send this guy a tape of the episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" from two weeks ago, it was on this topic.

Though he believes "Intellegant Design" is the theory of aliens creating us, and not "the science of creationism"

Though he believes "Intellegant Design" is the theory of aliens creating us, and not "the science of creationism"

What's the difference? You're just substituting aliens for God.

ID doesn't necessarily mean "creationism of the bible", though biblical creationists are usually the ones who champion the idea.

I'd also like to point out that Christianity is not united on the young earth vs. old earth issue, though some make it appear that way.

I always wonder how they look at the evidence and convince themselves it isn't true. I think I'd go insane

Well, I'd say if the theory has removed God from the picture for you, then that's a personal choice.

How about we worry about teaching the English language or basic math

How can the toug growing backwards into your skull be any advantage?

'll agree that the article that started this thread was about non-Christian-based ID

Easy. The scientific process used in dating and in the theory of evolution is laughable at best

And if you are a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, meaning everything in there is fact. Thus, you couldn't be a Christian and believe that God used evolution.

Even as a little kid, I wanted to know where the 3rd generation of people came from.

I think you can be a Christian, and believe in the Christian God, Jesus etc but can be sceptical of the writings in the bible as they were just written by people.

Ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics? Everything is moving to an increasing state of disorder. Things like harmful mutations, ingesting toxic substances, etc can have effects on the DNA...

Wrong actually. While older dating methods did have some flaws, and opened the door to "scientific non-proof" for all the creationism people, this newer one dosen't have such flaws. Isochron Dating is the proper term, and when someone from the Institue for Creation Research used it, they found some interesting results. They seem to think the Grand Canyon age issue debunks Isochron Dating, but they don't give any reason for this beyond the fact that the new data even puzzled scientists. My only idea is that since most of them believe the Earth is only thousands of years old, the 1.07 billion figure dosen't sit well with them.

I will admit even scientists have had a hard time with the Grand Canyon, but the dating method its self seems reliable

Ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics?

Well, *some* or even *many* Christians might believe that everything in the Bible is fact, but I can point out at least *one* counter-example of a Christian that *doesn't* think everything in the Bible is fact, let alone necessarily "inspired". Why?

a) Jesus taught in parables, right? I.e. stories. The stories weren't about fact, but were used as illustrative purposes to get a point across. If Jesus can do it, then why can't the people that wrote the Bible, inspired or not?

No matter how inspired a writer might be, do you think many people would really, honestly, truly understand if he went off about the big bang and primordial soup and micro-organisms and carbon based life-forms and DNA and evolution, supposing that that's what really happened?

c) The content of the Bible has been under the control of people who's aims have been less Godly than Worldly.

The whole idea of picking and choosing what you believe in the Bible is ludicrous to me. You either believe in it or you don't.

Why can't you? The bible is nothing more than a bunch of short stories in a compendium. Some of them are factual, some of them are fictional, some of them are op-ed, some of them are straight historical documents.

This is in the FAQ. Also here.

Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.

Did he do it in seven days? It's difficult to tell, even biblical scholars debate this point.

Why can't you? The bible is nothing more than a bunch of short stories in a compendium. Some of them are factual, some of them are fictional, some of them are op-ed, some of them are straight historical documents.

Only because you personally have decided to believe it all... do you find the notion of a document, some of which is true, some of which isn't, "ludicrous" in other walks of life?

Hey, I don't like that part in there where it says I can't kill, so I'm just going to ignore it.

I always wonder how people can assume all of the Bible can be true when so much of it contradicts itself. Obviously, some of it must be false.

So which part do you believe in? The part that says not to kill or the part that tells you to kill me because I work on Sunday?

Why do you have to be associated with a religion to do that?

And if you ask me, zero to a goo of cells is the hard bit; goo to us sounds easy by comparison.

So you're just arguing the semantics of something you don't believe in? That seems like a waste of time.

That's not quite what I was getting at: that reading you provided (if you interpret it correctly) says that we can't accept the New Testament as, er, gospel, without refusing to accept Deuteronomy 4:2 as gospel. So you've got to pick-and-choose either way.

That's an interesting observation that got a bit lost in the arguing. I can understand how misogyny crept in in translation (male pronouns for God etc.), but have you got a source for the homosexuality thing? Seems to me that plenty of people ought to be told about it if the bibles they thump aren't, in fact, anti-gay.

Naturally...not being a Texan and all...

"Thou shalt not kill" truly is a bad translation, at least for our vernacular... it made a little more sense in 1611.

The Bible is very clear through both testaments and several authors that homosexuality is a sin.

The Old Testament has a lot of sins that people violate every day. That was the purpose of it. To show that man could never follow all those rules and live a sin free life. It showed that if they wanted to follow God, they would need the Messiah.

How come self-decadence is sinful?

Hang on, are you saying that even consensual orgies are disgusting and/or wrong, or are you saying the Romans went in for nonconsensual orgies? How come self-decadence is sinful?

