Free Republic

yeah, the movie actually addresses the issue of it being opposed by “most scientists” the problem with this question is that if anyone tries to validate anything other than the TOE then the scientific community disowns them, so by your definition they are no longer scientists. This creates the paradox that “no scientists support the Idea of Creative Design”

Tender Warrior by Stew Webber, incredible spiritual growth book for men.

you know it’s funny, Evos attack our concepts saying that they are based only on beliefs, and “beliefs are not science” but, the TOE is based primarily on theories which are based on theories, based on fossils that are themselves based in theory, but the fact that they believe these theories without and valid evidence is not viewed as “beliefs” I think it takes more faith to believe in the TOE than it does to believe in an all powerful creator. In short, if you don’t believe what we believe then it’s just not science.

It's funny, it seem as though it's OK to attack us, "evangelicals" as a body, but I've found that the moment we stand for ourselves, and explain our beliefs, and their substance we are accused of attacking Catholicism. sounds like a one sided fence to me.

I do appreciate the candor of your question, and I would note that no interpretation of the scriptures in circulation today is in the script. I can however say that there is one exact, and precise meaning, and or interpretation. Though I would not say that I have a plenary understanding of every individual passage within the scriptures, nor does anyone alive today, I will say that there are several passages of the scriptures that need no "interpretation, nor explanation" for the most part, the Bible is very straight forward, and it never, I repeat never contradicts itself. Though several different "Christian" groups may indeed debate over the interpretation or theology surrounding certain passages, there is an absolute truth, as well as absolute morals. Anyone who denies this denies the very foundation of the scriptures. The word Gospel is interpreted as being truth, since the Bible refers to itself as the Gospel, then if there is just one lie within it, then it negates the claim to being the truth. Hence the Bible is either 100% true, or it is in it's entirety a lie.

did you read the previous statement, or does the dementia prevent that?

hmmmm Was no one else taught gratitude when they we're growing up? I'm tired of this sense of entitlement sweeping the nation today. It's not enough that they qualified for the grant in the first place, but now they want to make demands on what the grants should cover. What ever happened to thank you for what you have done, no, now it's "I know you've given me tens of thousands of dollars, but that's just not gonna do it for me."

We live in the greatest nation in the world where we are free to believe what we want. If you want to believe in evolution please feel free, but don't try to force the government into forcing the spread of your belief. If you feel so strongly about it, why doesn't the evolutionary community take this burden upon themselves. But we are entitled to nothing, if we receive a government grant, that's more than we had when we started. Be thankful and shut up about it.

When you post scripture on a Crevo thread as an argument, you lose the thread. I propose calling this "Godloses' Law"

Problem with this law? .... God never loses. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. he always wins.

lol, I've been trying to say the very thing for a long time now, I have as yet to see a "dating method" that I consider to have actually been proved accurate for "tens of thousands of years" I still haven't seen these ten thousand or million year old constants. But when I ask this very question, my knowledge, and comprehension of science, as well as my intelligence come under attack.

tests can be run on a week old corpse, knowing for a fact that it was a week old, the ability to observe something in that span of time readily exists, though we still have no way to observe the reaction over millions of years once again I state there is no millions of years old standard to use all we can do is assume, I know for a fact there is a way to test "in actual time and conditions" the affects of time for a week, a month, or even a year, but what way do we have to test whether the effects change after a hundred, thousand, or "million" years, there is no way to effectively test this. certainly not in our life times, nor our children, or their children.....there is a far cry of difference between forensics under testable conditions, within a testable time range, and assuming that certain conditions existed, "millions" of years ago, or assuming the condition of the ground before the subject was buried, assuming the components, and surrounding elements, assuming weather the subject was buried, naturally or unnaturally, assuming that there is no significant reason that this particular fossil has existed for "millions" of years though most have long since decayed beyond recognition.but for now I'm done with my rant, I hope you can understand where I am coming from, it is after all somewhat common sense.

forensics on the recently deceased can be tested far more accurately than forensics on a supposedly million year old corpse. The scientific process did not exist a million years ago, so there is no way to test accurately a million year old subject as there was no one there to observe it, but I don't suppose you thought of that as your one objective is not to consider all facts, but merely to attack the concept of creation.

this is not a fact, a fact is a statement with definitive proof, this is a fossil, it is impossible to scientifically ascertain the facts surrounding this fossil (I say this because without a scientist actually there at the time of death to actually observe the conditions at death we do not know the conditions at death, nor the circumstances or situations since death.) all you can do is hypothesize about this fossil. It is not however a fact supporting evolution.

