Originally posted by James the Lesser
"Friend, I am a '22 Scientist'. I want to introduce you to a beautiful and simple truth: 2 + 2 = 22. You can just look at it and it is obvious. The evidence for this fact is all around us. We are surrounded by the number 22, and EVERY SINGLE '22' shows how it is created, by adding '2' and '2'. Glory be!" [\quote]
sure if that is realy what you believe why should you not question that 2+2=4 and not 22? how else can you learn? this is not the same thing.

Some christian using this to get creation in public school science classes.

why should creation NOT be in a science class, afterall both are differing VIEWS on how we came to be? would you not agree that in the examples of the earth being flator round, or the earth not revolveing arround the sun as apposed to the sun revolveing arround the earth, in the historical context would have been better than the OUTLAWING of those THEORIES later to be PROVEN true (as much as we can see for ourselves now)? the point is NEITHER CRATION OR EVOLUTION can be PROVEN to be true at this point beyond any doubt. why should EVOLUTION be taught as correct and not say CREATION be taught as correct? you believe in EVOLUTION where i believe in CREATION. why should only ONE be CONSIDDERED correct. BOTH TAKE THE SAME AMMOUNT OF FAITH TO BELIEVE IN. NEITHER CAN BE PROVEN at least at thjis point. the verry fact that you believe that evolution should be taught as correct make YOU the verry SAME as the CHUCH eaching that THEIR interpitation of the earth being FLAT is true. the only differance is that so far EVOLUTIONISTS have not tryed to KILL OFF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN CREATION. and that is only true SO FAR. it could happen you never know what THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE THE ONLY RIGHT ANSWER will do. in THIS IMPORTANT aspect EVOLUTIONISTS ARE THE SAME AS THE CATHOLC CHURCH AT THAT TIME.


[edit on 6-5-2005 by drogo]

Save for the fact that there is no evidence to back up the "theory" of creationism. There is about as much evidence supporting creationism as there is supporting my new theory of how wind is caused by invisible demons breathing on me. Faith does not exist where there is evidence. Although you may not be believe there is enough evidence supporting evolution there is still evidence supporting it (alot more then creationism) Scientists didnt all just wake up one day all over the world and say hmm I'm going to believe in evolution. They looked at the evidence saw that the theory worked used the theory to make theories of their own and found the original theory still held despite a hundred years of advances. If any credible evidence negating evolution did arise the scientific community would take notice and absorb the new data into the whole and form new theories to replace evolution.

Originally posted by drogo

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Of course, yelling is done by both sides, one yells "KILL everyone who doesn't worship me" the other side yells "Pull your head out of your ass and look at the facts!".

i must say james your ovious HATE of religion is disturbing. that "kill everyone who dosn't worship me" bit is not something that i have seen.

Then read more history, or read the bible. All opposed, get destroyed. Entire cities can be wiped out, and its perfectly moral. God will even stop the sun in its path in order to allow the beleivers to have more daylight to more thoroughly eradicate/extreminate a tribe of non-beleivers. Religion kills, look that the various islamic jihads, the crusades (both in europe and in the levant). The witch trials. Millions of women were executed by the church in europe, and protestants obviosuly aren't safe from that god-fearing panic. Lets not pretned that the followers of any religion are somehow peaceful loving people. The historical tendency is torwards wholesale slaughter. Its certainly below the surface today. When a movie about Jesus Christ was made, what did it focus on? His horrific and tortuous and absolutely savage beating. A valid topic, but why so popular? And whats one of the biggest selling book series today? The 'Left behind" series. Whats that about? All nonbeleivers getting tortured for years and horribly and maliciously destroyed by an angry hatefilled merciless god who allows demonic armeis to rape/pillage/sack destroy the nonbeleivers. Nonbeleivers melt off their bones and drop dead from boils, in all the horrible gory glory. Its very strong, the big fans of the books are practically salivating over the nonbeleivers (and in this case thats everyone except a tiny number of evangelical christians) being brutally savaged.

i guess it was possible certainly some people were killed over these things but rape? slaghter?

