I'm a creationist.   I  say you're off base and the one spreading lies about me. 

I don't believe Science destroys religion at all.  Science and Religion are very compatable. Afterall God created Science right from the getgo.   It's Evolution we have a problem with.  From a Creationists POV Evolution is nothing but a religion disguised as Science. 

Oh, and Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT neccessarily the same thing.  I am not a proponant of ID at all.  It's a diff camp than the biblical Creationists.  In fact, the Creationists  are distancing themselves from the ID believers preferring a grass roots approach rathar than seeking the courts to overturn things. 

I see not too many specific reason then. 

Kurtin posts:

C'mon....be real....It's about forbidding teaching Creationism period. Secular and atheist humanists are scared stiff to teach both sides of the Origins debate and they are the ones in control and running the public education system and its curricula.

Kids ask important questions like where did the universe come from and where did we come from? Public education answers these questions by teaching the dogma of Darwinism and Hawkings Cosmic Evolution isolated from criticism.  They firecely want to keep science in a neat box where it can't touch Almighty God. When Hawkings peers into space and explains his Steady State or Big Bang theories, he's in hot pursuit of his own ideas and not understanding that he's looking at the awe and wonder of God's workshop that was described in Genesis 1.   

Unfortunately, indoctrinating as fact Darwin's unproven theory of Evolution as a process of change of one species into a completely different one over eons of time, i.e. "ape to man", is the norm and I am upset.  All we are saying is Darwin's theory shouldn't be the last and only word in public school classrooms across the land. All we are saying is teach both sides of the debate and tell the kids the truth....that Darwin's theory has come under question...that in reality, not only are the required intermediate forms between various species absent from the fossil record.

Darwin's theory has been pumped into man's consciousness ever since the 1800s. Science itself has disproven various facets of the theory. It's time to tell students that Evolution theory now stands exposed as both the worst mistake made in science and the most enduring myth of modern times. Tell them Evolution theory has not been proved and that all arguments in support of it have been shown to be untenable. Tell them life does not come from non-life...it never has and never will.

No, Lula, science class teaches them about scientific findings, theory...you know the whole 'scientific method' thing.  Do you remember that?  You don't like evolution because it defies your religious views of creation.  You are threatened and want an idea with absolutely NO scientific evidence to be taught as an alternative in science class??  Give me a break.  That's why some kids get homeschooling or go to parochial schools.  You might notice, I'm starting to change from the nice kurtin, to an extremely angry one, and I just can't process everything that is wrong from your above post.  I've told you to wake up to the world in other threads, but that last response has seriously taken the cake.  We are not going to teach that God created the universe in school just to satisfy your need to see both sides addressed in a science class.  Go back to public school science, and see for yourself that your insane opinion that kids are being taught Darwin as fact is utterly false.  Take your kids to church or have a religion class, but leave that shit out of science class.

What's your beef? Again, last time I checked it's the atheist and secular humanists who are defining the line...and the standards....they are in control of the federal education system and the purse strings.

TALTIMER POSTS:

 What lies?  Please be specific.

Real science is testable. Fossil columns and sedimentary rock throughout the globe substantiate more the timeline according to the Genesis account than they do billions of years old. Carbon and radiodating is unreliable for proving long periods of time.  We've been over this in detail on other blogs.

Taltimer, you can believe all you want in the philosophy of Evolution, that you and yours evolved from ape-like creatures.

I agree KFC. Science and religion are not in collision.

What has happened though is science is being confused with Naturalism, and sometimes known as materialism. The battle isn't between religion and science; rather it's between religion and the philosophy of naturalism or materialism. Naturalism is Darwinism Evolution and is not science....but cleverly disguised as science as you say. Naturalism is a philosophical opinion.

I agree. Creationists should not be yoked entirely with the ID crowd. As a Creationist I agree with some of ID's tenets while disagree on others.

KFC Kickin For Christ... read my post again, this time read it IN FULL!

