Need a christian to answer this

[Stellar]

Creation science... thats a funny grouping of words. Creationism should be taught in religion class, not science class.

There are also the lies of the historians and religious figures that edit christianity and the Bible and add false things into them... right?

I dont think archeologists and historians have distored the history books... I think they're simply cleaning them out from things that were unjustly added into the history books when the church was still an important roll. Christianity is still in the history books... you have the date that Christians say Jesus was born... the religious movements... If you'd be more precise I could give you a more precise answer probably too.

No, evolutionists dont lie to the public to keep their jobs. If they managed to disprove evolution, it would be a very big boost in their career actually.

Wheres that debate thread Saucy was supposed to start?

[schadeaux]

I don't like these discussions, but if I may put in this:

Science, for a very long time, has been proving or trying to prove a lot of what the bible claims. The Great Flood, the Parting of the Red Sea, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Arc of the Covenant... etc

Science has succeded in proving that much of the Bible was at least possible.

The Bible alone has proved nothing.

It would seem that Science is more forgiving than Religon.

[Todd]

I'm still trying to figure out that last statement by schadeaux.

Anyway, things are getting rather "spirited" are'nt they?

Really guys I'm in agreement with Stellar at least as far as not getting the thread locked down. When we're at our best, we're presenting ideas for consideration that maybe, just maybe mind you, someone of the opposite opinion has'nt really thought about much before. When we're at our worst, we're hurling personal insults veiled and unveiled to the personages and belief systems of those that we don't agree with saying things like "this belief system is for weak people", or "Jesus was a fictional character". I'm sorry BurnSide but that was either a statement of ignorence or a deliberate misrepresentation. As a previous poster noted, history (Secular history mind you) DOES record that Jesus lived and existed as an actual human being right here on planet Earth. Now how much past that you get largely depends upon faith, but please don't lower people opinions of your intelligence or honesty by making such obviously incorrect statements. I'd like to think that you're better than that.

Stellar you asked me about my feelings regarding Saucys statement regarding the ressurection of Jesus. Obviously I DO believe and accept that as a historical reality that this occured in the physical realm. I've seen and experienced enough to convince me of this. However I do realize that many people such as yourself have not, cannot, or will not accept this either because you have'nt seen enough convincing evidence, or you would'nt believe no matter what. You see, this is one of the areas that get most heated between those of faith and non-believers alike because if both sides are passionate about what they really believe then past a certain point it really can seem like the other side is being obstinate and willfully ignorant. Personally, I try to present my beliefs, and the reasons that I have them, while allowing for the different experiences of others who arrived at different conclusions than I did. However, that being said, (And this is where I get stubborn) I firmly believe that there IS one truth; one overall reality that we all exist in whethor it's my belief that God created everything and that The Bible is true, your belief that the universe exists unto itself and that everything is a natural process that can be explained through science, or if it's the old "maybe we're all tomatoes in some aliens garden or some such notion. But I DO believe that SOMETHING is ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

It's our perceptions and opinions that vary.

[aquatus1]

Well you seem well versed in th other theory and its presence, yet few in schools are taught creation science with the same vigor as evolutionary science.

Gsr, what exactly would be a lesson plan for creationism science? Could you sketch one out please, specifically the parts that show how it meets the prerequisites of scientific methodology? I'll repost them here, for your convenience:

The Scientific Method is as follows:

1: Observation

2: Hypothesis

3: Testing

4: Confirmation (regretably, an important step too often left out of books)

5: Theory

The prerequisites for scientific methodology are as follows:

1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result.

You must admit, that if you request that a creation science class be taught with the same vigor as an evolutionary science class, then at a minimum it must meet the same standards that evolution science had to meet prior to being considered a science.

Incidentally, during my short time as a teacher, I did have a half-hour lecture covering the various different types of creationist. To be perfectly frank, that was all the time I needed to completely cover everything scientifically. Do you believe it would take more time than this?

[BurnSide]

I'm sorry BurnSide but that was either a statement of ignorence or a deliberate misrepresentation.

No need to apologise Todd, it's just another difference of opinion.

Apparently, it was a statement of ignorance, i don't believe he ever existed as the Bible states. If he did, he was an average Joe.

[Stellar]

As a previous poster noted, history (Secular history mind you) DOES record that Jesus lived and existed as an actual human being right here on planet Earth.

Do not forget that christianity was too easily accepted as the truth in the past. And now, no history states that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible (Son of God who performes miracles) existed.

Stellar you asked me about my feelings regarding Saucys statement regarding the ressurection of Jesus. Obviously I DO believe and accept that as a historical reality that this occured in the physical realm.

Answer me this. Do you see the fault is saucy's argument when he says "The guy came back from the dead. How much more proof do you need?"

If you cant see the huge fault... I'm sorry but I wont be able to have a serious conversation with you any more. Im not asking you if you believe that he came back. I'm asking you if you see the fault in using that argument to prove christianity.

[Xenojjin]

for the most part i concur with the fact that arguing that the resurrection of christ is proof of christianity is just pointless . Its almost exactly the same as saying "since Im a christian , and your an athiest , I must be correct in my beliefs" -_-

[Stellar]

Thank you.. See saucy? (Then he complaines that we're unreasonable)

[Byuu94]

Deleted .... Unnecisary remarks ....

Edited July 25, 2004 by Kismit

[saucy]

First, I was just getting one more dumb statement out of my system (for example, refer to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!) I admit that my arguements in the past have indeed been weak and faulty. Don't underestimate me this time around through. I have many, many weapons and my language won't be so dull. I have to warn you that my posts will be considerably long. If you want to back out now, go ahead. I'm not saying you'll lose the arguement or anything, but once we get started, I'm sure we both will have many long posts.