Lets not pretend that when a town of pious christians were a panic over witch 'harlots' and whatnot that they simply killed them.

yup the catholic church was guilty of doing this

[i[Every christian demoniation, practically, is guilty of doing this. The RCC is just the biggest and longest living one.

then again THERE WAS APSOLUTLY NO "REASONING" FOR THIS IN THE BIBLE.

nice, so the peopel that did, well they just weren't christians. Very helpful.

actualy find it amuseing when "evolutionists" call foul on the rcc for doing in the past, what they are currantly doing

Nonsense. The church, in those dark ages, supressed science and rational thought. Evolution is science, and creationists are supressing rational thought in favour of religious piety, it hardly matters that creationists are biblical literalist and the RCC tended to not be literalist in its reading.

you would thjink that when they blaim the church for being unbending to "other ideas"

The churches invovled in this aren't merely unbending ot other ideas, they are rejection rational thought and pretending that their religion is a science. Most churches don't do this, and most christians who accept that evolution happens don't have a problem with it, just like most evolutionists are just christians.

just as the rcc dammed, called heritics and tryed to persecute those believeing in a "round earth", and that the universe was not doing as they thought. the "evolutionists" are currantly damming, calling heritics, and "persecuting" those who think differantly from them. it is a double standard that bears looking at.

Baloney. The creationists are the ones sending out propaganda, they are the ones paying money to candidates, they are the ones using the courts to foist their religion on teh public. The idea that the people practicing science are like the 'church in the dark ages' is preposterous. Its the creationists who are denying plainly scientific ideas, just like the church used to reject heliocentrism, and condeming nonbeleivers to, if nothing else, hell.

what i did SAY however that it was ACTION of MEN with NO backing from the BIBLE.

What does that matter? Every christian church does stuff thats not in the bible. No church is 'only biblical', the bible has to be interpreted in various ways. Creationism is the perfect example, there's nothign in the bible about 'vapour canopies' or 'dinosaurs on the ark' or anything like that, but these people insert stuff into the faith, unbiblically.

Nygdan,
Fanatism, of any sort, if it be, religious, political, and yes, even of science, has throughout history, led to atrocities being commited.

I do not agree with the agenda that the adult leaders are doing in that they are attempting to upset the educational system. I do disagree (strongly) that teachers should find this to confrontational. The teachers should accept these and any questions with an open mind and stand ready to respond to them in an appropriate manner. Educate these students and explain to them why these questions and beliefs are false. Only by doing this, can the cloud, of mis-information be lifted.
If educators avoid and deny these questions, it will only lead to a continuance of the mis-information.

If the evolutionary theory, does indeed turn out to be factual, then great. if they have to modify it, that is good also. But, society, as well as our education system, not addressing mis-information, only bolsters the mis-conception that it maybe wrong.

One other point, if the public education system is only make students civically minded and responsible and moderately educated individuals.
Then that is sorry state of affairs to leave our children to. Do you not see where, this type of thinking, belief will only lead into something in the nature of "1984" and other such scenarios? If our education system, only addresses the minimum needed, then we are only going to create a generation of sheep.

There was a book that I read a few years ago. In the ood, there was a story of one country of low-tech people that were invaded and conquered by a more civilized people. The people of the first country benefitted greatly from the invasion, they learned to farm better, had a bretter legal system, a better education system.

Generations after, the invaders, allowed the people they invaded, to take over the education system instructing both the invaded as well as the invaders. The ones that had been invaded took advantage of this, and eventually, they brought aroung the belief that the invaders who had done so much for them were evil and could not be trusted. The invaded, eventually were able to take over the country again. The invaders became uneducated slaves who believed that it was right and proper for them to be in this caste.

If the issue of this forum was the opposite of what it is, it the topic were that a private school did not want to teach evolution instead of creationism, then I would be fighting on the side of the evolutionist. Elementary, and high schools should not close the doors to asking questions. They should invite the questions, They should answer the questions. they should lead the students to the light of clarity, NOT KEEP THEM IN THE DARK! by refusing to answer, by denying other lines of thoughts.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Nygdan,
Fanatism, of any sort, if it be, religious, political, and yes, even of science, has throughout history, led to atrocities being commited.

