't we look very similar? Doesn't that suggest anything?

Well this was entertaining. I enjoyed reading everyone's comment. I wish the best to all of you and I do respect ya'lls opinions. All I ask of you is just to do the same.

But what came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

I can forsee that comment going on forever!

God Bless

Derek, would you care to explain how we can test creationism? What could we do, capture an angel and beat it until it gets God to spontaneously create something? Creationism is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur

Let's see, testable parts of Creationism? Hmmm? That's a good one. Let me see? Should we start with? "There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."

Now when you find your great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great, great grandfather to be a monkey for fact let me know.
lol with love,
derek

"Science has accepted evolution as the truth it is.."

Tyrannosaur - as long as you mean truth developed from facts, I'm with you. If you meant "The Truth," you went over the top.

The first use of truth is dynamic as more facts become known; the second use isn't.

"Science has everything to do with moral and ethics." - Derek

Not within the procedural processes of disciplines themselves.

Chemist:
What, in your opinion, is the basis of modern biology? Cell theory? Our understanding of that is rooted in evolution. The entire study of biology is based on evolution. How do we look at life today? Adaptation, based on evolution. Diet, with evolutionary basis. Skeletal structure? Evolution from a common ancestor. Relations between species? You guessed it.
As for fundamental principles of science, how about these:
1. falsifiability- how do we disprove God?
2. testability- how do we test creation?
3. use of the evidence available- why do creationists focus on tearing down ideas, not doing new research?
4. reproducibility- can we reproduce spontaneous creation of a species?
5. etc. etc. etc.
As for the ICR:
"The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
Not particularly scientific, starting with the conclusion and then looking for evidence.
So I write them off as partisan hacks looking to pervert the name of science to further their dark-ages mentality.

Sorry but I have to run... ill check responses later though.

Tyran... induldge me please. Science is science and my work intermingles with the bio world. By not accepting traditional Darwinian evolution, what fundamental principles of modern research and science am I forfeiting? Just name 3.

By the way... i tried to capture an angel once but lost her to the strong grasp of cromagnon man. You can't repeat evolutionary origin of anything any easier than a Christian can make God create something - that is such a 3rd grade standoff. Let's be adults and look at the evidence already available. There is a well known outfit called the Institute for Creation Research. Before you laugh or sarcastically flip them off... be open minded and see what they have published. Then we can move passed catching angels and forming sludge in zip-lock bags.

Derek, would you care to explain how we can test creationism? What could we do, capture an angel and beat it until it gets God to spontaneously create something? Creationism is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

True Debate:
There isn't any controversy about evolution to teach. There's science, and then there's politics. The only debate about the reality of evolution is political. Science has accepted evolution as the truth it is, and I firmly believe that we should be teaching actual SCIENCE in science classes- not religion masquerading as science (and failing at that, too).

Chemist:
My mistake. I assumed you were in a science that touches on evolution. Materials science is not related to biology or biological compounds, so far as I know. But all biochemistry, all biology, much of geology, and other fields all rely heavily on evolutionary theory. It's the main principle that our understanding of the fields is based on.

To definition of theory:

I think one can take it a step further. Everyone has a world view, more technically a paradigm consisting of (neither true nor false) axioms that fence in ideas that can be deemed to be true and fence out others that cannot be regarded as true.
In the most prominent paradigm analysis of the three major forms of Christianity, the Latin Catholics share the axiomatic matter with the East and the juridical interpretative form with the Protestants.
The MATTER of Eastern Christianity's paradigm is mysteric (material mysteries are sacrament/als in the West), whereas its interpretative FORM is energetic--like the Apostle Paul's, as explained in my prior posting. Very few Protestants accept materiality and temporality (evolution) as the matter of their paradigm.
Axioms of non-Christian paradigms include various things--all the way from a MATTER that denies all spiritual reality (including uncreated energy) to a form that rejects whatever is not empirically observable . . . or whatever. These axioms work or don't; being axioms, they are neither true nor false as such. One thing atheists have trouble with is "everything has a cause." The reason is that an infinitely extending cause is unworkable if not indeed unscientific. Whatever has causeds the cosmos has to be something that we are unfamiliar with--something that (as the Greeks thought) is timeless (eternal, not just temporally everlasting) and UNCAUSED---a Being from a different kind of reality. I say "unfamiliar with" although the Mystery (Sacrament) of the Incarnation (and she who agreed to it) are essential and basic to all other Mysteries and salvation, the holy tradition treats salvation as bodily Resurrection and the Divinization of 2 Pet. 1:4 mentioned before. Since the first humans, the Cross is the only perfect act of worship--i.e. offering a perfect part of creation to the Creator to acknowledge the divine ownership of all that is--and, being necessary on at least two grounds for humans' bodily resurrection, is, like the Incarnation, indirectly soterial. Got it???

