quote:

---

> I just read on AOL of a survey by Pew Research Institute that
> determined 42% of Americans believe all species today are in the same
> form as they were when God created them about 10,000 years ago,
> essentially the Creationist line of thought.
> I'd bet about 75% to 80% of Creationists own dogs that are of a breed
> that didn't exist even 100 years ago.
>
> Old Haasie
>

quote:

---

>I'd bet that most creationists' dogs are smarter than they are.

quote:

---

> I just read on AOL of a survey by Pew Research Institute that
> determined 42% of Americans believe all species today are in the same
> form as they were when God created them about 10,000 years ago,
> essentially the Creationist line of thought.
> I'd bet about 75% to 80% of Creationists own dogs that are of a breed
> that didn't exist even 100 years ago.
>
> Old Haasie

quote:

---

>That doesn't accurately reflect the belief of most Creationists. I
>still have a copy of a paper I wrote in 9th grade in the late 70's,
>attempting to harmonize Creationism and Evolution. As I recall, my
>basic premise was that if God was indeed omnipotent, without
>limitation, than he could create any way He wanted, including through
>Evolution. Sounds more or less like Intelligent Design to me.

quote:

---

>
>kiddon
>
>p.s. I was in a Catholic school, and thus allowed to write about God.
>Imagine if I had written that paper in a public school. I would have
>likely been severely disciplined for daring to use the "G" word.
>
>kd

quote:

---

><RSHaas@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1125559521.611075.285470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I like to have my evolutionist friends over to my house, cook them a really
>nice gourmet dinner, and after they're finished eating ask them if they
>believe there was a chef.

quote:

---

> I just read on AOL of a survey by Pew Research Institute that
>determined 42% of Americans believe all species today are in the same
>form as they were when God created them about 10,000 years ago,
>essentially the Creationist line of thought.
> I'd bet about 75% to 80% of Creationists own dogs that are of a breed
>that didn't exist even 100 years ago.

quote:

---

>
>Old Haasie

quote:

---

>There is no evidence that any specie ever evolved into another specie.
>Nor is there any evidence that a common ancester ever existed for any
>two species that exist today. Until speciation is proven, or observed,
>the evolutionists have a ways to go to prove their point.
>Mike

quote:

---

> There is no evidence that any specie ever evolved into another specie.
> Nor is there any evidence that a common ancester ever existed for any
> two species that exist today. Until speciation is proven, or observed,
> the evolutionists have a ways to go to prove their point.

quote:

---

> (Sigh) Go easy on 'em, my niece and her husband go to a church that
> teaches biblical literalism.
>
> Here is a link to a short bio of Louis Agassiz:
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html
>
> Quotation: "But Agassiz was no evolutionist; in fact, he was probably
> the last reputable scientist to reject evolution outright for any
> length of time after the publication of The Origin of Species."
>
> Another quotation: "Agassiz's works on living and fossil fish and on
> glaciers have remained classics. His work on glaciers revolutionized
> geology, and drove another nail in the coffin of the Biblical Flood as
> a serious scientific hypothesis. He trained and influenced a generation
> of American zoologists and paleontologists, including Alpheus Hyatt,
> William Healey Dall, David Starr Jordan, Nathaniel Shaler, and Edward
> S. Morse. He left a mark on the development and the practice of
> American science, and brought science to 'the man in the street' as no
> one else had before. People from all over the world read his books,
> sent him specimens, and asked his advice. By the time of his death, on
> December 14, 1873, he was publicly recognized as America's leading
> scientist.
>
> "His philosophy of nature, aiming to understand the Divine Plan, is the
> last great expression of the old school of natural theology, started by
> men like John Ray almost two hundred years before. Natural theology had
> once inspired countless scientists, including Darwin and his
> forerunners, but by the time of publication of the Origin of Species it
> had largely run out of steam, unable to offer any real explanation for
> natural phenomena except 'God made it that way.' Within Agassiz's
> lifetime, and much to his grief, most of his students -- including his
> son Alexander, a well-known naturalist in his own right -- became
> evolutionists, though not necessarily Darwinians."
>
> Bruce
>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>

quote:

---

> On 1 Sep 2005 11:13:03 -0700, "Kiddon" <tampachessdon@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think so. The ID guys opt for more direct intervention. They
> say your way is *possible*, but they don't believe it happened that
> way. They believe Darwinism operates at some levels, but can't
> account for life at the cellular level, or can account for new
> species.
>
>
>

quote:

