Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I suppose some of what you say may be true, like about everyone believing in the same god, just with different names. However, believing in God is not enough. James 2:19 says, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!"

Even if we all do believe in the same God, the only way to heaven is believing that Jesus died for your sins and asking him for forgiveness. If you do that, it doesn't really matter what you call your God.

This may be, but it was given in the context of the topic. Lets try to keep this as on topic as possible.

_________________

If there were no sin in the world until Adam & Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit, then there was no Christ to save the world from it. So, how could Christianity be older than Judaism?

_________________

Hmm. I'm not sure I follow. Let's make a simple timeline:

First: Jesus is the Christ, chosen to save the world. This is before the creation of the world. The fall was known about before the creation of the world, and the plan of salvation was put in place before the creation as well. (~Way before everything)

Second: Adam and Eve fall, and introduce sin and mortality to the world. (~4000 BC according to many scholars)

Third: Adam and Eve are taught that though they have fallen, there will be a savior to redeem them and their posterity. The savior is Jesus Christ, so they are Christians (though I doubt they called themselves that specifically). I believe that they were taught about faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, etc... so that they could overcome the effects of the fall. (a short time after the fall, could be minutes, maybe years, but a short time compared to the length of their lives. So ~4000 BC)

Fourth: A couple of thousand years pass. Israelites are enslaved by Egypt. Moses leads them out of captivity. God tries to offer them the full gospel, they show that they aren't ready for it, so God gives them the Law of Moses. Thus is born what is now known as Judaism. (~2000 BC)

Let's think about it another way. If Christianity is true, which I believe it is, would it make any sense for God to withhold the true gospel from his children for 4,000 years?

If you want a good explanation of the pitfalls of both ideals for the existence of mankind, read this week's Time Magazine. In it they describe to detail why each has its own problems. However, the main issue at hand isn't whether one side or the other is correct: It's whether or not Creationism or neo-Creationism (Intelligent design) should be taught as science in classrooms.
Here in PA, and several other states, they're trying to put both Intelligent design and evolution in the same curriculum. I think this is terrible, because the whole of science is an observational field consisting of the process of observing evidence, experimentation, and mathematical logic. And while it might be tempting to say that the "gaps" (the lack of evolutionary fossil evidence at certain time periods not found by anthropologists and archeologists)was when an Intelligent power "fixed" us up, I believe is wrong to put this thought into evolution textbooks. There isn't any physical evidence supporting this besides some person's idea, and it could bee seen as a way for religion and science to mix in a negative connotation. Your thoughts?

_________________

I very much agree, Danbo. Theories about intelligent design are fine and all, but without any kind of real evidence, they shouldn't be allowed to masquerade as science. Keep it in Sunday school, that's what I think.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

I certainly agree that intelligent design cannot be presented as though it were a viable scientific theory. How can something universally rejected as science by scientists belong in a science book?

Note that scientists don't say it's impossible or not true or anything of the kind, it's just not science.

- Kef

Of course, it's not rejected by all scientists, only the ones that believe in evolution. You could just as easily say that evolution doesn't belong in a science book because it is rejected by Christian scientists.

No you couldn't. Evolution has EVIDENCE behind it, and it has been observed happening, unlike creationism. It has been thoroughly tested by the scientific method. Creationism is not scientific, evolution is. Therefore, evolution belongs in textbooks regardless of what some Christian scientists would say.

Believe me, the majority of modern scientists accept evolution as fact.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

One thing I would like to remark here is that you don't have to believe in evolution to be a scientist, but some churches pressure you into denouncing it because "it contrasts with the faith".

I rest my case

You can't really "rest your case" based on the opinion of a few churches - churches vary massively, to the point where two churches of the same denomination could be entirely different. Don't be too quick to make blanket statements about any religion.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

But not all churches. And not all Christians. I follow the intelligent design theory. I agree that you can't prove the existence of God (and based on principles of faith, you really aren't supposed to), and I'll also agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. IMHO, God is THE ultimate scientist. I realize that atheists will laugh at that, but through my eyes, I can't study the complexities of an atom, or the conception of the universe, or other scientific miracles, without thinking that there must have been SOMEONE who planned all this out.

_________________

I wanna clarify something. I believe that God created evolution, but I don't believe that the story of Adam and Eve or any other creation myth based on any religion should be presented as science in schools.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Rest your case?????? You haven't even defended or backed up anything youve said. Are you just going to ignore all the points put forth that you can't refute? Are you trolling, or discussing?

_________________

I'm going to ignore that, as others ARE trying to debate. Which brings us to:



In indeed, god would be the ultimate scientist. Anyone who can create such complex and minuscule matter would deserve a few physics prizes.

I also explicitly said "some churches", as all christians I personally know (more then you would guess) believe in evolution.

