Texas School Board/"Creation Evidence Museum"

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy You're repeating yourself again.

PS------Blue.....You're welcome. But..what has your "reply" to do with the original subject matter of said post??

Let us be gentle and kind with one another.

Let none of us cause, or participate in, fights amongst ourselves.

Let us join together to defeat the enemy who has presented himself before us in a most heinous and horrible manner, first.

Let the strong amongst us defend the weak.

When, and only if, we have permanently destroyed that enemy, then we can all enter into other fine points of philosophy at our leisure.

Sir Blue

www.anysoldier.com

[Arrow]

Scamp...

I'm glad that post got by air traffic control twice. It was worth repeating. I've never read the New Testament in a day. Is there a Readers Digest version? Maybe TJspeed reads.I rather doubt that speed reading is conducive to meditation but some folks may meditate faster than others.I'm just not one of them.

To all....

I too believe there is a middle ground where science and faith meet.I also believe freedom from religion is as important as freedom of religion.It is our terrible freedom tohave faithor not.

Itwas never my opinion that it was the job of the public school system toinstruct my children inmatters of faith. Truth be told I would rather they would not. On the other hand I would have objected if they were hindered from expressing their faith on term papers, or in a class room, or in an assembly.It was never necessary for me to do so.

Ibelieve if there is prayer in school it should be voluntary and student led. Prayer should never be forced or prevented.Again that is our terrible freedom to pray or not to pray.

Rather than fight over the issue of prayer in schoolwecould use theabove modelas a good educational toolto prepare students for the real world. All of us have to practice tolerance of different faiths and world views in the work force in order to function as a sucessful team.

Just my thoughts....

Arrow>>>>>>>

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by Arrow

To all....

I too believe there is a middle ground where science and faith meet.I also believe freedom from religion is as important as freedom of religion.It is our terrible freedom tohave faithor not.

Itwas never my opinion that it was the job of the public school system toinstruct my children inmatters of faith. Truth be told I would rather they would not. On the other hand I would have objected if they were hindered from expressing their faith on term papers, or in a class room, or in an assembly.It was never necessary for me to do so.

Ibelieve if there is prayer in school it should be voluntary and student led. Prayer should never be forced or prevented.Again that is our terrible freedom to pray or not to pray.


Just my thoughts....

Arrow>>>>>>>

What Arrow said!

Now................If only we can convince other folks this is the way things should be........RIGHT & LEFT!

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by BLUEHAWK

Let us be gentle and kind with one another.

Let none of us cause, or participate in, fights amongst ourselves.

Let us join together to defeat the enemy who has presented himself before us in a most heinous and horrible manner, first.

Let the strong amongst us defend the weak.

When, and only if, we have permanently destroyed that enemy, then we can all enter into other fine points of philosophy at our leisure.

Sir Blue

www.anysoldier.com

No...........That is NOT when.....OR only we can or should enter into "other points" of discussion. Maybe you haven't read the last part of my Patriot Files "signature"..........here it is AGAIN for you, Blue!

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Former Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt

[Seascamp]

I think Sis has it about right. Those who try to suppress human spirituality are doomed to failure. Those who attempt to promote human spirituality above and beyond all things are equally doomed to failure. Certainly oceans of blood have been let over this issue for centuries and much more to come, much more. I?m about to wear out my 4th passport and what I have learned around the world is that leftist repression of the human sprit and spirituality is a meat grinder, it?s just a matter of who gets fed into the hopper and when. Equally so, theocracies are incredibly ravenous and destructive to the human condition. Is there a middle ground? Maybe not and I?m not optimistic at all. The neo-religion of ?moral relativity? is upon us and that is one vicious bag of worms that attempts to abrogate all known human history and acquired value systems. Oh yikes!!!!!!

But then wise men sometimes get it right. Per Sen. Joe Biden ?Our heart is purple, neither red nor blue. We must bridge this gap or we are all in deep trouble?. Too bad that King Kennedy, TJ, Dean, Algore, Reid, Boxer et al, smack Biden around so much. He has important things to say but is dismissed and cuffed around as a ?Republican Light?. So the voice of reason and progress is snuffed out once again and bad will go to worse.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Former Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt

Is there someone here who HAS made such an announcement?

In any case, I doubt that the little museum in Texas is a secret front for anything much more than some rambling around in theoretics involving the ontological arguement.

Surely, it is not the vanguard of religious terrorism.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by BLUEHAWK

Is there someone here who HAS made such an announcement?


As a matter of fact, YES!------You seem to be implying such with these statements?-- --And I quote you, "When, and only if, we have permanently destroyed that enemy, then we can all enter into other fine points of philosophy at our leisure." Or, "After that, we can have a reasoned discussion of public education, and social security, and some other important stuff. "---End quote.....Gimp

In any case, I doubt that the little museum in Texas is a secret front for anything much more than some rambling around in theoretics involving the ontological arguement.