Almost correct. Yes the law was to demonstrate that people needed the Messiah, but that doesn't mean that what was sin then is no longer sin. While we are no longer required to adhere to the laws pertaining to worship practices and government because of the crucifixion, we are still under the “moral” law, where homosexuality would fall. It is still sin and therefore in conflict of living the Christian life.

This statement is both wrong and representative of why discussions such as this one should not define people's beliefs. The orginal manuscripts of the old and new testaments are not extant. The Old Testament manuscripts were destroyed as the became worn. The New Testament documents will probably never be found either.

Whatever else you can say about the Lord, He's a marketing genius. "I'll impose all these arbitrary rules on you, specifically aimed at making it impossible to follow them all, and then I'll offer you a new faith-based product in which following these rules is not the prerequisite for salvation." That's right up there with "New Windows 95 doesn't restrict you to 8.3 filenames" in the arena of selling solutions to problems the seller created in the first place.

But that just falls into the whole picking and choosing part again.

My point is that nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say it's ok to hate and alienate. But people do that everyday in his name.

'll impose all these arbitrary rules on you, specifically aimed at making it impossible to follow them all. . .

Jesus was fully man and he did it.

If Adam had not fallen he would have been able to follow the law perfectly as well.

This is the same as saying if he hadn't eaten an apple, then he wouldn't have eaten an apple -- a meaningless tautology.

If Adam had not fallen he would have been able to follow the law perfectly as well.

If Adam had not [committed a sin] he would have been able to [commit no sins]

Either I believe the God I have a personal relationship with to be capable of keeping His text pure or I don't.

That is one of biggest problems I have with Christian theology (and Judaic and Islamic, of course): why would a perfect beign create an imperfect creature and then punish it for not being perfect?

Always avoiding the wrong thing would not be free will.

In addition, Calvinists would claim that you're out-and-out wrong, and I don't think anyone could make a reasonable argument that they're not Christian.

some of the entries on the serious lists of Eskimo snow words are as dubious as "wa-ter" meaning melted snow

Except that it isn't impossible to follow them all. Jesus was fully man and he did it. If Adam had not fallen he would have been able to follow the law perfectly as well. All the law does is demonstrate what is already true: that we reject God and instead focus on ourselves.

On the contrary. I would like warm and fuzzy feeling of having somebody watch over me (I don't worry about having to stick to It's ethics - my private version of it is close enough to that published by Christians), but, sadly, I don't see any evidence of such Someone's existence. Many early (and some modern) scientists found themselves torn between what they see and what more ortodox interpretation of their religion teaches.

Here's a question; has anybody heard of Darwin's Confession, where Darwin, nearing the end of his days, recanted everything he said about evolution? I've always hear that it's real or fake, depending who you talk to, but I've never seen any facts about.

Q: Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?

A: The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ.

This part I always thought was odd. Now was Jesus all Man, or all God? According to the text he's supposed to be both. So of course he could live a life without sin, he's God. He had some help.

I should finally learn to read the whole thread before responding; half of this post repeats Tony's response

We currently don't know how the 'first spark of life' came into existence.

Obviously, if they were different we would not be here to observe them

One of the things that bugs me is when some creationists try to talk about biological evolution and the Big Bang theory in the same breath. They're two different and completely unrelated theories.

Evolution doesn't try to answer the question "where did the universe come from?" It only answers the biological question of how life on this planet became so intricate and complex. Heck, even the Big Bang theory doesn't answer the "where did the universe come from" question, it only theorizes about the first moment of the universe's existence.

Creationists like to argue that the first spark of life on this planet, the first time molecules assembled into self-replicating strands, had astronomical odds against it. Scientists counter with: "Yeah, but we had oceans of molecules working on the problem for eons". I counter with: "You're both forgetting that we had an entire universe full of planets, many of them with oceans of molecules working on the problem."

We're sitting on a winning lottery ticket, and we've got the evidence to show it. Those who say the game was rigged are missing out on the true wonder and appreciation for the situation.

No matter how much time or energy was spent "working" (in the metaphorical sense ) on it, it's still difficult to see how molecules could come together without outside intervention to make un-life into life.

If we weren't able to sit here contemplating our own existence, then we wouldn't be contemplating our own existence.

The WAP is significant in that it makes the improbability of any one universe (i.e. our own) irrelevant. We should expect that our universe has features compatible with our existence, since, after all, we exist.

Somewhere, somehow, something exists or existed that was never created. Some say our universe itself never had a beginning, other theories include timeless other dimensions that created this one. Christians believe it is God.

No, it is saying if he hadn't eaten the apple he'd have been obeying God.

if that was all that Christians believed about God, it would merely be an unusual definition of the word

(paraphrased from the "gifts of fruit" sequence in The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, but no less valid IMO for being penned by a novelist, not a theologian)

The "Babel fish" piece also contains a message to theologians and non-theologians alike in how we can tie ourselves in knots with simple logic (not to mention being about my favorite sequence from any piece of fiction).

I don't remember that part (we are talking about the book, correct?)