John Kerry
Let me ask you this:
Who do you think is paying for these high dollar comercial? It was not a local chapter of vets that that raise there money from charity auctions.
What can John Kerry not be trusted about? That he really wasn't in Viet Nam?
That his dad got him out of the draft and into the National Guard?
As a Former Marine that has served in combat I would rather have someone in office that has experienced the realities of war leading our country rather than a millionaire son who since day one has had a golden spoon in his mouth.
These guys in this commercial obviously have different views on the Viet Nam War. They believe that the Vietnam War was a Noble Cause and they are proud of their service there.
My Father was in Vietnam and thought the entire war was a big scam and still to this day is bitter towards the government for what he experienced.
My mother lost her first Husband at 19 in Vietnam. Try telling her that the Vietnam War was a noble cause.
These vets that have a different view on history just want to go down in history as a legitimate war time American Veteran-but they are being used by the Bush people.
If it were not for the 1000's of vets that came back from vietnam and spoke out about it -the war could have dragged on for 2-5 more years. So I thank Kerry for that.
There are two schools of thought on this whole John Kerry Vietnam thing.
Bush's people are trying to discedit any
of Kerry's Military Accomplishments with other veterans because he can't personally speak on the subject.
Kerry is using his military service to add credit to himself.
How John Kerry won his medals can be argued 50 different ways. I can tell you my own experience with the military and medals...They are handed out very generously once the rounds start flying overhead. i know guys that fell of tanks and twisted an ankle and got a purple heart because there were in a combat setting. I also know of guys who lost limbs and got the same purple heart.
As a public School teacher in Florida for 10 years I can tell you that the Bush's (George and Jeb) are bankrupting our public education.
I can tell you that as an American who loves to travel the World I am treated with hostility because of the views other countries have on the Bush Administration and the American People-so I rarely travel anymore.
Jim
It's ashame that America has to choose between two clowns to be their president. It's my opinion that neither of the two are fit for the office of presidency. It's not a choice of who is the best man but who is the lesser of two evils. There are thousands of men in America with clean hands and pure hearts who are honest and trustworthy. These are the types of men who could lead America without the possibility of selling out. Mr Bush walks in crooked paths and speaks with a forked tongue. The day shall come when his secret combinations will be made know to all.
Speaking for myself, It would be a shame if we pulled out of Iraq and left while the new government is too weak to keep the next "Baddest Kid " on the block to come in and destroy what has been done to establish a country that has some understanding of freedom.
If the Iraqi people decide not to have a democracy, then it's their choice.
Before you condemn what's going on over there, I would encourage you to spend a little time finding some of the good that's going on over there too. Car bombs make the news, Terrorist attacks make the news. Better, more reliable utilities than ever has existed there doesn't. There is an incredible amount of good things going on in Iraq that you're not hearing about in the news. I would encourage you to ask the soldiers that are over there if they think they are wasting their time. Overwhelmingly their answer to that is "No". They are the ones that have they're lives on the line, and they're the ones that believe that what they are doing is noble,and just. About the only thing that I see that's similar to Viet-Nam and this war is that too many of the citizens here think that our cause is wrong, and that this is only about crooked politics.
If you want to know what Mr Kerry will be like, look at his record in Government so far. Look how he has voted historically. His record is a window into his core beliefs. There are no surprises with him. If you're cool with that then by-all-means vote for him.
As for me, I like knowing that the decisions that were made yesterday, haven't changed. I like that there were more jobs created over the last few months than were lost. Home ownership in this country is higher than it's ever been, and that economic outlooks are positive.
See you in November!
Jeff12002
Jeff,
Supporting the troops is important. You are correct.. they had no choice in their deployment. Yes there are lots of Iraqi's that are thankful that Sadam is gone. Here is where the problem lies
The hundreds of Islamic fundalmentalist like Bin Laden throughout the world (yes there are hundreds of Bin Laden's if not thousands) have been preaching for years now that "The Americans are Evil". The Americans/Infidels will soon try and take our country". "The Americans will soon try and take over our oil".
What did we do: We Invated Iraq,took over their country,secured the oil fields and arrested their president.
We played right into the hands of Bin Laden and the rest of the crazy's.