Surely, it is not the vanguard of religious terrorism.

I'm sure they said something very similar to that in the early 1930's about one of the first churches, schools or museums in Germany that promoted Jews as "inferior" or "sub-humans" as part of their "religious doctrine", huh? NO one DREAMED at that time either what this type of "rhetoric" and "propaganda" would lead too either. Just ask the descendents of the 6,000,000 Jews slaughtered in the name of that "cause" for a "gut check" on what fanatics like this can start with a so-called "innocent" pronouncements!....Gimp

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by Seascamp

But then wise men sometimes get it right. Per Sen. Joe Biden ?Our heart is purple, neither red nor blue. We must bridge this gap or we are all in deep trouble?. Too bad that King Kennedy, TJ, Dean, Algore, Reid, Boxer et al, smack Biden around so much. He has important things to say but is dismissed and cuffed around as a ?Republican Light?. So the voice of reason and progress is snuffed out once again and bad will go to worse.

Scamp

Once again we find common ground Scamp.............I too am a great admirer of Senator Joe Biden. He is truly a "voice of reason" in the democratic party and his beliefs and position on various subjects is something I am usually in total agreement with. I however disagree with your comment about the Demos mentioned and their "dismissal" of Bidens positions.

If you'd REALLY like to see what or which party "leadership" is actually "guilty" of this behavior.........look no further than youir own choice-the Repubs!

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a man known for frank talk, offered a blunt description of the state of his party, "The Republican Party," he said, "has come loose of its moorings."

Senator Hagel has differed with Bush on Iraq and foreign policy, has sounded ready to start the debate,"The Republican Party after . . . World War II was an internationalist party," he said. "We reached out. . . . We developed consensus in the world. That was done through many avenues, associations, coalitions and common interests. But not now."

He has important things to say but is repeatedly dismissed and cuffed around as a ?out of the 'main-stream' of Republican Right-headedness?.

Bill Frist, Saxby Chambliss, Kay Hutchinson, Trent Lott, Mel Martinez, Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Steven Buyer, and other radicals in the GOP, all.... repeatedly hammer Senator Chuck Hagel and voice of reason, and progress will be snuffed out once again and bad will continue to go to worse.

[MORTARDUDE]

This article about Darwin says it all......

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Article...e/SC0602W1.htm

I. How Convinced Was Charles Darwin about His Theory of Evolution?

As we discovered while researching our book Darwin?s Leap of Faith (Harvest House, 1998), Darwin himself had serious doubts about his theory of evolution. Furthermore, the scientific world generally was entirely unconvinced as to the truth of evolution. The reasons for its subsequent acceptance lie beyond the scientific data allegedly in its behalf. Further, what was true for Darwin often remains true today: the theory of evolution is preferred philosophically because it allows one to escaped the consequences of belief in a personal God who holds one accountable for one?s actions in this life.

During the course of this series we will examine Darwin?s own doubts, his apparent motives relative to belief in evolution and how the theory was first received by the scientific community.

The National Academy of Sciences, in an official statement, declares the following: "?it was Darwin, above all others, who first marshaled the convincing critical evidence for biological evolution."1

Leading evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson also cites Darwin?s The Origin of Species (1859) as "the work that first substantially established this truth" of evolution.2

Why is a discussion of Darwin?s view and the recent history of evolution important to a modern analysis?*

Some argue that since the entire scientific world has now accepted Darwin?s thesis (albeit modified), and "proven" evolution true, that a discussion of Darwin?s views and their initial reception is irrelevant as far as the truth of evolution is concerned.

If evolution is a scientific fact, then this argument is valid. If it is not a scientific fact, then a discussion of both Darwin?s own doubts and the initial rejection of evolution by the scientific community are certainly relevant.

If evolution isn?t proven (to the contrary) and Darwin himself had serious reservations about his own theory, then his doubts are relevant after all. And if the reasons that the scientific community of Darwin?s day rejected evolution are still valid today, almost a century and a half later, then one is forced to look to nonscientific reasons for the acceptance of Darwinism.

To have both Darwin and the scientific community expressing grave doubts over evolution is hardly irrelevant. Consider an analogy. What if new evidence was uncovered that Jesus and the apostles had expressed serious doubts about Jesus? divine nature and His role as Messiah and Savior? The modern Christian?s certainty that Jesus is God, Messiah and Savior is based squarely on New Testament manuscripts concerning Jesus? own claims, convictions and extensive supporting evidence including Jesus? fulfillment of messianic prophecy, His unique miracles and resurrection from the dead.

