Yet another nail in the creationist coffin

[VinsonBrown]

As well as setting the precedent that ID is in fact, not science.

I respectfully disagree. The court decision determined law, but not fact. I think you'll at least agree that courts do not determine scientific fact. That is the sole responsibility of scientific endeavor. There is a vast difference between determining what is legal and what is factual. Oftentimes the two go hand in hand, but not always.

My point was that in this country you don't always have to agree with a decision of the court, although you might have to abide by it or otherwise deal with the consequences. Again, this is because courts are not designed to determine scientific fact. They are designed to decide legal issues.

I think convicted rapists and child molesters should receive mandatory life sentences, but for the most part, our courts and our lawmakers don't.

I think US Citizens should have the right to opt out of funding abortions with their tax money, but for the most part our courts and lawmakers don't.

See?

I'm not asking you to agree, I'm just clarifying my position.

BTW-- I have not yet come to a conclusion as to whether I agree with the courts decision or not. I can see both sides.

VB

 

[marktheblake]

You know what? The editing and metadata demonstrated clearly that document/book had been edited to replace every single instance of the word "Creatiionism" with the phrase "Intelligent Design".

That is not a secret, the Creation Institute (or is it ICR) has made it well known that is exactly what they have done - that they wish to remove "christianity/religion" from 'creation' so that theological aspects can be removed from the topic.

"Intelligent Design" only infers SOMETHING created the world. The concept allows for aliens, even!

Exactly!

 

[ThankGodforGod]

I respectfully disagree. The court decision determined law, but not fact. I think you'll at least agree that courts do not determine scientific fact. That is the sole responsibility of scientific endeavor. There is a vast difference between determining what is legal and what is factual. Oftentimes the two go hand in hand, but not always.

My point was that in this country you don't always have to agree with a decision of the court, although you might have to abide by it or otherwise deal with the consequences. Again, this is because courts are not designed to determine scientific fact. They are designed to decide legal issues.

I think convicted rapists and child molesters should receive mandatory life sentences, but for the most part, our courts and our lawmakers don't.

I think US Citizens should have the right to opt out of funding abortions with their tax money, but for the most part our courts and lawmakers don't.

See?

I'm not asking you to agree, I'm just clarifying my position.

BTW-- I have not yet come to a conclusion as to whether I agree with the courts decision or not. I can see both sides.

VB

The great thing about the court is that it leaves the creationist no wiggle room. For instance when Behe took the witness stand and emphatically stated that "we" don't know anything about the evolution of the immune system. The cross examiner got about 50 books that were on the evolution of the immune system and 1 by 1 asked Behe if he had read the books as he stacked them in font of him.

An example would be transitional fossils. Creationist crow on about how we have yet to discover a SINGLE transitional fossil when the facts could not be further from the truth. We have tons of examples of small gaps, and big gaps, all on display at museums and online. They STILL claim there are none though. This is a basic denial of reality that will not fly in the courtroom.

 

[VinsonBrown]

That is not a secret, the Creation Institute (or is it ICR) has made it well known that is exactly what they have done - that they wish to remove "christianity/religion" from 'creation' so that theological aspects can be removed from the topic.

Actually, it WAS a secret. It was brought to light when the original drafts of Penguins and Pandas were found in the discovery process of the trial. As I said, it was pretty much the smoking gun in the trial.

It was "The Wedge Theory" that Creationists made clear.

BTW-- has anyone here visited ICR headquarters? I did-- it was pretty interesting.

VB

 

[VinsonBrown]

The great thing about the court is that it leaves the creationist no wiggle room. For instance when Behe took the witness stand and emphatically stated that "we" don't know anything about the evolution of the immune system. The cross examiner got about 50 books that were on the evolution of the immune system and 1 by 1 asked Behe if he had read the books as he stacked them in font of him.

