I would support this type of class in public schools... does it surprise anyone that this course failed to attract interest? afterall, the creationists just want equal time right? let the kids decide? the article goes on to talk about how the residents are pushing for creationism in the science class again, which exposes their true motivation: putting their myths into public school, not about exposing the kids to all the ideas
Whenever this topic comes up if it isn't about God, I sure don't know what the fuss is about. Is God anywhere in the science of evolution? Care to show me where? This is all about belief in God. The Christian hope is not in this life, but it is a hope in a resurrection after death. Is that the same hope everyone here feels in their own hearts? I am looking forward to the resurrection. What is everyone else hoping for? Man thinks he is so smart, many here are plunging head first both fists clinched not towards origins, but towards one last gasping breath. The real question is not where did you come from but where are you going! (it's all about destination my friend) Origins, that is actually a man-made laugher, tell me about future destinations after death. So everyone believes they have the origin answer neatly tucked away inside a brain that evolved from a common ancestor, like a humanoid 3.5 ft. tall. (why not call it an early monkey and turn your eyes on the future) What evolution fails to tell you is where you are going except to dust. I know EVERYONE has an answer for the life after. That's why most people eat, drink and are merry. But the right answer to that question is infinitely more important at the moment than did God speak or dark matter burp. Faith may not satisfy the skeptic, but science won't save the intellectual. Religion may be a sham in one man's heart but who can say it isn't the salvation of another man? When it is all said and dead, you and I will exercise the same faith. God or man? If evolution was water tight perfect, I really don't think I am personally stupid enough to abandon ship with so much at stake. I might be wrong, but I have very carefully looked at as much evidence as possible on both sides. How about you?
Thanks, but I was speaking of the God of the Bible, of Genesis. This is the part of the article that really spoke to me- "When you look at Christianity it's also made by non-Christian elements. When you can see that then you realise the wisdom of non-self and there is no discrimination between the self and non-self. Mango is different than grapefruit, the Venerable Mahakasyapa is different from the Venerable Ananda. We can distinguish the differences but we don't have any discrimination, and then we liberate ourself because we are not caught by the appearance, the notion of self." I might need the new Modern American English version of this. I admit, it lost me early on.
God starts our universe then moves on to other projects _______ I've never understood why religions haven't looked at the big bang theory and considered it a divine act ~ god starts the universe from nothing and then lets his creation work it self out (evolution). God probably has lots of universes to attend he can’t be bothered with the details of a humming bird beak when there are serious issues with carbon atoms in universe 9,0dd,35Rq,962,bg4,m27,T4i,32K.014 ~
Very good post. I once saw it that way when I became a Christian, but... 1. There are no missing links (at least the billions needed) so God surely wouldn't have left them out. 2. God could handle it all. 3. I've never understood why we haven't looked at the big bang theory and considered it a divine act ~ god created and bang matter and energy appeared. Even light in travel could be created. If you are going to believe in God pick a great big all powerful one. 4. Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul both stated creation in other terms. (one I serve as Lord and God and the other I esteem as speaking God's words) 5. I wonder how the pyramids were built but I don't doubt somebody smart built them. (and you may know, I just don't)
I really don't want this to turn into a 'is christianity true' thread, but since rhester said that he believes in a literal reading of Genesis and that is the basis for his belief in creationism, I was wondering how you reconcile in your mind to reject evolution based on percieved holes but accept Genesis, which is filled with logical fallacies? (there was night and day before there was a Sun, plants grow before there was a Sun, light from distant stars reach earth instantly)?
Actaully evolution can be proved (or disproved), just not very easily. Just wait for 100 million years (dinosaur lasted much longer than that), if humans are still thriving then we should know for sure. Or a handy time machine would help. Doc could help us build one.