Right, and the vast majority of the destruction has come from the extremely pious and relgious.

I do disagree (strongly) that teachers should find this to confrontational.

Its confrontational only because of the people manipulating the eductional system. They can't openly talk about it, because they get jumped on as being anti-religious.

The teachers should accept these and any questions with an open mind and stand ready to respond to them in an appropriate manner.

If only the students, parents, and educational boards would keep a similarly 'open mind' about the answers, rather than casitgate scientistst and teachers as being anti-christian.

Educate these students and explain to them why these questions and beliefs are false.

The teaching of evolution itself answers why these questions are false. And for the most part, as long as it doesn't invovle god, teachers answer these questions anyway. Apparently, in this guys class room and school, the religionists have gotten out of hand, and have created a confrontational atmoshere.

Only by doing this, can the cloud, of mis-information be lifted.

Unlikely, because these questions have been answered repeatedly, and are still, repeatedly, propped up again. I can understand the students not knowing the aswers, but the peopel distributing these questions, they know the answers. Its not simply being misinformed, its tantamount to lying and deceiving.

If the evolutionary theory, does indeed turn out to be factual

Its not like there is any real question about this. You state it like there is still serious debate within the scientific community. The fact is, evolution, change in species over time, occurs. Darwin's hypothesis, that adpations arise thru a mechanism of natural selection, has been the consensus theory for at least a hundred years now.

But, society, as well as our education system, not addressing mis-information, only bolsters the mis-conception that it maybe wrong.

Indeed, lets address the misinformation, lets have these students made aware of the lying and deceiving on the part of the big promoters of creationism.

Do you not see where, this type of thinking, belief will only lead into something in the nature of "1984" and other such scenarios?

Nope. It doesn't need to be that way. Students need a basic education. Why should the government provide it, just to educate people? Thats not the role of the government. Over time, american society has decided that its better off to have educated people. Why? because then they are more civically minded. Not because of some vague goal of education in and of itself. Lets not pretend that education has ever been the goal.
Regardless. a public school is something that needs to give all the students at least a basic education, wasting time addressing the idiotic faux 'concerns' of creationist advocates isn't helping the process along.

If our education system, only addresses the minimum needed, then we are only going to create a generation of sheep.

Want more than the minimum? Well, putting a bogus pseudo-philosophical religious stystem in the classrooms won't help that out. If the general public has become less rational, less thinking, and 'dumber' over the years, then creationism is a big part of that. Creationism is in part a cause and in part a symptom of that.

Elementary, and high schools should not close the doors to asking questions.

This is the problem. Creationists do not want the questions answered. They put up a front of simply having 'valid concerns', when in reality, all of their bogus claims have been addressed countless times, and their questions are simply nothign more than an effort to distrupt classes, create an environment of confrontationalism, and work to get their faith taught in schools to all students as if it were objective fact.

NOT KEEP THEM IN THE DARK! by refusing to answer, by denying other lines of thoughts.

The last time people like the creationists were in power, it was the dark ages. They reject science, rational thought, logic, everything. They are biblicists, not honest and ardent enquirers of the natural world. The whole bit about 'just asking a question' is a complete and total facade. The questions are bogus, they kids aren't even comming up with them on their own, they are, literally, being fed these already answered and completely bogus questions by the peopel running some of these creationist movements. Giving in to this absurdity is working to make the schools less about education and more about their own religion.

