Originally posted by Lionhearte
Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
reply to post by Lionhearte
But, what of the polytheistic flood myth that preceeded the biblical account?
It actually came about 1400 years after the flood.
Originally posted by theconspirator
It seems like everyone on here loves ron paul and the idea of liberty and freedom, but if you hear about someone beleiving in god, that goes out the window, and you all talk about how its dumb to beleive in that stuff. If someone beleives in god, why are you butt hurt. Why does it matter if religion is their freedom.
Originally posted by blackcube
I am scared for my fellow humans... I am just wondering when the Inquisition will come back
Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
But the whole thing falls apart when Paul comes into the picture,
Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
*IF* the maker exists, as in the one I believe in, then you have to assume a few more things - first, that Satan exists, and secondly, that free will exists.
This is where we jump the tracks, I'm afraid. Jesus' exhortations to "love one another" and to "try not to be so judgmental" make perfect sense to me. But the whole thing falls apart when Paul comes into the picture, and that's just the way I feel. YEARS of parochial school and a picture of a starving African baby taught me to trust that feeling.
I want to be absolutely clear: I will admit to a strongly belief or passion for the existence of "a maker," but I am not prepared to concede the rest of the characters in the Christian milieu and rogues gallery. It's great songwriting, and makes for wonderful drama, but the concept of a god that might -- through omnipotent omniscience -- create an entire universe and allow for the devil anyway due to "free-will" is, well -- as ludicrous as a psychic fair derailed by unforeseen emergency events. It doesn't add up for me.
That doesn't make the core concepts I mentioned above untrue, but the particulars? Not so much.edit on 6-6-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wisefoolishness
What about the Epic Of Gilgamesh? The stories are strikingly similar and the Epic is typically seen as predating the Flood story by a very small amount of time. Are they the same story that have become different over time? Or are they two stories, created then as we read them now- describing different religious beliefs?
Originally posted by RealSpoke
God Hex the USA
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Now just because this DID HAPPEN does not mean it effected the Whole Planet and even if all the Polar Ice both North and South along with Greenlands Ice sheet melted...it would not be enough to cover the Earth.
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Plus...it is a Scientific Possibility for two of each creature to either have enough room on the arch nor could just two...one male and one female have enough Genetic Diversity to repopulate the planet. The interbreeding amoung siblings would cause sterility as well as birth defects....BUT IT WAS A NICE STORY and I have never heard a Kid say different.
Records.. such as?
You see...there were other long running populations and civilizations that were on different parts of the Globe that existed during this time. They kept records too...very good and acurate records which shows that at this time...there were other Civilizations that existed that did not go through a flood...but as I said...there is sound scientific evidence that a great flood occured...just not one large enough to cover the planet. Split Infinity
Originally posted by conspiracy88
I believe in a creator and evolution. I don't understand why the two ideas are not compatible. I don't want to be associated with either side. Both sides can't think for themselves. One follows religion and the other follows well... religion (science).
Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by steve1709
EDIT: Sorry to barge in, I was reading in order again. =/
Be fair man, he already said he had no problem with micro-evolution. It's one thing to go off on someone whose story keeps changing, but he has been consistent in his beliefs in this regard.edit on 5-6-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)edit on 6-6-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Lionhearte
Originally posted by HumanCondition
46% of the US has a serious social mental illness.
46% of the US is retarded, and I am more intelligent then those 143 million people.
To the rest of you- Evolution is a theory and has NOT been observed, never, ever, ever. It has never been proven, and it is not science.
Debate me, I challenge you. Any claim, any question, any attack- I accept all.
It has the menacing sound of an Alfred Hitchcock movie: Millions of rats aren't even getting sick from pesticide doses that once killed them. In one county in England, these "super rats" have built up such resistance to certain toxins that they can consume five times as much poison as rats in other counties before dying. From insect larvae that keep munching on pesticide-laden cotton in the U.S. to head lice that won't wash out of children's hair, pests are slowly developing genetic shields that enable them to survive whatever poisons humans give them. ....
The chemical arsenal we have developed in an attempt to rid our homes of rodents and our crops of insects is losing its power. We have simply caused pest populations to evolve, unintentionally applying artificial selection in the form of pesticides. Individuals with a higher tolerance for our poisons survive and breed, and soon resistant individuals outnumber the ones we can control.
According to the Mansfield NewsJournal, John Freshwater, the Mount Vernon teacher fired for teaching creationism has lost his appeal....
.....The ruling said the referee set aside the Tesla coil incident, considering that case closed, but found multiple incidents where Freshwater repeatedly violated the Constitution, acted in defiance of orders by his superiors and failed to employ objectivity in his teaching of a variety of science subjects
The Institute for Creation Research suffered a significant legal defeat in its lawsuit over the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board’s 2008 decision to deny the ICR’s request for a state certificate of authority to offer a master’s degree in science education from its graduate school. A June 18, 2010, ruling in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found (PDF, p. 38) that “ICRGS [the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School] has not put forth evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to any claim it brings. Thus, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the totality of ICRGS’s claims against them in this lawsuit.”
Rodney LeVake has again failed in his effort to argue that he had free exercise, free speech, and due process rights to teach "evidence against evolution". On May 8, 2001, the Minnesota Appeals Court supported the summary judgment dismissal decision of the Minnesota District Court of last year (see RNCSE 2000; 20 [1-2]: 13-14).
Regarding the free exercise of religion claim, the Appeals Court wrote:
It is unclear on what basis LeVake argues that his right to free exercise of religion was violated. LeVake does not contend that respondents prohibited him from practicing the religion of his choice. He does not assert that respondents demanded that he refrain from practicing his religion outside of the scope of his duties as a public school teacher in order to retain his teaching position, and he does not assert that the curriculum requirements incidentally infringed on his religious practice.
Regarding the free speech argument, the Court supported the right of the district to determine curriculum, a position supported with abundant case law:
The classroom is a "marketplace of ideas," and academic freedom should be safeguarded. But LeVake, in his role as a public school teacher rather than as a private citizen, wanted to discuss the criticisms of evolution. LeVake's position paper established that he does not believe the theory of evolution is credible. Further, LeVake's proposed method of teaching evolution is in direct conflict with respondents' curriculum requirements. Accordingly, the established curriculum and LeVake's responsibility as a public school teacher to teach evolution in the manner prescribed by the curriculum overrides his First Amendment rights as a public citizen.
Regarding the due process claim, the Court wrote:
The school board may regulate a teacher's speech in the classroom if it has provided the teacher with specific notice of what conduct is prohibited. LeVake's due process claim is premised on his belief that respondents deprived him of his liberty interest to teach his class free "from state action which impinges upon and violated his constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise" by failing to provide him with adequate notice of what types of expression were prohibited before reassigning him. The cases LeVake relies on in making this argument involve the termination of teachers, but LeVake was not terminated. In fact, he was not even demoted. Further, before accepting the position to teach tenth-grade biology, LeVake understood that respondents' prescribed curriculum included teaching students about evolution. LeVake was given sufficient notice about what he could and could not teach through the established curriculum and the syllabus. [Citations omitted.]
Concluding the decision, the Court wrote:
Because LeVake's position paper and his statement to Hubert make it clear that LeVake would not teach the required course curriculum in the manner established by the school board, LeVake has not presented any genuine issue of material fact regarding his free exercise, free speech, and due process claims. Thus, the district court did not err in granting respondents' motion for summary judgment.
For the complete text of the decision, see www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...>.
‹ RNCSE 20 (5)upCreationism and the Emergence of Animals: The Original Spin ›.