But what if it was now discovered that all this evidence turned out to be seriously misappropriated and, indeed, was just plain wrong? Worse, what if new unimpeachable manuscript evidence came to light proving Jesus to be something like the pitiable figure in Nikos Kazantzakis? The Last Temptation of Christ (1960)? Christianity would be through and with good reason?it would be a rank deception and fraud.

So if new, unimpeachable evidence is available today that disproves evolution, do not the initial doubts of Darwin and the scientific community take on new meaning? And then, doesn?t the acceptance of evolution by the entire world require a closer look to understand just why this theory became so universally accepted? The reservations of Darwin and the initial skepticism of the scientific community are consistent with the current crisis in evolutionary theory due to the continuing lack of evidence for evolution, even 150 years later.

Regardless of subsequent events, the initial concerns of Darwin and the scientific community were correct after all. And this is something important to know.

Darwin admitted that his volume, The Origin of Species (1859) was "one long argument" for evolution.3 But reading through The Origin of Species one is struck by how weak the case for evolution really is. And Darwin knew it. The data amassed are just as easily interpreted within a non-evolutionary framework. That his interpretation of the data and not the data itself was paramount in his theory is clear from his statement that, "I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stalked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine."4 In other words, Darwin didn?t really expect to change the mind of anyone who believed that the facts of nature were more readily explainable on the basis of creation than chance.

That Darwin had his doubts is evident from letters he wrote just after publication of The Origin of Species. In one letter to Huxley he said, "Exactly 15 months ago, when I put pen to paper for this volume, I had awful misgivings; and I thought perhaps I had deluded myself as so many have done?" and, in a letter to Lyell he stated, "I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."5 Significantly, both Huxley and Lyell also had their doubts.6

Even before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, "the theory of evolution in biology was already an old, even a discredited one."7 It had been discredited primarily on two grounds: (1) insufficient geological time to accomplish evolution and (2) lack of a satisfactory mechanism for explaining how the process of evolution works.8 Today, 130 years later, with supposedly billions of geologic years to allow evolution to occur and endless speculation as to evolutionary mechanisms, the situation has not changed. Sufficient time still does not exist for evolution to occur and no credible mechanism of evolution has yet been put forth.

Evolution claims to operate through beneficial mutations and natural selection. According to Darwin, evolution happens when an organism is confronted by a changing environment. Some organisms in a population became better adapted for survival than others. In part, this is so because of beneficial mutations, incredibly rare events that alter an organism allowing it to improve. Natural selection involves the survival of those organisms best adapted to their environment; those less adapted die out. The best adapted transmit their improved genetic characteristics and populations evolve upward. On the surface, it might seem to make sense?that billions of years could produce sufficient mutations to allow things to slowly improve and change so that all life evolves upward.

But it actually doesn?t make sense at all as we showed in Darwin?s Leap of Faith. Many things in life initially seem true but aren?t?the sun rising and setting; that a given person would be trustworthy; a mirage in a desert, etc. Explanations that can seem to make sense but are false are also not unusual?astrological interpretations, critical rationalistic theories to explain Jesus? empty tomb, explanations for why the treatment works in certain holistic health practices, etc. In terms of consequences, false explanations can run the gamut from harmless to extremely consequential. For example, in the latter case, misinterpreting demon possession as mental illness or vice versa. When examined critically there is little doubt where materialistic evolution lies.

Notes:

1. National Academy of Sciences, Official Statement in Voices for Evolution (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education, 1995), p. 56.

2. George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New York: Bantam, 1971), p. 4.

3. Charles Darwin (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 435.

4. Ibid.

5. M.D. Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud (San Diego, CA: Creation Life, 1982), pp. 56-57, citing Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin Life and Letters, Vol. 2, pp. 232, 229.

6. Bowden, pp. 65, 69.

7. Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 27.

8. Ibid., p. 28.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy

Very confusing...

If memory serves, Christians have been making a claim about creationism for several centuries by now, no? I have always taken their philosophy as a kind of spiritual or sentimental, perhaps more romantic, version of evolution... or that evolution is a more practical version of creation.

Persistent religious fundamentalism, like the same in politics, is always threatening to the serenity of society.

And, my comments about the current necessity of defeating the enemy are my own, and are not dependent upon nor are they intentionally selected from anything our president or anyone in his administration have urged me to repeat on their behalf.

I actually study the problem all by myself, with sufficient frequency and intensity to draw fire from Lady Blue. I must admit, I do not pay a whole lot of attention to those whose writings or sayings are stuck in the broken record of hatred for the president. Even if it were true, it would not advance the end of the war nor self-government and economic security in the nations we are striving to assist and liberate.