I am sorry but you seem to mis-understand me when I said only teaching the minimum. When I said that, I was refering to the teachers only teaching straight from a book, a slide presentation, teaching the test.
This is the mentality of many of our school districts today.
Although this forum is targeting the evolution vs. creationism issue, I believe that the issue is much much larger.
I know it has been many many year since I attended either elementary school or high school. I was able to attend some of the very best schools as well as some of the poorest schools.
Even in the poorest ghetto school, the teachers went out of their way to educate the students. To get the students to question things. To seek out the "truth" for themselves. The teachers would be flabbergasted, by the way we "teach" our children today. By continuing to only teach the book / test, we are allowing our schools systems to dummy down our children.
My son is 13 years old. I continually push him to think for himself. To use not only myself, but his teachers, our pastor, the libraries, anyone any where, to try and find the base truth of any question.
As you may have seen in an earlier post, I had to "fight" the local school district so that my son could actually turn in a book report without it being automatically failed since it was on the banned book list.
The book, was the Lord of the Flies. When I was in school, this was a required (summer) reading. In today's schools, around here, it is banned.

I am 100% against anything and anyone that puts up a roadblock to the education of my son or anyone's child for that matter.

It is up to the parent to teach the children the basics and to engender a querstioning mind. It is the schools and teachers to continue the promotion of such.

Also, as long as evolution is considered a theory, then yes, I will not accept it as being 100% factual. Once it is completely proven, and is considered fact, then I will accept it. Theories, are updated modified continually as new information is gathered.
The solid belief that a theory is fact, will crush you or anyone else if you do not allow for the acceptance that there maybe something that will alter the theory or aven make it invalid. That is what a theory is for. Until proven as fact. It is just an idea. Yes, evolutionism has a lot of facts to back it up, but as you know, it has had to undergo many changes since Darwin first penned it so that it could allow for new facts.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
This is the mentality of many of our school districts today.

Well, lets not open that can of worms at the moment anyway.

The book, was the Lord of the Flies.

:0 Un-freaking beleivable.

I am 100% against anything and anyone that puts up a roadblock to the education of my son or anyone's child for that matter.

Good, they you will find yourself completely opposed to the creationist movement.

Also, as long as evolution is considered a theory, then yes, I will not accept it as being 100% factual.

Nor should you.

Once it is completely proven, and is considered fact, then I will accept it.

The Theory of evolution will never be proven. No theories are ever proven. The theory of gravity? Not proven. Atomic Theory? Not proven, never will be. The fact that atomic bombs go 'bang'? That if you throw a baseball up it will fall back down? That populations change over time? Sure, we can see that those things happen. But the theories about them, never, they'll never be proven.

The solid belief that a theory is fact, will crush you or anyone else if you do not allow for the acceptance that there maybe something that will alter the theory or aven make it invalid.

I think if we can't have a correct thinking about it, and have to have one of two incorrect thinkings about it, then I'd prefer that people 'accepted' evolution without investigating it in detail, rather than accept the anti-thinking dogma of creationism. At least the people accepting evoltuion are encouraged to think critically, they just aren't doing it very much. Whereas with creationism, you must not think critically, and must accept biblical dogma as blind faith.

has had to undergo many changes since Darwin first penned it so that it could allow for new facts.

Actually, evolution isn't that different from Darwin's day. True, some big things happened. Man discoverd gene and dna, and more importantly, developed an understanding of the basis of heredity. Darwin thought inheritenance 'blended' and was propagated by materials he called 'gemmules' (or some such). His theory was completely 'wrong'. The genetic theory is more 'correct' (tho not a fact notice). This lead to somethign of a schism between 'darwinists' and 'mutationists', which sounds absurd today, because mutationism/genetics were incorporated into darwinism during the 'Evolutionary Synthesis' of about a hundred years ago.
That was the big change. Gould and Eldridges punctuated Equilibrium and multiple levels of selection is another theory that might lead to a 'change'.
I think it'd be great if students could look at it in that detail.
But they can't. You can't teach science by teaching, say, greek philosophy, then alchemy, then natural theology, and then modern science, etc etc. You teach the basics of what there's a long standing consensus on. Therefore, you teach genetics and populational biology, the fossil record, etc etc, but not Gould's advanced theories or Kimura's really advanced stuff. You have kids read textbooks, not Dawkins, and certainly not the illegitimate and unscienfitic stuff that creationsts dishonestly put forward.
(And, agian, just to be clear, I'm not talking about 'all creationists', but rather the peopel that run places like AIG and ICR and DI, etc etc).
IF there actually was such a thing as scientific creationism, that had theories and data and a scientific rationale, I'd say, 'go for it'. It doesn't, so it should be opposed on that alone, neverminding the political aspirations of its pushers.
The time of the whole class shouldn't be wasted on teaching creationism (and I agree, in general: a student asks a question, you answer it, unless its 'but the jesus says this so how can what you say be true', thats a religious discussion), anymore than it should be wasted on teaching kabbala or sufism or hindu explantions of the primary 'elemets' and whatnot.