An example would be transitional fossils. Creationist crow on about how we have yet to discover a SINGLE transitional fossil when the facts could not be further from the truth. We have tons of examples of small gaps, and big gaps, all on display at museums and online. They STILL claim there are none though. This is a basic denial of reality that will not fly in the courtroom.

Could I ask why this issue is so very important to you? I've read mosts of your posts on this issue and it seems like you're kinda "preachy" about it.

Not that it bothers me, but you and a few others seem to treat it like it's a watershed issue when it comes to faith.

VB

 

[Cabal]

BTW-- has anyone here visited ICR headquarters?

Nope, I'd probably get arrested.

I did-- it was pretty interesting.

VB

How so?

 

[John 10:10]

There are far more Christians who believe God created the heavens and the earth and all life forms that show up in the fossil records from a beginning that began billions of years ago, than do Christians who believe God created heavens and the earth and all life forms that show up in the fossil records from a beginning that began only thousands of years ago. Current scientific measurements have been able to detect light sources in the expanding heavens that are almost 14 billion light years from the earth. Either God created the universe with age already built into it, or God took billions of years of time to bring the heavens and the earth to the place that was perfectly ready for His final creation - man. I believe in the latter.

Blessings

 

[VinsonBrown]

Either God created the universe with age already built into it, or God took billions of years of time to bring the heavens and the earth to the place that was perfectly ready for His final creation - man. I believe in the latter.

If you believe in an all-powerful God, then either one is possible.

But I don't see this issue as something crucial to essential Christian Doctrine.

VB

 

[Cabal]

Could I ask why this issue is so very important to you? I've read mosts of your posts on this issue and it seems like you're kinda "preachy" about it.

Not that it bothers me, but you and a few others seem to treat it like it's a watershed issue when it comes to faith.

VB

It's not so much that, it's that the opposing camp have to resort to lies and falsehoods as their weapon of choice. It's made all the more irritating by the fact that....

But I don't see this issue as something crucial to essential Christian Doctrine.

VB

...you're right, essentially it is a non-issue. Let science be taught in the science class, and religion...wherever it is that it gets taught.

Evolution, no matter how much religionists like to flatter themselves, has plenty of other applications now besides origins, and plenty of the states that rejected evolution being taught in the classroom are still quite happy to have biotech and genetics research set up on their turf and reap the benefits of having industry present, so it is going nowhere, like it or not.

 

[JusSumguy]

I don't see this issue as something crucial to essential Christian Doctrine.VB

When it's here, between us, this is true.

But when trying to introduce someone to God. It can be counterproductive to incorporate a doctrine like this into your pitch.

People aren't stupid. Especially young folk. And they see eastern religions, and whatnot, as viable alternatives. Like I said, counterproductive.


-

 

[marktheblake]

and plenty of the states that rejected evolution being taught in the classroom are still quite happy to have biotech and genetics research set up on their turf

evolution is not just about human descendants being a monkey > fish > worms.

 

[Cabal]

evolution is not just about human descendants being a monkey > fish > worms.

Er, yup, that would be why I posted the following:

Evolution, no matter how much religionists like to flatter themselves, has plenty of other applications now besides origins

It's just mildly ironic that they're quite happy to profit from evolution while at the same time insisting on shooting their children's education through the foot by mucking around with it on the high school level.

 

[student ad x]

MOD HAT ON

Howdy folks......moving this thread to the more appropriate forum: Origins Theology. Carry on.....

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[John 10:10]

If you believe in an all-powerful God, then either one is possible.

But I don't see this issue as something crucial to essential Christian Doctrine.

VB

While it's possible that God could have created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago with much much older age seemingly built into it, I do not believe God lies to us either in His Word or in the laws of His creation. Man can study the wonders of God's creation all he wants, and the Bible declares and science now confirms there was a beginning event to the creation of the universe, but

Eccles 3:11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

Blessings

 

[marktheblake]

Er, yup, that would be why I posted the following:.

I know.

Just because certain groups, do not agree that man descended from monkeys doesn't mean they do not agree with adaptation and so on.