The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

5uspect

MooseJam wrote:

but is evolution driven by single mutations, which even with the good example's given seems a long shot, or given the size of most gene pools are there simultaneously in the same species maybe hundreds or even thousands of identicle mutations just by pure chance , that I can see leading to a swift spread through the species, is either method known to be the actual one ?

it rarely about single mutations, tho there are some notable examples such as the nylon digesting bacteria. As Tim pointed out the definition of a single gene is a bit gray. Natural selection works with gene frequencies in what are referred to as "polygenes".

Your genes are selfish replicators that only want to propagate themselves through replication. but the replication process is not 100% perfect and mutations or defects in the fidelity of the replication can and do occur.

For a whole organism to benefit from mutation there must generally be a team of genes resulting in longer legs or resistance to a toxin. Since most mutations either are harmful or do nothing in particular (recent research has shown that we all have significant amounts of mutations that previously thought).

So if we have a population of cheetahs and antelopes (or butterfiles and parasites) random mutations in the genes of the organisms will result in a distribution of strengths and weaknesses. Some cheetahs will be stronger or faster. As will the antelopes. The slower ones are more likely to die from hunger as as lunch. The mutations causing the benefits may be from different sets of genes. Some mutations may make a cheetah faster in different ways, so its not a matter of having exactly the same mutation in the population.

When animals reproduce sexually the offspring receives a 50-50 split of its parents genes. This lottery may result in offspring not getting the polygenes that gave its parent(s) the edge or may even mix up genes causing new random mutation. The natural environment will decide if the mutation is good or bad through natural selection. If there is little pressure then the organism can survive with a handicap that may otherwise cause death. Human society is often seen as removing much of the selection pressure in humans.

Sexual selection also plays a part. Genes determine the sexual preferences of animals. So a particular feature will be more likely to attract mates who are genetically disposed to like that particular feature. Their offspring may then inherit both the genes for that feature and the sexual preference for it. This runaway evolution has explained such extravagant trimmings such as Peacock's tails and probably affects human evolution to a good deal.

So ultimately through natural selection the gene pool as a whole becomes fitter with many mutations. But its a case of two steps forward one step back as two successful organisms (i.e. those that replicate) may only produce limited benefits in their offspring as their genes get mixed. Also other animals, be it prey of predator also evolve so you get a so called "Red Queen" effect where animals evolve but so does the enemy.

I hope this helps you understand the concept. Its about statistical fitness in a population from random mutations in individuals where the bad mutations are weeded out by natural selection.

jonny72

PDN wrote:

That is interesting. What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog? Or has it just turned into another species of butterfly?

No it was created 6,000 years ago, it was collected from the jungle by a man called Noah, who rounded up 2 of all the species on earth, to save them from a giant flood, he built a giant boat and kept 2 of these butterflies on board. The butterfly changed a bit thats all. Thats how it all happened according to the Bible, and in case you are a little confused on this one, yes the Bible also says the Sun goes around the Earth, so thats that little mystery wrapped up too.

PDN

jonny72 wrote:

and in case you are a little confused on this one, yes the Bible also says the Sun goes around the Earth, so thats that little mystery wrapped up too.

Could you quote where in the Bible it says that? (ie chapter & verse).
Thanks.

MooseJam

5uspect wrote:

I hope this helps you understand the concept. Its about statistical fitness in a population from random mutations in individuals where the bad mutations are weeded out by natural selection.

thanks for that, very informative , about human society removing the selection pressure, the amount of ailments that would have killed you 1000 years ago but are treatable with today's medicines, people carrying otherwise fatal mutations are now having children themselves and passing it on, does this mean society will get sicker and sicker over time ? you could easily dream up a doomsday scenario :eek:

jonny72

PDN wrote:

Could you quote where in the Bible it says that? (ie chapter & verse).
Thanks.

Psalm 19:1-6 and Joshua 10:12-14

One in five Americans believe the Sun goes around the Earth.

Personally I think its a simple misreading of the Bible, but then again I think that anyone who takes the Bible literally is a bit gullible to say the least.

Here's a comment I read recently that is quite interesting..