Second, if anyone wants to get involved in this debate, post right here in this thread and let us know and we'll organize something. I will be on tomorrow to set everything up and to spit out what I got. You don't have to be part of the debate to throw in your two cents, but I don't want it overwhelming for either side, though I know it's more likely the odds will be against me. We need to find someone impartial to either side to judge the debates, someone who loves to read. This should be the very last time we get into creation vs. evolution, though just because I win doesn't mean you have to give up your religion or beliefs, or vise versa. Also, encouragement is greatly encouraged. If I make a good point or say something that's hard to counter, admit it and I will do the same. Everyone has until 1:00 eastern time to sign up if they want to debate. If someone would do the honors to find a judge please? Someone who really doesn't care and would be honest.

[Kismit]

I've allready asked for the antagonistc one liners to stop once . and I won't do it a third time . Unless future posted remarks by all members actually contain relative information to the thread I'm going to start handing out suspensions ...

[aquatus1]

Saucy I will accept an offer for a formal debate, i.e., one on one, with you arguing that proof of God exists, and myself arguing that proof of God does not exist.

There doesn't need to be any limit on the amount of posts we can make.

Edited July 25, 2004 by aquatus1

[saucy]

I'm going to start it all off here in the next few minutes in the debate thread. I have permission from Saruman. There will be no limits on who can participate or how many posts there will be, though a judge will be needed to grade us.

[Stellar]

Lol saucy... we have no problem as long as you DO understand what you're posting...

As for the judging... I find it hard to have a judge. If theres a judge... I feel it only fair that evolution will defend itsself AND try to disprove creationism, and not just defend itsself while creationists attack it. You accept that right? And as for a judge... it would need to be someone who's not atheist and someone who's not christian.

[aquatus1]

Pardon, but what happened to the debate threat that Saucy started? Was it deleted? Will it be started again? Hopefully with a bit more structure to it?

I remain willing to debate.

[Kismit]

The debate needs to be organised a little more .

Any-one interested in being a part of a debate team and wanting to debate the subject should make themselves known to either Saruman or post it in the debate section of the forum .

May I sugest that Saucy ,Augustus and Stellar all apply .

If you feel as strongly as you appear to , you could really kick some butt in the debates room .

Edited July 26, 2004 by Kismit

[gsr]

Strange thing, the man who codified the scientific method, Bacon, was a Christian with pastoral training.

Proposed outline for Astronomical to species origins.

Summary:

Evolution: Use contemporary astronomical to species arguments

Creatiom: Use contemporary astronomical to species arguments

As fas as specific content, many others have already developed them. The only things that need to be removed from these arguments are reference to any specific God or religious texts. Teach the contents of each argument side by side and debate the conclusions. After all creation and evolution are only theories, neither has been proven as absolute fact.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...iculum_info.asp

http://www.apologia.com/

http://www.nwcreation.net/homeschool.html

http://www.homeschooldiscount.com/hsp/biology.htm

http://www.homeschoolportal.com/directory/...aycat&catid=193

http://www.scienceormyth.org/resources.html

Teaching only one theory exclusively is promoting one religion or another. Allowing students to see and use both arguments to think for themselves, now that is science.

[BeenHereB4]

I feel whatever you need to believe in to make you happy is probably fine. However, a good friend of mine has become a very religious christian and she really freaked me out the other day when she looked at me and told me that I was going to hell because I do not pray to Jesus. My answer....... "if that's true than did all people go to hell before Jesus was born, because he sure wasn't around to pray to then????"

[Fluffybunny]

"if that's true than did all people go to hell before Jesus was born, because he sure wasn't around to pray to then????"

No, according to the bible folks that were not exposed to the religion supposedly get a chance when they die to make the decision...applies to babies and people that do not have the mental capacity to make that kind of decision.

the only time that you are in trouble is that if you have been exposed to "the truth' and choose not to believe.

Thats the way the story goes, in brief. correct me if I am wrong.

[Unorthodox Thesis]

Sometimes even a secular view is appreciated.

[Todd]

I just wanted to chime in on the issue of what becomes of the souls of those who were not exposed to the Gospel of Christ. Basically, the power of his sacrifice extended not only forward until the end of our world, but backward as well. Understanding that Jesus himself is part of the Holy Trinity; I.E. One third of "GOD", is key. GOD understands all, and there's no catching him off guard. God knows the hearts, the will, and the desires of every person who's ever lived. GOD knows who WOULD have obeyed the Gospel, regardless of the circumstances which may have prevented them from being exposed to it, as in the case of those who lived before the earthly appearance of Jesus. That's why none of the great hypothetical questions regarding people who, for some reason or another DID"NT obey The Bible, but WANTED TO, don't work. The story usually goes like this; "what about the guy on the deserted island that's never even heard of Jesus?" I think a better question is asked in the scriptures themselves when it's pondered "Is anything too difficult for God? The answer is no. He's Not going to be stupified, dumbfounded, or caught off-guard by any of the potential "What if?" situations that we come up with. He knows all. This also applies to the issue of babies, and those with mental barriers or handicaps. Children are innocent, free from sin. They have nothing to worry about. They don't even know what sin is. Until they realize what sin is, they're not held accountable by God and therefore need'nt be concerned with condemnation. Those who are mentally impaired are the same as children, in this regard if they truly don't know the differance. And remember that no matter how we might try and twist logic, and the facts around, there's no way that we can outsmart or change the design set up by the Creator of all. Nor should we want to, but still, some do. This is their right, as they have free will, but with decisions come consequences, good and bad. My prayer is that those out there who have honest hearts and will not summarilly dismiss the scriptures out of hand for ANY reason, will look for the truth. Jesus promised us that if we seek him we shall find him.

Well wishes and prayers to all.