You appear to not be a creationist, you sound like a person who beleives you were created by god, but has no association or understand of what the creationist/ID movement is ABOUT; and you are duped by their sweet sounding names. Creationist SOUNDS like a person who beleives in creation, just like Scientologist SOUNDS like a person who beleives in Science. Intelligent Design SOUNDS like the notion that some external influence, divine or otherwise, created or interfered with our development.

But NONE of those have any relationship to what they are trying to sound like.

You should watch this lecture, it goes into depth about the exact specific creationist/ID/Sci Critique lies. (and remember just because you beleive a god created you doesn't make you a cretionist, just like beleiving in science doesn't make you a scientologist)

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

This debate needs to move from the politics thread to religion ....er science....one of them. I haven't seen Palin's name used in the last two pages.

Since politics includes cultural and societal issues, the discussion is wholly relevant. We are engaged in a cultural war and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there are stark ideological and worldview differences between McCain/Palin and N'Obama/Biden and the direction in which the country would go under their respective leadership.

Taltimer posts:

Since I agree with KFC and consider myself a Creationist I would like to respond...

Taltimer posts: #45

This is where you misunderstand the concept of Special Creation...of course the movement is about people who believe in God and in Creation according to God's revelation which is Sacred Scripture and (for me, a Catholic, Sacred Tradition.)

But let's start at the beginning where we can agree (I think)....and then look at the differences. Both Darwin's Evolutionism (Naturalism) and Creationism are philosophies that attempt to explain how  the universe and man came to be. 

Evolutionism central idea is that the science of natural phenomena is the only valid path to knowledge and that there is no need for a transcendant Creator God because such belief is regarded as unscientific and Genesis is mythology.  Evolutionism has failed to prove scientifically that all life came about purely by naturalistic "creation". If the science of genetics had been known then, the idea of macro-evolution would have been seen as obviously mistaken. The theme of descent with modification has failed Evolution theory and naturalistic evolutionists are still in hoping that the ever elusive mechanism (what I call the missing link) will be found.

 Darwin and his collegues Evolutionist Naturalist dogma became popular among atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists and the illusion of Evolution is very appealing and enchanting and helps keep belief in a Creator God at a remote distance.

Again, the concept of Creationism is harmonious with Sacred Scripture....basically there is but one God, the Divine Trinity, the Infinite First Cause, who created all that exists including space, time, and matter out of nothing.  Not only was matter created, but also organization of matter was created. Laws of nature were placed into operation by which space and time, matter and energy both exist and interact. What we know about God is very incomplete, but we are learning more all the time. This is very similiar with what we know of atomic energy, gravity, and the study of genetics. What actually constitutes living matter?  What animates the total entity of the cell? In contrast to the evolutionist idea of purely mechanistic functioning of matter, which holds that nature has its own inherent life-force, Creationism can and has provided a coherent explanation...that the Creator has impressed complex information into cells which can reproduce and pass on that info to the next generation via secondary causes.   

To date, true empirical science has supported the historical and anthropological events recorded in Genesis and Creationists endeavor to disern objective truth about these events. Creationism offers a coherent basis for understanding the earliest events and how mankind came to be. It takes in Almighty God's unbounded love and mercy. It's just as KFC said, Special Creation view accepts on the basis of faith in the revealed God, that Scripture is free from error and that empirical science will never discover any data which can conclusively contradict Scripture. I would add that man can know something of God and deduce His existence as an unseen Designer.

The Evolutionist view offers only a Naturalistic explanation of the universe and mankind, while the Creationist view goes further and acknowledges an unseen Creator God and a supernatural dimension of existence. IMO, since Creationism can explain such things as the existence of coded information, order in design and laws of nature, it can fairly lay claim to a more comprehensive concept of science than that of Evolutionists.  

We've seen through this discussion that the influence of both Evolutionism and Creationism extends to politics, sociology, anthropology, religion, and many other fields that touches upon the questions of existence.

My problem with Palin is that there were more qualified female Republican's McCain could have chosen - more qualified, less polarizing, and pandering to the Religious Right.