---

> <RSHaas@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1125559521.611075.285470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I like to have my evolutionist friends over to my house, cook them a
> really nice gourmet dinner, and after they're finished eating ask them if
> they believe there was a chef.
>

quote:

---

> There is no evidence that any specie ever evolved into another specie.
> Nor is there any evidence that a common ancester ever existed for any
> two species that exist today. Until speciation is proven, or observed,
> the evolutionists have a ways to go to prove their point.
> Mike
>

quote:

---

>There is no evidence that any specie ever evolved into another specie.
>Nor is there any evidence that a common ancester ever existed for any
>two species that exist today. Until speciation is proven, or observed,
>the evolutionists have a ways to go to prove their point.
>Mike

quote:

---

>"Dog Breeds are not seperate species, they may look as different as a
>Chihuahua and a Great Dane but genetically the same species. Wolves and
>dogs are seperate species." (Eo)
>==========
>I know that. The point is that various modern breeds are the result of
>some sort of selection having taken place... more or less under the
>noses of creationists.
>
>Old Haasie

quote:

---

>Dog Breeds are not seperate species, they may look as different as a
>Chihuahua and a Great Dane but genetically the same species. Wolves and
>dogs are seperate species.
>

quote:

---

>On 1 Sep 2005 11:54:26 -0700, "Eo" <crotalus_no1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>If wolves and dogs mate, do they produce offspring?

quote:

---

>On 1 Sep 2005 11:54:26 -0700, "Eo" <crotalus_no1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>If wolves and dogs mate, do they produce offspring?
>
>If a donkey and a girl mates, do they produce offspring?
>
>I do not know. That is why I am asking.

quote:

---

>Sam, please tell us that you do not own a donkey costume.

quote:

---

>Sam, please tell us that you do not own a donkey costume.
>
>Old Haasie
>

quote:

---

> If you cross a horse with a donkey you get a mule, but mules are not
> fertile. I don't think there are any examples of cross-species
> offspring being fertile.

quote:

---

>We each have the right to believe what we want. However, evolution is
>a theory born from science, and scientific methods. Creationism is
>neither. Therefore evolution should not be taught in a religion class,
>nor should creationism (nor its pseudo-scientific doppleganger,
>Intelligent Design) be taught in a science class.
>
>It's really that simple.
>
>Regards,
>Mike Petersen

quote:

---

> The plot goes like this: A poor Mexican girl is leading her donkey
> down the road. A lot of other Mexican girls are leading their donkeys
> too. (We will shoot real Mexican girls leading their real donkeys).
>
> She comes to a door. The owner says "Get out of here. We already have
> a donkey show. We do not need another one."

quote:

---

>
>
>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>news:431870a0.202649140@ca.news.verio.net...
>
>
>I one of these shows in Nogales. The poor girl was scared out of her mind.
>Afterwards she lay on the stage near my table sobbing and whimpering. I
>asked her in Spanish- Do you want help? Shall I call the police. NO, NO she
>hollered. Then she said in perfect English, the police will send me back to
>my husband, Sam Sloan.

quote:

---

> We each have the right to believe what we want. However, evolution is
> a theory born from science, and scientific methods. Creationism is
> neither. Therefore evolution should not be taught in a religion class,
> nor should creationism (nor its pseudo-scientific doppleganger,
> Intelligent Design) be taught in a science class.
>
> It's really that simple.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Petersen

quote:

---

>Everyone questions where we came from at one point or another, and whether a
>particular theory is borne from science or theology, both are popular
>explanations as to from whence we came and both should be presented.

quote:

---

>Evolution may have a scientific method surrounding it, but it can be proved
>no more than ID can.

quote:

---

>That's the bottom line. If you're going to attempt to
>answer the question "Where Did We Come From?" for kids, then either both
>theories should be taught or none should be taught at all. You can't teach
>one of two popular yet unprovable theories and withhold the other if one is
>to be fair to students in the public schools. Nobody would be satisfied
>with that, yet that is exactly the dilemma.

quote:

---

>My thoughts: Let the parents do it. Let them explain How It All Began.
>Let them get involved. It's their responsibility. Leave the public schools
>out of it.

quote:

---

>The ID people are not just championing a philosophical or religious
>position about the Ultimate Meaning of it all, or about God starting
>the balling rolling way back when. They are saying random mutation
>cannot account for the mechanism of the cell and for the development
>of new species.
>
>But here's one thing I'll bet they haven't considered. They say the
>structure of the cell implies a designer. You say when you have
>evolutionists over for dinner, you ask them if they believe there was
>a cook.
>
>Now, when we see a dinner here and a dinner there and a dinner over in
>Podunk, we *don't* think there was one cook running around making all
>of 'em. We would think there were many cooks.
>
>And Intelligent Design, if accepted, would seem to imply polytheism
>rather than monotheism. Why not many, many designers? We could get
>back to our true historical roots. Gods of rocks, plants, regional
>totems, tribes, planets, etc.. Maybe they're competing for
>dominance. Maybe some good, some bad, like Zoroastrianism.
>
>So, I believe if ID is mandated in the schools, the teachers should be
>required to point out that it equally supports the idea of many Gods,
>not just one. In fact, I would contribute money to fund legal action
>mandating just this.
>
>Heh, heh, heh. Sam? Sam? Where are you?

quote:

---

> I used to think that dinasours were big lizards.
> ... and saw lots of dinasour bones
> ... Suddenly, I realized that dinasours are just big birds
> ... the same as the dinasours in the museum, except that the dinasours in
> the museum were bigger.

quote:

---

> <mikeNOSPAM@theopenfile.com> wrote in message
> news:1125682099.415670.134700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Everyone questions where we came from at one point or another, and whether a
> particular theory is borne from science or theology, both are popular
> explanations as to from whence we came and both should be presented.
>
> Evolution may have a scientific method surrounding it, but it can be proved
> no more than ID can. That's the bottom line. If you're going to attempt to
> answer the question "Where Did We Come From?" for kids, then either both
> theories should be taught or none should be taught at all. You can't teach
> one of two popular yet unprovable theories and withhold the other if one is
> to be fair to students in the public schools. Nobody would be satisfied
> with that, yet that is exactly the dilemma.
>
> My thoughts: Let the parents do it. Let them explain How It All Began.
> Let them get involved. It's their responsibility. Leave the public schools
> out of it.

quote:

---

> On 1 Sep 2005 11:54:26 -0700, "Eo" <crotalus_no1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If wolves and dogs mate, do they produce offspring?
>
> If a donkey and a girl mates, do they produce offspring?
>
> I do not know. That is why I am asking.

quote:

---

>
> Matt Nemmers wrote:
>
> Sounds OK in theory, but now I have to apply this theory to my Actual
> Kids (ages 9 and 14).
>
> When I was in high school (late 1960's), I went to the same public
> school that my older child is about to enter, and the biology
> curriculum featured, what do you know, evolution. That's fine with me.
> Philosophically, sure, I sometimes wonder if there couldn't have been
> some intervention here and there. (Even though I'm not a devout
> believer :-)) But the curriculum they taught me didn't mention divine
> intervention, and so what? Did I miss out on anything major?
>
> On the other hand, if the curriculum is missing the basics of
> Evolution, I'd be pissed. It's earth-shaking, you have to know it to
> study biology post-1860, and (this is the kicker) there's more there
> than I know how to teach. Some people are into home schooling -- not
> me (and not my wife).

quote:

---

> Hopefully we'll get both kids through 12th grade without having to
> fight some stupid battle with people pressuring the school district or
> the state to buy biology textbooks that are missing crucial chapters,
> or curriculum that pitches divine intervention. I don't think my
> suburb of Pittsburgh has had to fight that battle in decades. On the
> other hand, Pittsburgh has its share of church schools and
> home-schoolers, and if they want to teach their kids some weird idea of
> how to explain why animals look so much related to each other, I guess
> I don't care enough to pick a fight with them. It's not in the same
> league as teaching kids that the earth is flat, or teaching them to
> deny the Holocaust. At least not to me.

quote:

---

> "...I *do* happen to believe that the Bible is
> the absolute truth and everything in it factual. " (Gambit)
> =========
> Tell me in detail how the Immaculate Conception took place? Did
> Jesus have the Y chromosome?
> Meanwhile,... how did Noah load two of every species from North and
> South America as well as Australia onto the Ark during a time when
> those lands were unknown aside from the fact that the Ark would not
> have been seaworthly for such a long voyage?
>
> Old Haasie

quote:

---

> Evolution is the generally accepted scientific theory of life on this
> planet. I don't care whether or not children believe in evolution, but
> they should understand it.

quote:

---

> Intelligent Design is a straw man put up by
> rigid dogmatists with no scientific backing or studies to support it.

quote:

---

> It is obvious which should be taught in school. Anything less is a
> dis-service to the education of children everywhere.

quote:

---

>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>_______________________________
>
>Somewhere on samsloan.com, there must be a story about a donkey and a
>girl engaging in mating activities. There must be (or soon will be).
>
>kiddon

quote:

---

>
> Everyone questions where we came from at one point or another, and

quote:

---

> particular theory is borne from science or theology, both are

quote:

---

> explanations as to from whence we came and both should be presented.
>

quote:

---

>
> "Matt Nemmers" <mattnemmers@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:9L1Se.304$6e1.193@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> whether a
> popular
>
> People cannot understand the natural
> world if they don't understand evolution.
> Your solution of teaching only what is
> "popular" doesn't address that. (As well
> as pretty much eliminating the teaching of all
> science and math.)

quote:

---

> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
> Though I don't consider myself a member of "the religious right" a la
> that moron Pat Robertson, I *do* happen to believe that the Bible is
> the absolute truth and everything in it factual. The fact that I can
> offer no tangible proof that God exists doesn't diminish my faith or
> make my beliefs any less compelling than the argument of evolutionists
> who believe we evolved from single-celled invertibrates. After all,
> evolutionists can't prove their theory either, as I'm sure you're well
> aware.
>
> To each his own.
>

quote:

---

> We each have the right to believe what we want. However, evolution is
> a theory born from science, and scientific methods. Creationism is
> neither. Therefore evolution should not be taught in a religion class,
> nor should creationism (nor its pseudo-scientific doppleganger,
> Intelligent Design) be taught in a science class.
>
> It's really that simple.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Petersen
>

quote:

---

> <mikeNOSPAM@theopenfile.com> wrote in message
> news:1125682099.415670.134700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Everyone questions where we came from at one point or another, and whether
> a particular theory is borne from science or theology, both are popular
> explanations as to from whence we came and both should be presented.
>
> Evolution may have a scientific method surrounding it, but it can be
> proved no more than ID can. That's the bottom line. If you're going to
> attempt to answer the question "Where Did We Come From?" for kids, then
> either both theories should be taught or none should be taught at all.
> You can't teach one of two popular yet unprovable theories and withhold
> the other if one is to be fair to students in the public schools. Nobody
> would be satisfied with that, yet that is exactly the dilemma.
>
> My thoughts: Let the parents do it. Let them explain How It All Began.
> Let them get involved. It's their responsibility. Leave the public
> schools out of it.
>

quote:

---

> Now personally, I think these ID guys are ad-men and are acting in bad
> faith -- they know that the equivalent of random mutations over
> billions of years are going to be very hard to replicate in the lab.
> If scientists were able to overcome this, I firmly believe the ID guys
> would just set the bar someplace else.

quote:

---

> That the Bible is anything but "unerring truth" is obvious to anyone who
> reads it. The "good book" contains more contradictions and factual errors
> than the accumulated postings in this newsgroup over the last 10 years.
> It's obvious many of the authors of the books in the bible were hardly
> aware (if at all) of the others' writings. That's even true for the NT,
> where Paul doesn't relate a single biblically-recorded "fact" about Jesus,
> for example his miracles, his mother's name, or details of his ministry.
> The reason is he wasn't aware of them because they had not yet been
> fabricated. The epistles were written in 40-55 AD, but the gospels were
> not written until 70-120 AD. Nobody knows who the supposed evangelists
> were. Nowhere in their writings do they say, "Hey, this is John, the
> Apostle Jesus loved." I could go on and on. If you want an easy-to-read
> primer on this topic, Google this phrase: "did Jesus exist?" Your eyes
> will be opened.

quote:

---

> As I said, and as any honest scientist will admit, evolution has not been
> proved in any rigorous sense. But there is a ton of evidence to support
> it.

quote:

---

> There is no evidence that anything mentioned in the Bible ever happend.
> EVER.

quote:

---

> Nobody, not even devout creationists, can deny that we've made leaps and
> bounds in our understanding of biological functions (and especially the
> human body) in the last hundred and some odd years, and I certainly am not
> implying that what we've learned hasn't helped. Of course it has. But
> all we've really done is come to understand how things work: how to
> identify diseases, cure some, and prevent others. We know how to fix
> hearts and brains, lungs and arteries, etc. We're even beginning to
> understand things like DNA, something that was almost unimaginable until
> recently. Hell, we're even at the point where we could make an identical
> human being if we really wanted to and ethics weren't a major concern of
> ours.
>
> However, that's all we've done -- come to *understand* more and formulate
> theories on how we came about based on this new-found knowledge. Sure,
> it's commendable and has proven invaluable in the field of medicine, but
> we don't know enough to say *for certain* How It All Began and, if we're
> going to be in the business of teaching big, fat MAYBES to our children,
> we might as well include the idea of Divine Intervention, something our
> country was founded on and people of the world have believed in (in one
> form or another) since time began. You know, just in the spirit of "In
> God We Trust" and all.
>
>
> What gets me is this: People who want the theory of ID removed from the
> curriculum in favor of evolution are doing the same thing to creationists
> that Dayton, Tennessee did to John Scopes 80 years ago. Now, as back
> then, people (like me) just want schools to give kids the opportunity to
> THINK for themselves and make an informed decision as to what they believe
> on their own when presented with two different yet equally unprovable
> theories. Nobody's asking anyone to favor one over the other, just to give
> both equal billing. I really don't see the problem here.
>
> If they don't believe in God, fine. Don't. But while the argument that
> theology doesn't belong in the science classroom may have a (very)
> *little* merit, at least grant me that teaching creationism in a HISTORY
> class would be appropriate.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt
>
> "Can't you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make
> it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a
> crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a
> crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And
> then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against
> Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If
> you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is
> forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying
> and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the
> glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who
> dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!"
>
> ~ Henry Drummond in "Inherit the Wind"
>
>
>

quote:

---

> It is obvious that you are too biased to even consider a compromise.

quote:

---

> "...I *do* happen to believe that the Bible is
> the absolute truth and everything in it factual. " (Gambit)
> =========
> Tell me in detail how the Immaculate Conception took place? Did
> Jesus have the Y chromosome?
> Meanwhile,... how did Noah load two of every species from North and
> South America as well as Australia onto the Ark during a time when
> those lands were unknown aside from the fact that the Ark would not
> have been seaworthly for such a long voyage?
>
> Old Haasie
>

quote:

---

> If you cross a horse with a donkey you get a mule, but mules are not
> fertile. I don't think there are any examples of cross-species
> offspring being fertile.
>
> I tend to believe in the theory of evolution, but until there is
> evidence of speciation my belief is no more valid than the belief of
> the creationists. It's possible to both not believe in God and not
> believe in evolution. It's also possible to believe in both.
>
> The universe has a kind of order to it. Some people worship this
> order, and call it divine.
>

quote:

---

>
> mike.good...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Not true. There are many examples among freshwater tropical fish, to
> name only one kind of animal. Among others, platies and swordtails have
> been crossbred many times to create various colorful varieties, which
> are fertile and breed true. IIRC, mollies and guppies have also
> crossbred producing fertile offspring. I'm sure there are other
> examples in both the animal and plant kingdoms.
> The biological definition usually entails that species do not
> interbreed *in nature.* That does not mean that artificial
> interbreeding is impossible, if the species are closely enough related.
>

quote:

---

> Your position is untenable. Of course parents should be able to teach
> their kids anything they like. I have often told my kids, when they were
> really young, that God made us. That explains something, at some level,
> but it is not science. Science is not so much truth-seeking as a healthy
> respect for evidence -- things we see, hear, and feel through our -- dare
> I say it? -- God-given senses.

quote:

---

> Evolutionary science should take no position at all on God, because God is
> not about science, but about faith.

quote:

---

> Similarly, religious people should shut their traps about evolution unless
> they are scientists and can attack the data, the evidence, from that
> basis.

quote:

---

> At no point in history was the average Joe even remotely qualified to
> discuss, or even appreciate, science. Not during the Scopes Monkey Trial
> and not today.

quote:

---

> To put the average American's understanding of science into perspective:
> If we were talking about language, they would be speaking gibberish -- at
> best Ebonics -- not English. We are mostly dunces when it comes to
> science, the scientific method, and what is science and what is not. If I
> sound elitist on that point too XXXXing bad. I was in school until I was
> 31 years old, trying to get that thing right.

quote:

---

> There is probably as much evidence for evolution, when you add molecular
> biology and physiology together, than there is for many other common
> beliefs, including scientific theories that are routinely taught in
> universities.

quote:

---

> Would you prefer that we leave the teaching of quantum physics to parents?

quote:

---

> After all, nobody has ever seen an electron (although there is abundant
> evidence that they exist).

quote:

---

> There is zero evidence that God created the universe, or that he made the
> world and all the creatures in it in seven days. None. Nada. Numquam. Ganz
> und gar nichts.

quote:

---

> I believe he did --

quote:

---

> in a good deal more than seven days.