I always feel that Darwin Theory is worth of classroom discussion and so is creationism.

Both theories are missing the "link" any way, so they could be discussed without not body really winning anything.

I think it will be a good introduction before going into the topics of anthropology and the prove of the species that where forgotten by the creation myth and the bible but their fossils can be found anywhere.

After all human beings has not been the only species that walk the earth in two legs.

Correct!
The mention that "jesus says" or any other religious reference in the question should be stopped but not the question itself. That is the distinction that I make (and I hope the parents/ teachers/ students) will also make.
The whole problem that I had with the news article was the teachers feeling that the students asking the questions to them is "comfrontational". It should never be considered as such by a teacher.
When I was in school, the teacher would not only teach the book, they would put out an idea, and guide the students to the answer. Not just give it to them on a silver platter nor shutting the doow to an open discussion.

When I attended La Salle Academy, which is ran by Fransican monks, both the creationist theory as presented by the bible as well as the evolutionary theory was taught. They presented the catholic version due to a couple of reasons, one, they of course were of the roman cathoolic faith. second, the catholic version of creationism has / had the most followers / believers.
It is my opinion that the educators should take the same track and actually, spend maybe one class period, to teach the students. Maybe even do it like it was done in my day, put the idea out their and let the students debate it while guiding them to the correct (accepted) outcome.

Marg, which creation theory would you have taught in science class?

Ancient greek myths?

Hindu creation?

Maybe Shinto?

Theories about creation were covered in my high school. It was called humanities. I also learned the greek myths in literature.

The bibles creation story belongs with all the others. There is absolutey no evidence for a 6,000 year old earth.

If there was, then it would be taught in science class.


Evolution is the only theory out there with such a huge body of evidence. That is why it is accepted, not because scientists have an agenda.

You know I find it funny that I grew up in a dominated Catholic believes in my Spanish Island.

We covered Darwinism in 9 grade alone with other subjects like anthropology, and it was never any arguments about religion.

We also celebrated during Christmas with baby Jesus motto and prayer was allowed in the school grounds.

We all manage to get along well, until preaching started in the school grounds and the school had to stop it.

Learning of different point of views, theories, religions and believes is part of education, but when education is geared toward one type of way of thinking or believe is hindering the learning process and stop the children from making their own comparison and making their own decisions.

I find that dangerous in a society unless you want the population control from childhood.

I'm not saying creation should not be taught at all in school, just that it doesn't belong in biology class.

Like I said, my high school offered an elective called humanities that included discussion of the various religions of the world.

All I'm saying is keep it out of science class.

We don't teach "the science of miracles" in physics, and we shouldn't teach "the science of creation" in biology.

I actually think we should teach an elective called "the science of religion" where all the scientific arguments for and against religion can be taught.

No one is showing up for the same reason NASA doesn't respond to the apollo hoax believers.

By showing up, they contend that the creationist argument is worth debating.

It is not, even though that never stops me.

I commend them for not giving in to the creationist tactics.

By the scientific community refusing to address the issue, it only goes to add more fuel to the creationist arguments.
As the article mentions, there are a number of communities and states that are facing the same issue. This is an issue that will need to be addressed by them at some point in the very near future or else the very thing that they are against, the promotion of creationism being taught in the classroom will occur.