Did I in this post argue against anything? NO

You stated, the toe is based on facts as well as theories, I simply asked what are these profound facts that stand alone as evidence to the toe without them self being bathed in theory. Where was my argument, I merely asked you to support your statement, you said fact, I said where.

I understand how it works, and also how it evidently works for evos, We're scientist, and if you disagree with us, then you know nothing of Science, you can deny it all you like it, but that is how you all act, and it is how you come off. Get back to me when you are willing to actually reason, and discuss the subject not blindly shooting down anything that contradicts what you believe.

ahhh yes the well supported theories angle, theories which are well supported with other theories, which themselves are based on theories. And just where exactly are all these facts? Facts by the way can be irrefutably scientifically proven. Just for the record, I am looking for the facts directly supporting the toe, not the facts that support theories that support the toe.

evidence? Other than the complexity of the human design? or the design of the universe at large, or the fact that throughout the scriptures they pointed out certain scientific findings around 7 or 8 thousand years before their scientific discovery? Oh but thats right, these are just conjecture, nothing like the statement "Well these fossils look like man evolved, hmmm looks like evidence to me." nah that's not conjecture to me. I still say these fossils are just tragically deformed humans, or apes, whichever the case may be, not steps in some imaginary progression of man from cosmic sludge.

contradict all you want, you are entitled to your right to be wrong. Some explanations being, for fossil evidence looks to me like tragic deformities, or even possibilities of just previously living species that have long since become extinct. the fact is that if man evolved from apes, they would still be doing this today, and they're not, if they were, there would be wandering around a species that is half man half ape, I don't suppose you believe in "the big foot" do you?

A little history lesson, dinosaurs fossils were first discovered in the 15 or 16th century, and it was said that man and Dino's did not coexist. If this is true, why then are dinosaurs "the behemoth, and Leviathan" recorded in the bible? (see Job chaps 40and 41) If they did not coexist man, and they were not discovered until the 1500's then how prey tell did they know of them in the Bible? If you do the math, and trace back population growth charts, "population reference bureau, allexperts.com, and several other Internet population growth charts for reference" the human population dwindles out around 7000 years ago, kinda funny about seven thousand years ago was the flood. Now I know most of the evo's will say it was due to the cultivation of agriculture. A couple of things about that though, firstly around that time the worlds population was around nothing, so basically scientist believe that a hand full of people could not survive on the bounty of the earth, but had to cultivate their own food before they could thrive? That my friend is Bologna, the earth without any man made help is capable of sustaining millions of lives, let alone thousands, or hundreds as the case would have been. Secondly, Agricultural tools were said to have been developed around ten thousand years ago, according to the scriptures, Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden and told "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." For your refference that was in Genesis 3 So here God forces man to farm for himself, sounds to me like there was a reason for man to create agricultural tools.

The answers are there if we look for them, man has in no form existed for more than 10 thousand years, yet it took millions or even billions of years for man to evolve from "whatever". How is this possible, (rhetorical question because I've been down this road several times before with others, and the only thing they bring is the fossil charts, and theories based in theories, as evidence, and I don't buy it, not for a second.) The fact is that evolution is a theory that can be explained away, it just doesn't make sense, gravity that makes sense, as does inertia, and other theories, and they all have practical uses, the toe makes no sense, and has no practical uses. As it has no practical uses, I don't see why they should teach it at all until it is further substantiated, but if they must teach it, I wholeheartedly agree with the disclaimer.

The difference is, there isn't evidence against these other theories, ie, nor are they based upon theories that can be solidly refuted. The evidence, and theoretical evidence backing the toe can not only be refuted, but also plausible alternate explanations can be brought for these evidences, heck some if not most of them even make more sense if thought through. This is why the toe is questioned, and others aren't they are based in sound evidence, and the toe is based on theories based upon theoretical evidence. It's just that simple, and the fact is that it is JUST A THEORY and should be presented as a theory, I ask the question again, is the disclaimer a lie? No, no it's not a lie, the toe is a theory, so why are we upset, is telling the truth not an admirable trait anymore, I thought only Dem's took pleasure in lying, and distorting the truth.

blah, blah, blah, ........ "whaaaaahhhhhhhhh :( people won't let us blindly brain wash their children any more, and they want some input as to how concrete our atheistic theory is taught." weep, weep sob sob.

Is the sticker wrong, I mean evolution is an unproven theory isn't it, we aren't lying, or has it recently been proven fact? Oh but then wouldn't it be the FOE and not the TOE?

I was an army brat, I was raised in DODS backed schools. In these schools it was mandatory that they taught native American culture, and I've heard similar stories all my life openly discussed in schools. I see no problem in it, we also at these times discussed the Christian creation account, as well as others.