quote:

---

> But I would, and should, be commited to an insane asylym for getting up in
> front of an audience at the next American Chemical Society National
> Meeting and saying so.

quote:

---

> Keep science out of religion and religion out of science.

quote:

---

> You believe there's a Supreme Being that could and did create our universe
> but isn't supreme *enough* to do it in seven days?? That sounds a
> bit....well, stupid. No offense.

quote:

---

> Perhaps, but many of the theories depend on imperfect testing. Take
> carbon-14 dating, for example. Years ago, tissue was taken from a
> *living* mollusk to test the accuracy of carbon-14 dating. The test
> "revealed" that the tissue was over 2000 years old. The thing was still
> alive.

quote:

---

> I'm the furthest thing from a Bible-thumper, but in my mind there is just
> no other satisfactory explanation for all of this.

quote:

---

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NfadnRv9laMbl4TeRVn-rg@comcast.com...
and[vbcol=seagreen]
presented.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You say this as though evolution has been proven, David. It hasn't.

quote:

---

> teaching what's "popular," that's all evolution is, too: a popular

quote:

---

> If you truly believe what you're saying, then evolution shouldn't be

quote:

---

> either.

quote:

---

> I never said eliminate science and math. Both are necessary and

quote:

---

> fields of study. But while math can always be proven and understood

quote:

---

> some), ironically, science isn't always an "exact-science." That's

quote:

---

> there are theories, one of which is evolution.
>

quote:

---

>
> I could turn your question around: If there is a God supreme enough to
> establish the laws of physics and the scientific principles that we
> observe in action every day, wasn't he supreme enough to trust that those
> laws alone were sufficient to bring about human beings from lower
> creatures?

quote:

---

> If there is a God, if he did create everything we see, then he did so
> according to what we perceive to be the laws of nature, of physics, which
> presumably were of his creation. If you believe in him, then you should
> believe that he'd set these laws in motion and let them be. Why complicate
> your belief with the religious dogma, which says that while you and I
> can't fly across the room, someone 3000 years ago could. Or that once we
> die, we're dead but 1972 years ago "many saints were raised." C'mon man.

quote:

---

> Matt, I challenge you to go to Google and type, "did Jesus exist?" and
> spend an evening reading and following various links.

quote:

---

>
> But while the argument that
>theology doesn't belong in the science classroom may have a (very) *little*
>merit, at least grant me that teaching creationism in a HISTORY class would
>be appropriate.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt
>

quote:

---

>Creationism is the generally accepted personal theory of life on this
>planet. I don't care whether or not children believe in God, but they
>should understand that others do and that there may be things in this
>universe that just can't be explained.

quote:

---

>
>
>Evolution is a hole-ridden theory put up by rigid agnostics who rely on
>near-impossible odds of happenstance and imperfect tests to champion their
>claim that we came from single-cell ameoba.

quote:

---

>
>I hate to answer an answer to a question with a question, but it if God is
>all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful like you believe, why would he
>need to rely on natural selection and evolution to create the human race
>when surely he could do it himself? To amuse him? To pass the time?

quote:

---

>
>"No other explanation" is not science, it's conjecture.
>

quote:

---

>
>If a donkey and a girl mates, do they produce offspring?

quote:

---

>
>I do not know. That is why I am asking.

quote:

---

>I'm not complicating anything because I don't buy evolution. Only to those
>who believe in Darwin's theory AND believe in God have the dilemma.

quote:

---

> I don't know much about chess, either, yet I here I am.

quote:

---

> I'm not complicating anything because I don't buy evolution. Only to those
> who believe in Darwin's theory AND believe in God have the dilemma.

quote:

---

> Evolution is a hole-ridden theory put up by rigid agnostics who rely on
> near-impossible odds of happenstance and imperfect tests to champion their
> claim that we came from single-cell ameoba.

quote:

---

> Matt, I challenge you to go to Google and type, "did Jesus exist?" and
> spend an evening reading and following various links.

quote:

---

> Matt Nemmers wrote;
>
>
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Only those Christians who believe in Darwin's theory AND believe in a
> literalistic interpretation of Genesis have a dilemma.
>
> Not all persons who believe in God are (a) Christians and (b) biblical
> literalists. To imply otherwise, as you do, is arrogant and incorrect.
>
> Wick

quote:

---

> O
>
> He was just trying to impress his wife. Just think: How many other
> Godesses had husbands clever enough to invent quantum mechanics?

quote:

---

> I stand corrected. Mea culpa.