As I said, by the scientific community as well as the teachers, sticking their heads in the sand aqnd refusing to at least respond and somehow address these questions is very un-scientific.
Again, I note, that I am not a proponent for either theory, I am a proponent for teaching the students to use their own minds to figure out what is drivel and what is fact / theory.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Then read more history, or read the bible. All opposed, get destroyed. Entire cities can be wiped out, and its perfectly moral. God will even stop the sun in its path in order to allow the beleivers to have more daylight to more thoroughly eradicate/extreminate a tribe of non-beleivers.

i never denied this. God has indeed killed many by his own power, and done things like make the sun stand still for the benifet of his orders. that is God's business for those acts directly. you will also take note that after sending his son to die for our sins that he has ceased dirrect interferance untill the end of times.

Religion kills, look that the various islamic jihads, the crusades (both in europe and in the levant). The witch trials. Millions of women were executed by the church in europe, and protestants obviosuly aren't safe from that god-fearing panic. Lets not pretned that the followers of any religion are somehow peaceful loving people. The historical tendency is torwards wholesale slaughter. Its certainly below the surface today.

these acts are acts of MEN done in God's name. these things are all done to benifit people involved and not god. the witch trials are a very good example of this. you DID NOT HAVE TO BE A WITCH TO STAND ACCUSED. all yo needed was someone who had something to gain. like revenge for a possible or even imgioned slight. or in some cases propety was gained through someone's being a so called witch. this was simple human greed and revenge, God had nothing to do with it except for the fact that it has been supposidly done in his name.

as you pointed out we now are dealing with some millitant muslims who are useing God's name to do their deeds. most muslems however are telling us that this is not done according to that religion, but by those who have TWISTED religion to suit their own purposes.

When a movie about Jesus Christ was made, what did it focus on? His horrific and tortuous and absolutely savage beating. A valid topic, but why so popular?

i never bothered to see it yet. but from your comment it seems that there was some foucasing on the suffering of christ. well why not? it is written that he so suffered, or did they add extra stuff in? if they did not add extra then why not. he certainly did suffer brutal beatings includeing whipping, and a crown of thorns. it is also fairly well documented that roman punishments were extreemly cruel. why was it so popular? easy it is a portrayal of what happened to the one who is amonst the highest important people in our lives and religion. just as the norse sagas that talked of their gods were very important to them and would have been retold many times over. if the norse had film, i am sure that there would have been many popular movies based upon those sagas.

And whats one of the biggest selling book series today? The 'Left behind" series. Whats that about? All nonbeleivers getting tortured for years and horribly and maliciously destroyed by an angry hatefilled merciless god who allows demonic armeis to rape/pillage/sack destroy the nonbeleivers. Nonbeleivers melt off their bones and drop dead from boils, in all the horrible gory glory. Its very strong, the big fans of the books are practically salivating over the nonbeleivers (and in this case thats everyone except a tiny number of evangelical christians) being brutally savaged.

sorry i never heard of it. but i will take your word about it. is god being mercyless? not realy after all we would have had plenty of warning that that was going to happen, it has been fortold to all in revilation. how do you know that people are "salivateing" about this? can you read their minds? most christians i know hold great pitty for those who will suffer this fate, not be gleefull about it. and why would unbelievers even care? to them the bible is just a big fairy tale isn't it? if they believe it then why don't they do the very simple thing to be saved? after all it has no finatual cost and is a simple thing to do. just believe and acept christ, ask for forgiveness and forgivness will be yours. this offer is open to anyone who wants it.

Lets not pretend that when a town of pious christians were a panic over witch 'harlots' and whatnot that they simply killed them.

yup the catholic church was guilty of doing this

[i[Every christian demoniation, practically, is guilty of doing this. The RCC is just the biggest and longest living one.

well i don't know about almost "Every demonomination" is guilty of this. some are certainly. but isn't it rather predudical to point at almost every church for this? heck even most alive today are not guilty of this. and killing "them" was certainly for their benifit and not God's. just because something is done in someones name does not necisarily mean that it was INDEED your wish to have such done.

then again THERE WAS APSOLUTLY NO "REASONING" FOR THIS IN THE BIBLE.

nice, so the peopel that did, well they just weren't christians. Very helpful.


i never said that they were not christians. i said that they had no real foundation to do these things. just being a christan does not give you the ultimate wisdom of being compleatly right. or the legality to act upon it. they were certainly missguided and ultimately sinning, but we are all after all only human. we can only strive to act in a way that is acording to God's will, we have no asurance that we are always right.