Now there are tens of thousands of young muslim men making their way to Iraq to fight the "Infidels" . You and I know that Sadam was a nasty guy. You and I know that we don't want Iraq and You and I know that there is no way in hell we could just take their Oil. However a large portion of regular Joe muslims, that would be considerd regular citizens like you have very strong convictions that do not mirror you and I.They believe what the profesors and relgious leaders are saying on TV.(they are saying these things on the moderate TV stations)
Let me give you a senerio:
How would you feel if a bunch of middle eastern guys were walking the streets of your town with turbans on (and the rest of the US )with AK 47's, they did not speak english, they were there to inforce the local laws. The local community would be fine with it until the local news and the religious leaders in the community started showing these soldiers as the enemy. Maybe a few civilian died down the street from your house from an aircraft bomb that went off target (these things do happen in war) Then all hell would break loose the little bit of faith that you had in these guys was immediately tossed out the window. Your uncles from the mid west would drive over with their rifles. Your cousin from Canada would find a way down and the fight would be on.
This is the exact scenario in Iraq today.
I really feel for the troops in Iraq. I was once in their shoes.
I honestly believe that our government made a tremendous error in Invading Iraq by ourselves. When Sadam was in power, we at least new the enemy. We bombed him everytime his government stepped out of line. He new this and the U.N Sanctions were working. Now we have 50 Sadam's spread out all over the region and we can not find any of them. In 5000 yearsThe Iraqi people have never had a democracy. As long as our troops are there- they will be targets.
The current Administration will not share any of the construction contracts with the rest of the world andwith 100's of millions of dollars at stake in the rebuild effort- this is why other countries are not stepping forward to help.
It is easy to say :"I support the war in Iraq, We should be there until the end". You can not fully believe in the war in Iraq unless you are willing to go down to your local recruiter and sign yourself up (Or your 18+ son or daughter) and say to that recruiter "Get me to Iraq as fast as you can, I want to help build their democracy".
Jim
You are correct "They do hate us. " Why do they hate us and I am not just talking about bin Laden but millions of muslims around the world. That is a very complex question that would take me most of the day to type.
Why did milllions of people around the world from many different nations cheer when those awful atrocities took place on 9/11?
If you sleep better at night now than before 9/11 than I than I envy you.
I guess we can Agree to disagree.
(Wow.. we are wasting a lot of time that we could be spending on looking for deals)
Jim
jeff, its suprising how much I agree with you but reach a different conclusion.
However, educate me on some points.
"Better, more reliable utilities than ever has existed there doesn't."
The major Iraqi cities were used to having electricity for some 20 hours a day, now its around 8 hours. One of the many reasons the local people feel enough isn't being done, that their life is worse than it was. What utilities are you talking of? Keep in mind, while we are doing a lot of rebuilding, we are simply rebuilding what we blew up.
You can't really argue much for the job creation. Did you check the numbers that cam out on Friday? Yes, the economy had two great months but 'creating more jobs than losing them' should not really be an achievement for the world's largest and strongest economy.
As for your second post, here is the problem, in my opinion. "Nothing we have done since Sept. 11 has changed that, and amount of money or foreign aid, that we can give will change that."
The Islamic fundamentalists did hate us and will continue to do so but the average Iraqi people didn't. When we made the decision to go in without the UN backing, in their perspective, it changed from a humanatarian mission to an invasion.
Keep in mind also that Iraq didn't have any extremist groups in the country before we invaded. When Saddam's control over his country was totally lost, these groups came in. Iraq was Bin Laden's wet dream. And we gave it to him. While it can't be confirmed, some even speculate these groups are recruiting faster than the U.S. gov't can.
Also, we went in to save our skin and not save the people of Iraq. We went in with faulty intelligence and no clear strategy. That is one of the biggest problems I have. There is no love lost for Saddam, he is good riddance. But we didn't know the truth and we didn't have a plan to get out if things became a mess.
The coalition is a load of B.S. and you seriously cannot believe otherwise. It is pretty much two countries with a load of other countries which don't matter, many of them don't even have their own milittary and they signed their names on the coalition for a few million dollars of 'aid'. Most of them provide nothing more than 'intelligence support' so when they find out about a potential attack, they are supposed to let us know. Our traditional allies would have done that anyways and we didn't have to pay them for it. And many of the coalition troops that are there on the ground do not take part in any sort of fighting. They are purely there for humanatarian reasons.
So while we cannot leave Iraq today, we did make it a complete mess and it is time to get over this administrations ego and admit our mistakes. Let the U.N. take over. India and China have two of the largest armies in the world and they have both promised troops under the U.N. banner. At this moment, we don't need smart bombs, we need people on the ground. These two countries alone can replace the whole american presense with a fraction of their armies. It is time to admit our mistakes and fix up Iraq before it gets any worse and costs this country more money and lives.
Most importantly, it is time to go after the terrorists who attacked America.
Just a personal opinion...one of the wonders of a democracy, we can each have our own!
John Kerry.........?
He flips flop more then a fish on land.