Derek - That's Philosphy and Ethics, not science. Evolution is science.

They can complement each other, but they don't mix.

Posted by: | May 7, 2007 04:19 PM

Science has everything to do with moral and ethics. Hitler was a great example of this. I know this example is used over and over, but it is one everyone is familiar with. You govern the textbooks you govern the people. And no I'm not implying that Christian Beliefs should be the only beliefs. As mentioned before, we have the free will to chose what we want to believe.

Tyrannosaur- Yes i agree evolution is a testable theory, but so is Creationism. Testable, but doesn't state it as proven fact.

Neither one of us can state for a fact how we came to be unless we were there to observe it as it happened. We can only have faith as to how it happened. We only know what we can observe today and today is not the same as it was either 6000 years ago or a million years ago.

Austin Avery- as for the electrician bit, of course 99 out of a 100 are going to have the same opinion about how to fix an electrical problem. but look at it this way, a typical trial in court can have evidence that can go one way or another to prove one's innocence depending on how the jury's perception of the evidence. there's many cases where the guilty look innocent and the innocent look guilty. it all depends on how the evidence is presented. if you ever seen the movie Hoodwinked, that's a good example of that. I only brought Hoodwinked up was because I just got done watching it the other day.

Only evolution in the classroom, insist Darwin's defenders.

No evolution in the classroom, cry creationists.

READ : http://www.darwinanddesign.com/teaching.php

Than

What is the translation of Genesis 1:1?

James Collins said it best. Wake up ya'll.

Oh and look him up, he's real. Who you ask?
"Jesus, that's my final answer!"

The only answer.

It's sad that we can't even agree on the definitions of theory, evolution, or christianity. If we can't even agree on the definitions, how can we hold a rational discussion? I'm all for verbally slugging it out with the best of them, but damn, we can't even agree on the English.

As a matter of fact, all but one Bible (actually only a New Testament) in English cannot properly be called "the" Bible. They all follow the axims of a non-Greek (hat is non-energy; see below on Paul's 26 uses of energy terms)) paradigm and end up mistranslating crucial verses. (Note that the Greek Old Testament was canonical for the Apostles and is older than existing Hebrew Bibles other than the Dead Sea Scroll fragments.
Gen. 1:26 says in the original that humanity "was created according to the icon (image, likeness) of God and according Assimilation." The last is an energy term like English words ending in -ization or -ification. The silly tautology of "image and likeness" in Latin and other Western languages is palpably pointless. Phlp. 2:13 is mistranslated. Western Christians do not distinguish God's (or anyone's) essence from one's nature (one's energies. This creates a problem for 2 Pet. 1:4 which speaks of (salvation as) becoming partakers of the divine Nature. Since the divine Essence is not participable, Latin Catholics and Protestants have to "interpret" these verses metaphorically: Protestants speak of a covenantal unity. This juridical approach jibes with their "forensic" (juridical) view of justification and salvation.
In short, the Latin/English-language "Bibles" cited by most Western Christians are NOT "the" Bible!!!! Argh!!!!

Tyran(t)... what underpinnings would you be referring to? Remember, I'm a brain dead nonvolutionist. As a scientist I could only deny what I rule out through experiment. Can you list 5 of these "basic" underpinnings I am suppossedly denying?

Not that I am much to worry about, but I've been in materials research for over 15 years, I hold multiple patents, I have many products in the field (likely you use them), and do fairly well for a living. Yet not once has Darwin's name come up - other than the break room.

Chemist: How much research can you do, if you deny the basic underpinnings of life science? Not much.
And let's just toss some water, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide into a jar, set it on simmer, and come back in a billion years or so. That work?