Nonsense. The church, in those dark ages, supressed science and rational thought. Evolution is science, and creationists are supressing rational thought in favour of religious piety, it hardly matters that creationists are biblical literalist and the RCC tended to not be literalist in its reading.

just as evolutionists are trying to surpress creation. if creationists were doing the supressing we would be learning of creation in schools and not evolution. as i said it is evolutionists that are doing the currant supressions, otherwise we would be learning about at least BOTH UNPROVAN THEORIES, not just evolution. and there is nothing any more irrational in the belief of creation than the belief of evolution.

you would thjink that when they blaim the church for being unbending to "other ideas"

The churches invovled in this aren't merely unbending ot other ideas, they are rejection rational thought and pretending that their religion is a science. Most churches don't do this, and most christians who accept that evolution happens don't have a problem with it, just like most evolutionists are just christians.

most christians do not considder religion a sciance. however we do have the beginning of the world documented, and it makes the same ammount of sence as evolution if not more. everyone does not have to believe in it, just as everyone dosn't believe in evolution. that is exactly why BOTH should be taught, possibly there are even other theories that should be taught as well taht are equily valid. why would a christian who believes in the theory of evolution have a problem with it? after all they believe in it. and if most evolutionists are christians does that mean that much of the world being non-christans do not believe in this theory either? if that is the case then why force feed it to studen's so much?

[qoute]Baloney. The creationists are the ones sending out propaganda, they are the ones paying money to candidates, they are the ones using the courts to foist their religion on teh public. The idea that the people practicing science are like the 'church in the dark ages' is preposterous. Its the creationists who are denying plainly scientific ideas, just like the church used to reject heliocentrism, and condeming nonbeleivers to, if nothing else, hell.

and teaching evolution in all schools while totaly ignoreing another theory that is just as valid, is not proppaganda? who are the ones currantly "foisting their ideas on the public"? lets see that would be the evolutionists that are shoveing their theory down childrens throughts as truth. pro-creationists would like BOTH to be taught EQUILY at least most would. after all neither one can be considdered apsolutely correct, so why do evolutionists try to make it seem so.

and yes i do find comparison to the "church of the dark ages" to evolutionary sciance/i], for one important factor. BOTH ARE SURPRESSING OTHER IDEAS and MAINTAINING that theirs are ONLY CORRECT ones.

What does that matter? Every christian church does stuff thats not in the bible. No church is 'only biblical', the bible has to be interpreted in various ways. Creationism is the perfect example, there's nothign in the bible about 'vapour canopies' or 'dinosaurs on the ark' or anything like that, but these people insert stuff into the faith, unbiblically.

why is the fact that many see things differantly when reading the bible, or any other book for that matter. just talk to any cop about the differances in "eye witness" statements. everyone is telling the truth of "what they" saw, and most can be surpriseingly differant, from each other. yet all involved are telling EXACTLY what THEY SAW.

what the heck is a "vapour canopy"?never heard of it.

only a few spacific creatures are referred to in the biblical account of the ark. the biblical dimmentions of the ark, mind you we are not 100% sure of the exact size of the units used, make the ark aporoximately the size of two ww2 liberty ships attached to each other side by side. so there is plenty of room on it. also are we perhapes wrong in our asumption that some of the dinosaurs may have been more aquatic then we creadit them for? it is possible. also with all the KNOWN creatures that we have hunted or even destroyed their habitats to cause extinction. who is to say that dinasaurs were amoung the first extinct creatures, there could have even been some "natural" occurance that wiped them out. thing is we just do not know. perhapse some or all of this is what happened. WE JUST DO NOT KNOW.