"I do believe that there's one very strong point against the idea that the Earth was literally created in six 24-hour days. A “day” as we use the term, is defined by the rotation of the Earth. This would have not made any sense until after the Earth was created and set into motion, such that it would experience 24-hour days. It would not make sense to describe the creation of the Earth in units of time that don't mean anything until well into the process. I believe that God did create the Earth in six periods, represeting six milestones of progress, but I do not believe it makes any sense at all to assume that these periods were literally 24-hour days. Each “day” may well have been billions of years relative to our scale of time."

5uspect

MooseJam wrote:

thanks for that, very informative , about human society removing the selection pressure, the amount of ailments that would have killed you 1000 years ago but are treatable with today's medicines, people carrying otherwise fatal mutations are now having children themselves and passing it on, does this mean society will get sicker and sicker over time ? you could easily dream up a doomsday scenario :eek:

Indeed but thats where sexual selection may come in. Who wants to have kids with someone who is very ill or incapable of providing. Also just because the genes are not good for survival on the savannas they may be adequate for survival in front of your PC. Pressure isn't totally removed but the welfare state removed its main influence of rapid death before reproduction.

PDN

jonny72 wrote:

Psalm 19:1-6 and Joshua 10:12-14

You are kidding, right?

The BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=0008 informs me that tomorrow sunrise is at 4.59am and sunset is at 9.13pm. Does this mean that the BBC teaches that the sun actually rises and sets - in other words, that the sun really does revolve around the earth?

Of course not, we all understand that human language involves figures of speech. Why should we place artificial limitations on language to exclude such figures of speech in the Bible, but not elsewhere. There are, I am sure, a handful of maniacs who really interpret the Bible that way, but then you get maniacs in all areas of life.

One in five Americans believe the Sun goes around the Earth.

That old chestnut again? It is perfectly true that surveys have shown that only 79% of Americans know that the earth revolves around the sun. You can then, either out of ignorance or dishonesty, attempt to paint that as a result of America's high level of religiosity. However, let's prick that little bubble of misinformation. Similar surveys, carried out in 1996, revealed that only 74% of Germans gave the correct answer and, staggeringly, only 69% of the British knew that the earth revolves around the sun. Given that Germany and the UK are considerably more secular than the US we could conclude that secularists believe that the sun revolves around the earth!

Of course such ignorance is not connected with religion, or irreligion, at all, but simply shows that there are a lot of stupid people in America, and in the rest of the world. The same poll that revealed that one in five Americans believe the sun goes around the earth also revealed that only 55% of Americans know what Independence Day celebrates on the 4th of July (the signing of the Declaration of Independence) and only 76% know that the US won its independence from Britain (other answers included France, China, Russia & Mexico).

robindch

PDN wrote:

There are, I am sure, a handful of maniacs who really interpret the Bible that way,

I think, PDN, that this is johnny72's point -- which is the same point that comes around and around virtually every day here. Which is that religious people use the bible to justify positions that are convenient to themselves for whatever reason.

And I can't imagine how you can reasonably claim that the text of Joshua 10:13 "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped [...] The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day" as meaning something other than exactly what it says.

If you are claiming that this text really does something else, could you suggest a few alternate meanings and also, could you suggest why the text might have been written the way that it was?

PDN

robindch wrote:

And I can't imagine how you can reasonably claim that the text of Joshua 10:13 "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped [...] The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day" as meaning something other than exactly what it says.

If you are claiming that this text really does something else, could you suggest a few alternate meanings and also, could you suggest why the text might have been written the way that it was?

It appears obvious to me that, from a onlookers standpoint, the sun stood still in the sky. This may have been because the earth stopped revolving, or there may have been some other cause. My point is that we all use language in this way. Last week I looked out of an airplane window and 'watched the cars on the ground get smaller and smaller'. I think everybody understands what that really means and only an idiot would try to argue that I actually believe the cars were shrinking.

PDN

Which reminds me of a joke I heard (in Israel, of all places).

A Tennessee bootlegger was arrested for distilling illegal liquor. At court he simply gave his name as "Joshua". The judge, trying to instill some humour into a dull day, said, "Not the Joshua who made the sun stand still?" Quick as a flash came the response, "No, sir - the Joshua who made the moon shine".