I'm sure many Christian scientists "believe" in evolution, too. In any case, intelligent design is not science because it follows religious, not scientific, principles. The number of scientists who believe intelligent design is a valid scientific theory are very few. Most believe it is a pseudoscience, that is, something that merely masquerades as science but is not founded upon sound scientfic principles.

- Kef

Well, at least you are consistant.

_________________

The reason there is even a debate about this is that people are trying to micromanage what their children learn, and there is more of an emphasis on religion than in decades past, both going on simultaneously. Some people feel its necessary to put Intelligent design in science because it interjects cold, harsh science with a somewhat logical explanation. Some people think that it just makes sense, which it does. But there isn't any physical, mathematical, or chemical evidence in it (unlike evolution), so therefore, it is not science. Period.
If you or your children go to a public elementary or high school, Christian ideology, much like Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or other religious ideologies, belongs in classes where an objective view is taken of religion (world cultures or whatnot). If your child goes to a Catholic or Christian private school, pump up on the Intelligent design...or whatever you pay them to teach. But teaching children ID as part of a science curriculum is teaching a faith-based idea in a physical-based field.

_________________

I still hold that evolution is not as scientifically sound as most of you think, however, I think that adaptation and other priciples encorporated with evolution have a sound base. Be this all as it may, I do not see what is wrong with taking a week in a biology class to point out some issues with some of the processes (like evolution) and talk about the idea of there being a force or presence that is responsible for life on Earth and the order of the universe. I don't think that anybody is arguing that the Book of Genisis should be taught to a class, but that Intelligent Design should be an option for discussion in a class about how things came to be. Why is this a problem?

_________________

Because your education needs to consist of things you can verify. Teachers can tell you "1+1=2", and you will be able to verify it, but they can tell you about ID and no verification is possible. If a child accepts this theory without attempting to analyse it, the way is paved for accepting OTHER philosophies in the future without stopping for a sec to see if it's sound. This leads to the child being succeptable to groups that wish to floor world democracy, and I don't think I need to name these people.

For this reason, ID needs to be taught in theology class, or as I would prefer, together with all religions, in a mythology class.

We're not talking about math. We are talking about evolution. Has evolution been verified?

_________________

Microevolution has.

Yes. Indeed it has. Cast your eyes upon the skeletal remains of early man. If you don't call THAT evidence then.... the discussions is irrelivant, cause you're never going to get it then.

Well, even if you can prove that evolution is possible, there is no way to prove that we evolved from anything, unless you go back in time.

Why not? Everything evolved from the original one-celled organisms in the primordial soup. We had to come from somewhere in there, like everything else. If you can prove evolution, wouldn't it be valid for all life?

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

That is just evidence. There is no actual proof unless someone actually saw us evolve.

Following this logic, I have decided not to believe in atoms since we can't see them with our own eyes.

- Kef

uhhhh... exactly what remains are you talking about? Like which find are you referencing?

_________________

Because there is absolutely no scientific evidence. Evolution is, in fact, one of the most intricate and detailed scientific theories out there. Even the M-theory of string energies, which is now accepted to be true, does not have nearly the amount of evidence that has been found to favor evolution. There are fossils showing chronological changes in the physical structure, biological similarities (ie enzymes made of the same amino acids and similar nucleic make-ups of genetic strains), Darwin's observations (which only have been added to since he published his theory), and more currently (say the past 2000 years), the evolution of the human mind to comprehend and use technologies to aid in ease of living. Either way, (back to the fossils) the reason ID exists is because there have been gaps of time periods where no fossils or archeological evidence has been found. For all we know, the missing link could be under the ocean. But the fact is, ID has no scientific grounds, other than "possible until proven otherwise."
Take ether, for example. A long time ago people knew that there was this big, black thing in the sky (outer space), through which light and energy could propagate. So, they assumed it was filled with a substance they called ether that allowed for this propagation, like how water allows sound to move very easily. But we know this to be false, proven eventually by science. Just because it makes sense doens't mean it to be scientific fact.

_________________

Like I said before, I have many issues with evolution. Most the stuff written about it is extremely bias (on both sides) But Ive heard enough of both arguments to discern that there are very large holes in the theory of evolution and other theories that are used to back up evolution (carbon dating for example). So since I have these issues with these theories, I cannot see why ID, while a minority of people consider it mere speculation, cannot be metioned as a possible cause.

Based on the information that I have heard/read/whatever I see from a scientific standpoint that there is as much likelyhood of man evolving from an amoeba as there being a more intelligent and powererful force that formed life as we know it. And that it is reasonable to mention this to students in a class setting.

PS sorry it takes me so long to reply, Im at work and I have to form my replys here and there as I have time.

_________________