Don't change this into a "the democratic candidate is unqualified tooooo" whine, either.  Obama, qualified or not, won an election - Palin was hand-picked.  So it is vastly different.  If Palin was a man she wouldn't have been chosen, either.  Her credentials are low and she was barely vetted - it seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me.

Now, we can play "what don't I like about palin personally" and I can say the firm abstinance before sex ed stance (worked well for Bristol didn't it?) and that she comes with too much political baggage, or the lie that she originally did NOT oppose the Bridge she talks about so much, and then when it was cancelled just shuffled the funds into other projects, or the PR firm she hired just to get earmarks for her tiny state (remember, Alaska gets more per-person than most places!) Or that while religion isn't bad, the stuff that I've heard about her brand of Christianity is (such as a recorded speech where her pastor claims the war on terrorism is some kind of holy war/act of God) or the fact that she seems far more grounded in God/Drilling/Moose/Guns than in Economics/Peace/Solving Problems.

And she looks kinda funny to me.  But that last one is personal and silly, ofcourse.

But my last and biggest issue, as a young independant voter?  McCain sacrificed his maverick record to go and pick someone obviously more chosen to please a large part of his party than to lead the country.  He picked someone to help him win - not someone who would help him lead after he won.  Contrast that to the other candidate's pick... Biden isn't going to help anyone get elected, but he knows a lot of stuff.

As it stands, McCain is losing the "lesser of two sucky options" race in my head.  He fell way behind with Palin from a close race.

North Carolina

Proof or it didn't happen.

Can you be a bit more specific?

@lulapilgrim - either you are ignorant (not an insult, a state of lack of knowledge) about evolution, biology, and science... or you are intentionally spreading those lies. Buecase you obviously ARE repeating the creationism FUD. There is very little truth in any of your statements on the above subject.

By saying that something is supernatural, divine, and completely unpredictable, it is no longer science is no longer a path to knowledge... Looking at how the cells work is a path to knowledge. saying "the cell works this way cause god is making it work that way" is throwing knowledge out the window and accepting it as some sort of an unknown beyond your ken. It is not a path to knowledge, it is a path to NOT knowing (I don't know WHY, it just does because god is doing it). Weather you want to personally beleive in it that is your choice, but schools should not even teach the option of "oh don't bother learning this, lets just say its supernatural and thus unexplainable and break for lunch" because at that point it is no longer teaching, and no longer a school.

A religious scientist NEVER accepts something as supernatural, EVERYTHING is created by god, thus EVERYTHING is natural. Thus everything is understandable and explainable via natural laws.. laws SET by god... No scientist has ever even TRIED to explain WHY the laws of nature exist, that is left either as a "just because" or "just because god did it". What it explains is why things happen by writing down the laws of nature. Weather god said "let there be evolution" or it being random chance doesn't change the FACT that there is evolution. Weather god said "let evolution change this tree dwelling ape into a human" or it being random chance doesn't change the FACT that an APE did become a human. (and that all apes share our DNA, and that all apes have two more chromosomes because a specific KNOWN pair of chromosomes fused in humans and so on)

Many of the examples of "unknowns" you gave are simply not true, they ARE known but claimed to be unkown by creationists in their attempt to debase science with lies. I am hoping you are simply ignorant of that fact (again, ignorant means lacking knowledge. I have been ignorant on things before, I educate myself whenever I can though)

You asked where. I told you where.  NOw do you need a class in how to use google?  Or are you "not real" either.

Do it yourself, or learn how to ask questions.

My aren't we antagonistic.  Ever take a debate class? "Google it" is not a viable source of proof.  Are YOU too lazy to go pull it up to support your point?  It's YOUR point, YOU have to defend it.  The onus is on not on me to prove your comments, nor google.

And, to the poster above me - the reason the real hardline relgious people disavow all knowledge and science is because it's counter to thier beliefs - God created man from dust, remember?  We should all share our DNA with dust.  And woman was created from a man's rib, so she should have precisely the same DNA.

Also, owning slaves is okay and homosexuals must be stoned.  Oh wait..........