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

It appears obvious to me that, from a onlookers standpoint, the sun stood still in the sky. This may have been because the earth stopped revolving, or there may have been some other cause. My point is that we all use language in this way. Last week I looked out of an airplane window and 'watched the cars on the ground get smaller and smaller'. I think everybody understands what that really means and only an idiot would try to argue that I actually believe the cars were shrinking.

But then one could say: "they felt the spiritual presence of Jesus rising, of course he didn't actually rise from the dead."

Galvasean

MooseJam wrote:

thanks for that, very informative , about human society removing the selection pressure, the amount of ailments that would have killed you 1000 years ago but are treatable with today's medicines, people carrying otherwise fatal mutations are now having children themselves and passing it on, does this mean society will get sicker and sicker over time ? you could easily dream up a doomsday scenario :eek:

Well were it not for medical science Id be dead at least twice now. Once for burst appendix, once for cancer and possibly a third after committing suicide because of a terrible apsis.
Medicine 1 - 0 Darwin.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

But then one could say: "they felt the spiritual presence of Jesus rising, of course he didn't actually rise from the dead."

Yes, and then that spiritual presence lit a fire on a beach to cook fish and ate breakfast with the apostles. The spiritual presence also invited Thomas to put his fingers into the nail holes in the presence's hands and side.

There's a world of difference between obvious figures of speech and spiritualising accounts that are obviously intended to be literal.

PDN

Oh brother! I can't believe I got sucked into this crazy thread!

jonny72

PDN wrote:

Oh brother! I can't believe I got sucked into this crazy thread!

So that Jonah guy, you really believe he survived in that whale for 3 days?

PDN

jonny72 wrote:

So that Jonah guy, you really believe he survived in that whale for 3 days?

I believe he came out alive after 3 days. That would mean he either survived or else died and was raised from the dead. The Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't tell us which was the case.

If you believe in an all-powerful God then a little miracle like a man being swallowed by a fish or a whale is hardly impossible. Heck, if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale then I would believe that as well.

5uspect

Galvasean wrote:

Well were it not for medical science Id be dead at least twice now. Once for burst appendix, once for cancer and possibly a third after committing suicide because of a terrible apsis.
Medicine 1 - 0 Darwin.

Well if humans didn't evolve large brains then you wouldn't have modern medicine. Nor would we have antibiotics for that matter. Also medical science like all science revolves around falsification of theories in a kind of natural selection of the theories that best explain the world (or help create drugs)
Darwin wins pretty much hands down.

PDN wrote:

Heck, if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale then I would believe that as well.

I know you're joking but isn't there a huge problem with this blind faith in the Bible? How come these world shattering events never happen anymore?
Seems kind of convenient doesn't it, or do we have to wait for the rapture?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I believe he came out alive after 3 days. That would mean he either survived or else died and was raised from the dead. The Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't tell us which was the case.

If you believe in an all-powerful God then a little miracle like a man being swallowed by a fish or a whale is hardly impossible. Heck, if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale then I would believe that as well.

Like I said in a previous post, I don't know whether you are joking are serious.
Ultimately the Bible asks people to believe the unbelievable. I don't see how one can be dismissive of some of its claims (Snake talking in Genesis) and not dismissive of every other supernatural claim e.g. resurrection.
I think this is a very valid point because it is consistently skeptical i.e. demanding of evidence for extraordinary claims. I don't see any consistenty in "cherry picking".

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Like I said in a previous post, I don't know whether you are joking are serious.
Ultimately the Bible asks people to believe the unbelievable. I don't see how one can be dismissive of some of its claims (Snake talking in Genesis) and not dismissive of every other supernatural claim e.g. resurrection.
I think this is a very valid point because it is consistently skeptical i.e. demanding of evidence for extraordinary claims. I don't see any consistenty in "cherry picking".

Depends what you mean by unbelievable. I find the idea that the universe came into being without a creator to be unbelievable - you obviously find this extraordinary claim to be believable due to, in your eyes, some compelling evidence.

Who is cherry picking? I believe miraculous events as recorded in the Bible where I understand that they are intended to be taken literally. How is that cherry picking?

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

I know you're joking but isn't there a huge problem with this blind faith in the Bible? How come these world shattering events never happen anymore?
Seems kind of convenient doesn't it, or do we have to wait for the rapture?