What if your minister was Thomas Edison?

I work in a chem lab. I found out last week that I am apparently brain dead because I don't submit to the principles of evolution in regard to the origin of man and our universe. I like to be open minded so I was wondering if someone could give me the correct chemical mix that I can drop into a bell jar (at the lowest vacuum I can create) set to the best temperature in order to make something appear. I don't need anything fancy like a Zebra or pine tree, just an amoeba will do. Oh crap, I forgot it takes like a bazillion years right? Oh well. If anyone can come up with an experiment to bring something from nothing... let me know!

Suppose you had an electrical problem with your home and you asked 100 electricians how to fix it. Ninety-nine gave you one answer, but the last one gave you a completely different answer. There must be several ways to decide which advice to follow to fix your electricity, but going to ask your minister (priest, rabbi, etc.) can't be one of them.

I read that in the appx. 150 years since Darwin introduced his theory there have been over 200,000 peer-reviewed, scientific articles supporting the theory (wish I could give the cite, anyone have it?). Those lending support to the argument that the theory is wrong: None.

To deny the proof of evolution, one has to have the ability of Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegone citizens: "To look reality square in the eye and deny it."

Mr. Theory Definer:
That's not the scientific definition of a theory, that's the general vernacular definition. Definition 1 is the closest, but still not perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
"...a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory."
And yes, evolution is testable. Please don't keep thrashing that dead straw man. My patience for repeating myself is limited.

"So how do we explain our ability in reasoning our morals if everything came from random opportunities? Who's to say murder is wrong? Lying is wrong? or there really is no thing such as adultery since we are just animals anyways?"

Derek - That's Philosphy and Ethics, not science. Evolution is science.

They can complement each other, but they don't mix.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
the·o·ry -1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

meuphys: my intentions were not to insult anyone! Everyone is free to believe what they want to. I just don't like it when someone bashes another one's beliefs especially when it's based on ignorance and just a product of conforminism. "Christians" tend to do the same thing, I'm not going to deny that. As a Christian I am supposed to show love to another, no matter what. Scroll through the Blog and you will notice a difference in some of the responses some "Christians" make. Some are just as vile as the typical atheists blogs are. But you will also notice the ones who are merely trying to explain our beliefs in a fair and open response with kindness. Jesus told us to love one another as he had loved us, so if a "Christian" comes off as slandering or slamming someone elses idea, they are just as guilty as a typical atheist. notice i used the word typical and not just atheist. there are some athiests who have good arguments and i wonder the same things too sometimes, but i try to learn more and research everything and pray about till i gain some understanding about it. i look around in both Christian sources and secular sources till i find an answer that makes sense. the reason i do that is so that i can understand how people either believe or understand a certain reasoning of any kind of question we may have about our existence. i didn't grow up in church my whole life and neither did i ever take it seriously when i was exposed to church. Hypocrites, fools, and ignorant people is what i called them. now i am at a point where i still believe their are hyprocrites, fools, and ignorant people in church, but they are the ones who go just to go and not for the true reason why we go to church. all i'm trying to say is try to understand why we believe the way we do and not just by what society dictates us to believe. seek it out for yourself. There is one catch though if you try to read the Bible and understand our reasoning, to understand scripture, you have to be after God's own heart. That is what makes the real differnce in reading it and intepreting it. No matter how much i try to convince you that my opinion is non-bias as possible for every opinion is bias, you probably won't believe me until you experience it for yourself. if you feel insulted and want to insult back go ahead, i don't mind turning the other cheek to get insulted again. i won't fight back, but i will try my best to appeal to you with as much love as i can, cause that is what i am commanded to do. and please keep in mind that not every person who claims to be Christian is Christian and I do not deem every atheist as someone who is ignorant, just someone who doesn't understand the world the same way i do. the science side can be argued all night and day and neither side will be convinced of the others belief. it is when you throw morals into the scene is when the real argument begins. that is why i made the comment about how i rather have someone who believes in creation than evolution running the country. there are nice and good moral based agnotics in the world, i won't deny that, but just think about it for a second. Based on Evolution we came here out of chance, everything happened by mere chances with no purpose. So how do we explain our ability in reasoning our morals if everything came from ran