He is like your basic democratic politician....they all are the same since Kennedy......they tell the blind what they want to hear because they are too stupid to see the nose on their face.
John Kerry.....?.................the same moron that didn't take his job on the inteligence committee to show up at the meetings 80% of the time............yeah, I want someone like that for president.......he probably wouldn't even show up for his intel briefings.........just like the last democratic president.......he was too busy with Monica under the desk.
They (dems) like to start class warfare........always putting the rich up against the poor or middle class......yet anyone with half a brain can tell that they are hypocrites.
Kerry / Heinz........one of the richest couples in America telling me how they are going to "help me out".......no thanks I don’t need their help.
Matter of fact I don’t need them sticking their filthy hands in my wallet for more stupid social programs.
In regards to military service......I don’t care if he did serve in the Vietnam War,
that doesn’t give him a free pass to lie about what he did.
Anyone that serves in the military I applaud, I served myself both home and abroad,..........I don’t care a person was in war or not............at least they didn’t dodge the service like the last lying democratic president we had......which by the way the NEA.......(that's right the National Education Association for Cry Babies whose answer is to waste more tax dollars on brain washing your kids) supported that hypocrite.
Matter of fact, when was the last time the NEA ever endorsed anyone other than a democrat for president.....don’t remember it in my life time.
Public Education has been and will always be in a mess since they took God out of school.
Its ok to give the kids, condoms, Muslim teaching under the guise of multiculturalism, lower test scores for students as well as teachers, tell kids that we should all be tolerant and get along, teach our kids not to have pride in the Red, White and Blue...........do everything you can except TEACH kids the basics.
I thank God that I am bless that we are able to Home School our children.
Which by the way the NEA hates that too......why, could it be that Home Schoolers beat EVERYBODY on SAT scores..............while doing this with a small budget.
In regards to the world.............I could care less about what the world thinks of me or my country. Every time the "World" needs something they call upon the USA to help them out......we help them out and then they resent it.....................the world offered me nothing..............but the USA has given me something that very few democrats, socialist, marxist, communist and any other title you would like to add.............USA gives a person OPPORTUNITY.
As Collin Powel said........the USA has never asked anything of any country that we have help liberate........other then a few feet of their precious soil to bury our sons and daughters.
I don’t need some slick politician or left wing nut telling me about how bad our country is or that we need to get along with the world........blah, blah, blah.......all I want is the government to keep its filthy hands out of my pocket.........and if anyone thinks they can find a better country to live........well be my guest and jump on the next plane out of here.
PS. We won't we talk about John Edwards and how much of a liar and con man he is..........unfortunately he comes from my state.
NC_Yank
".....?.................the same moron that didn't take his job on the inteligence committee to show up at the meetings 80% of the time"
You do know Bush has taken more holidays as the president of the USA than any other president, right? Not saying what Kerry did was right but just pointing out a fact.
This site is overwhelmingly republican and that is no suprise but I don't see why everyone gets so excited when the possibility of a higher tax comes up. I assume everyone here understands economics pretty well, as business people and what not. We do need to increase taxes sooner or later to pay back our debts. A country, just like an individual, needs to repay its loans. While we continue to have major trade deficits and spend far more than we collect from taxes, where is the difference going to come from? A significant portion of the Iraq war was fought by money borrowed from foreign nations. These are loans we need to pay off and the sooner we do that, the better off we are.
There are plenty of small third world nations that owe us money. A few hundred million or a couple of billion dollars. That is pocket change for this economy and we can easily forgive that debt but we don't so we can maintain a political influence in their governments. As we continue to take large loans, economies like China and India continue to expand. Most predict in fifty years, China, the US of A and India will be the three largest economies in the world. Do we really want to be in a similar position at that point? Owing a boat load of money to China and let them dictate our foreign policy?
Therefore, I am curious what some of you would suggest we should do if we plan on repaying the loans without increasing taxes? Its not an easy decision and it certainly affects our pocketbooks but we did take that loan and we need to pay it back unless we want the creditors breathing down our neck. The biggest problem I have with Bush is his refusal to acknowledge this as a major problem and to take any actions. While Kerry realizes this is an issue, I have yet to hear what he plans to do about it.
Regards,
clegg
As a teacher I am frightened by the people that home school their children.
One of the most important parts of a childs education is the socialization process that takes place at school. Kids need to learn how to get along with others how can they do that when they are sitting at home?
Taking God out of School ...isn't that why we just ran the Taliban out of Afganastan?