If we hadn't made scientific advancements I am sure we would have thought things llike Tsunami were acts of God and not due to shifts in plate tectonics.
But you are right the timing of Biblical events is ideal. If it was earlier they wouldn't have written any of it down and if it was later maybe we could have captured some of these extraodinary events on DVD.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Depends what you mean by unbelievable. I find the idea that the universe came into being without a creator to be unbelievable - you obviously find this extraordinary claim to be believable due to, in your eyes, some compelling evidence.

Who is cherry picking? I believe miraculous events as recorded in the Bible where I understand that they are intended to be taken literally. How is that cherry picking?

Do you believe the entire Bible literally?
i.e. world was made in six days, there was snake talking to Adam?

My position is a position of disbelief not belief. There is no extraordinary claim I am making. I don't belief in a creator because there is no evidence of one. Just like there is no evidence of fairies in your back garden. I would have no problem changing my mind if we had any objective reliable evidence for a creator.
In the same way I would have no problem changing my opinion for fairies if objective reliable evidence manifested.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do you believe the entire Bible literally?
i.e. world was made in six days, there was snake talking to Adam?

My position is a position of disbelief not belief. There is no extraordinary claim I am making. I don't belief in a creator because there is no evidence of one. Just like there is no evidence of fairies in your back garden. I would have no problem changing my mind if we had any objective reliable evidence for a creator.
In the same way I would have no problem changing my opinion for fairies if objective reliable evidence manifested.

I believe the world was made in 6 days. I am unsure whether those were 24 hour days, or longer periods, but, based on my interpretation of Scripture, I would lean more toward 24-hour days. A snake talking causes me no problems whatsoever.

There is a difference between not knowing if there was a creator (no evidence required to be an agnostic) and actively arguing that the universe came into being without a creator (extraordinary claim requiring evidence).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I believe the world was made in 6 days. I am unsure whether those were 24 hour days, or longer periods, but, based on my interpretation of Scripture, I would lean more toward 24-hour days. A snake talking causes me no problems whatsoever.

There is a difference between not knowing if there was a creator (no evidence required to be an agnostic) and actively arguing that the universe came into being without a creator (extraordinary claim requiring evidence).

I didn't say I don't know, I said I don't believe.
Of course I don't know if there was / was not a creator noone does. Anybody who does know is purely a fool IMO. I also don't know if there are fairies in your backgarden and I don't believe they are unless someone can provide some evidence.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Depends what you mean by unbelievable. I find the idea that the universe came into being without a creator to be unbelievable - you obviously find this extraordinary claim to be believable due to, in your eyes, some compelling evidence.

I don't think people are saying that the universe came into existence out of nothing. They are arguing that it most likely wasn't created by an intelligent force (be it your god or any god or Bob from Twin Peaks) simply because that doesn't answer anything and only makes the problem worse. Abiogenesis and evolution are capable of explaining the origin and development of life without an intelligent influence. The standard model in physics is pretty good at explaining the development of the universe after the big bang, also without agency. Quantum mechanics is extremely good at explaining what goes on on the subatomic scale. We are only probing the scratches on the surface of what happen before the big bang (if there even was a before).

Like everything is science it is open to correction but there is good reason for the argument that believing what the bible says is quite probably nonsense dreamed up in the bronze age.

PDN wrote:

There is a difference between not knowing if there was a creator (no evidence required to be an agnostic) and actively arguing that the universe came into being without a creator (extraordinary claim requiring evidence).

That true, but that doesn't mean that the Abrahamic God did it. Just assuming that is the case because its written in the bible is cherry picking because you've settled on the version that suits you for no logical reason.

Science shuns such ideas of a creator, as I already said, simply because they explain nothing. Of course if I asked you who created god then you may say that god always existed, cherry picking again.

Sapien

5uspect wrote:

PDN wrote:

There is a difference between not knowing if there was a creator (no evidence required to be an agnostic) and actively arguing that the universe came into being without a creator (extraordinary claim requiring evidence)

That true, but that doesn't mean that the Abrahamic God did it.

It's not at all true. In fact, the idea that the universe had a creator is the most extraordinary claim imaginable, and would require some pretty amazing evidence to be believed. It is the ultimate breach of reductive parsimony.

jonny72

PDN wrote:

I believe he came out alive after 3 days. That would mean he either survived or else died and was raised from the dead. The Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't tell us which was the case.

If you believe in an all-powerful God then a little miracle like a man being swallowed by a fish or a whale is hardly impossible. Heck, if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale then I would believe that as well.

I think you're having us on?

If not, I'll bite, you know that logic and common sense that has so far got you through life, do you just kinda switch that off when it comes to the bible?

jonny72

Oh and the creationists are at it again, third time's a charm?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/dont_say_i_didn.html

"Paul Nelson, who can’t even get his allegedly scientific monograph which disproves common ancestry finished, let alone publish it, and who can’t even get basic concepts about evolutionary theory right (example 1, example 2 from just yesterday), has opted to stick all his half-baked arguments for special creation into a high-school textbook instead.."

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I believe the world was made in 6 days. I am unsure whether those were 24 hour days, or longer periods, but, based on my interpretation of Scripture, I would lean more toward 24-hour days. A snake talking causes me no problems whatsoever.

I was just wondering could you give the percentage of people in your Church that believe that?
I am coming from a Roman Catholic background (long time ago now) but at the time, between very few and nobody believed either the above.

5uspect

Sapien wrote:

It's not at all true. In fact, the idea that the universe had a creator is the most extraordinary claim imaginable, and would require some pretty amazing evidence to be believed. It is the ultimate breach of reductive parsimony.

Well its true that we can't hold a (faith) position that the universe definitely didn't have a creator as fact, it might have such a creator. But as you rightly say it would require some pretty extraordinary evidence.

J C

Spyrai
right so then explain how we become resistant to anti-biotics then ?

Technically speaking, we (Humans) don’t become resistant to antibiotics…….

…….it is the disease-causing bug POPULATIONS that become resistant……… BECAUSE a small minority of ALREADY RESISTANT bacteria survive and build up their numbers rapidly, when the non-resistant bacteria are eliminated by the antibiotic.:cool:


Originally Posted by JC
and, of course, His greatest personal salvation intervention, was as Jesus Christ

Robin
Ah, yes, the time that god got himself intentionally murdered by His creations so that He could pay off to Himself the debt that His other creations owed to Himself owing to a flaw in His original design.

How delightfully bizarre.

No, that was the time that God lovingly chose to die in perfect atonement for our sins so that we might have the opportunity of living with Him forever.

How delightfully wonderful!!!!:)


Jonny72
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Lies!!

It is actually TRUE ……but it is ONLY an example of the Natural Selection of pre-existing genetic diversity ……..and Creation Scientists fully accept that it occurs.

The following quote from the article indicates the likely source of the PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity that was used by the Butterfly population in this case:-

“The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether IT WAS INTRODUCED BY MIGRATORY SOUTHEAST ASIAN BUTTERFLIES ........”

The reason that the trait spread so rapidly in the population was due to the virulence of the disease, which had already killed 99% of the (non-resistant) male population, thereby affording the few remaining resistant males almost exclusive breeding access to all of the females.

This is an example of the type of ‘Evolution’ that produces different VARIETIES of Butterfly …….but it is NOT the kind of ‘Evolution’ that supposedly ‘morphed muck into Man’ !!!:D


Equally, the Butterfly ITSELF is another living phenomena that Evolutionists can’t explain.

The amazing transformation of this insect from a caterpillar, via a pupa, into a majestic butterfly is one of the most dramatic processes in the living world. This and similar processes in other insects is called metamorphosis, from the Greek meaning ‘change of form’.
The internal organs of the caterpillar dissolve into a seemingly amorphous blob, before reforming as a radically different creature—and all the while the metabolism of life continues within the chrysalisis !!!!!

The instructions for every stage of this ENTIRE process have to be encoded in the ‘program’ contained within the egg of the butterfly. No evolutionist has even come close to describing how such a stunning example of an intelligently programmed system could have come about by step-by-step evolution, while all the time maintaining the organism’s viability.


Wicknight
Firstly you can test to make sure that all your bugs are non-resistant. All the bugs when they go into the experiment are non-resistant. If they weren't the experiment would be pointless.

Secondly the reproduce in the dish before antibotic starts killing them

Thirdly you are an idiot

Firstly, if they are ALL non-resistant when going into the petri-dish then they will ALL die!!

Secondly, NO non-resistant bug will reproduce – because they will ALL be dead!!!

Thirdly, you are an exceptionally large brained Evolutionist!!!!:D


Wicknight
…… it is estimated that there are 40 different designs of the eye ball, which all arose independent of each other (each one would involve evolutionary processes working over millions of years and trillions upon trillions of mutations)

There are certainly different eye DESIGNS ……….

………but ‘blind’ mutation processes don’t have the potential to design ANY of them!!!:D


PDN
That is interesting. What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog? Or has it just turned into another species of butterfly?

………NOT a Frog…..

…….NOT even another species of Butterfly…….

…….just a VARIETY of the SAME species of Butterfly!!!!


Originally Posted by PDN
That is interesting. What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog?

JimiTime
don't you know that thats not going to happen for another billion years

…it actually NEVER will happen!!!!!



Originally Posted by PDN
What has the butterfly evolved into? A Frog? Or has it just turned into another species of butterfly?

Robin
From the first paragraph of the text of the article:
Originally Posted by BBC
The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria

........is that all that happened??

……..is it therefore the case that every time I fight off a Cold………. I have ‘dramatically evolved’???eek:


Robin
The point of the article is to show that evolution can occur quickly

….and ALL that it has shown is that Natural Selection can CHANGE PRE-EXISTING POPULATION TRAITS quickly!!!!:D


Robin
Since the mutation acts to increase the number of viable males in the butterfly population, it seems safe to assume that speciation hasn't occurred in this case and the newly resistant males are mating with previously resistant females.

…so it has NOTHING to do with macro-evolution then!!!!:D


Tim Robbins
A few small grains of rice = micro evolution (if you wan't to call it that).
After a long period time:
A few small grains of rice is now lots of grains of rice = macro evolution.

The difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution is QUALITATIVE and NOT quantitative!!!

Micro-evolution is the 'genetic drift' of traits within Kinds while macro-evolution is the hypothesised ‘upwards’ increase in specified complexity AKA information, which Evolutionists believe to have occurred (without any supporting evidence)!!!!:cool:


2Scoops

I do like how he's (JCs) been putting a few of the following in his posts: "may" "probably" "perhaps" to introduce a degree of uncertainty on his part

All of science (including Creation Science) is tentative!!!!!

.......but as a Christian, I don’t have to be tentative about the infallible Word of God…..

……so I guess I have the best of both worlds ….as a tentative Creation Scientist and an infallible Christian!!!!:D


5uspect
Well isn't the Pope cozying up to Intelligent Design? It sounds sciency enough to someone who can't be bothered to read the actual science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1859761,00.html

Yes indeed the Pope does seem to be favouring Theistic Evolution over Materialistic Evolution!!!!!
This SHOULDN’T be any major surprise, given the obvious fact that the Pope is a Theist!!!

What IS a bit of a surprise is the apparent acceptance of his predecessor of Materialistic Evolution - according to the above article :- "In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".

There is also a hint in the above article that this present Pope is going beyond Theistic Evolution and may even be leaning towards validating some version of Creationism.
The high priority attached to this review of the 'origins question' may be part of the attempt currently underway to stem the large numbers of defections from Roman Catholocism, in the Americas in particular, to Bible Literalist denominations.

....and BTW, the ban on the teaching of ID in America is basically a ban on Theistic Evolution in Public School. While this may be of concern to some denominations, Creationists generally have no strong views on this issue.

MOST Creationists DO NOT want the mandatory teaching of Creation Science (or ID, for that matter) in Public School. They are happy to have Creation Science properly and professionally taught outside of the Public School System to people who WISH to know about it.:D


5uspect
Bonkey posted this excellent link over in AH.
http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html

Quote (from the above link):-
“The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!”

Do some Materialistic Evolutionists believe that the only way that they are going to win any debate with Theistic Evolutionists / ID Proponents is by physical violence??????????


PDN
I can't believe I got sucked into this crazy thread!

Hang in there, PDN.
The harvest is great (over 70,000 hits on this thread) ……
……but the labourers are few……..
……just me and you and very few!!!!!:D


Tim Robbins
I am coming from a Roman Catholic background (long time ago now) but at the time, between very few and nobody believed either the above(Creationism).

I know of several Roman Catholics who are active World-Class Creation Scientists and many other Roman Catholics who are Creationists.