Well, since we all hate America here, don't believe in the wars that we are fighting, are worried about what other countries think about us, lets just pack up and move to France, or Germany, or England, or somewhere else but here. Wait a minute, oh my gosh, just realized something, the only reason these countries are still here is because we bailed their butts out of their meaningless wars. Then, we had the mercy not to take them completely over, but let them go on with their lives, while we protected them. I remember being spit on by the Germans while i was over there in the mid eighties, and people are saying our soldiers are rude and crude to the locals. maybe we need to start treating all of the visitors that come to our country the same way they treat us. its not because of Bush, it's because the world hates us, because they want to be us. They only wish they had the two "clowns" that we have running for president.
We only have troops in other countries when it also serves us some purpose. it is VERY rare when we send troops with no benefits. One of the rare cases was Kosovo. We are always looking to expand our military bases worldwide and therefore we provide nations with an American troop presense and in exchange, not only do we get a military base in the region but we also get a certain amount of loyalty from these nations.
I agree with everything else you said. This government needs a major overhaul. I am talking about the structure of the gov't. Burueacracy is rampant and too many people are being employed who do nothing. Costs are soaring. I was hoping these would be things Bush would take care of but one of the reasons so many Republicans don't like him is because he has gone against so many republican values.
However, this overhaul, if done properly, would only help us be a better financially run country in the future. We still need to pay the trillions in debt we already owe. How do those get paid?
clegg
Quote:
On 2004-08-08 22:03, charlottehomebuyers wrote:
To solve some of the debt we should charge every country fee's for helping with our troops.Stop giving money for nothing and take back our country. Shut down the borders. Look at this example a family looses one of the two parents in a home.What does that family do?
Re structure and work with there income to make it. THE GOVERMENT NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED. Loose the fat cats.Work with the money from this year for next. I pay enuff tax,raising my tax is not the answer to fuzzy math. I'm in North Carolina and John Ewards is a lier also. He said he is one of the middle class people and one of us.DAM LIER.(HE MADE $27,000,000 Last year suing people) When did the middle class include $27,000,000 income. I must be in the poor class .
AS i have said i vote the person not the party.
DEMOCROOKS have giving me no to vote for.
1.Al (clown) Sharpton
2.Bill (coward) Clinton
2.John (flip-flop) Kerry
3.Al (confussed) Gore
I do know who supports the people above.
Saddam
Binladin
Kin yan
<font size=-1>[ Edited by charlottehomebuyers on Date 08/08/2004 ]</font>
1.Newcreation------ How will your kids learn to smoke cigarettes and/or dope, cuss, be disrespectful, become pregnant as teenagers, live Godless lives, etc., if they are not involved in the social setting of a public school? Don't you worry they may be missing out? ; )
2.Crebb,Crubb, whatever your name is, the tax raising fan----I have a plan you should love. Let me sell all your properties at around 20% to 30% commission. I'll make more money and thus pay more tax.
Or, to illustrate the angst against taxes in general,lets say you agree to 20% this year. All year long you read my marketing and I'm whining about how much I had to borrow to stay in business. Do you want to pay me 30% the next year? Why not? I ran up a debt and it needs to be repayed. I'm not trying to poke fun at your ideology, I just don't understand the whole "we need to raise taxes" thing.
"As a teacher I am frightened by the people that home school their children.
One of the most important parts of a child’s education is the socialization process that takes place at school. Kids need to learn how to get along with others how can they do that when they are sitting at home?
Taking God out of School ...isn't that why we just ran the Taliban out of Afganastan?"
As a teacher and probably an NEA card carrying member......you are afraid of home schooling because of the..........RESULTS that we get.
Like most ignorant politicians, it is easier to play the name blame game on everything and everyone except one self.
If our kids are not getting educated then it is the PARENTS fault first and foremost followed by the TEACHERS.
Public education has failed in most parts of the country. I know there are many good public school systems but I am not naive to the fact that the NEA has its own agenda. The NEA is one of the largest and most powerful lobbying groups in the US. Their number one concern is not educating children.......if it were then I would expect to see results.
My sister in-law is a certified teacher here in NC. She will tell you that Bush is by far a better of the two choices. She also stated to me that most teachers are nothing more then lemmings following the lead of the NEA. What ever the NEA says, they bow too.
The fact remains that Homeschoolers out perform public education in every field...............this is not my opinion, this is fact that is backed up by independent sources..........can we say the US Department of Education.
Just to show the rest of the group that is reading this.....let us see what the US Dept. of Education findings are.....to believe me....check out the facts yourself.
Below are based on 2001.
(parenthetical notes added by NC Yank)
Homeschool profile
Median amount spent on home schooling per child in the US - $450
Household incomes
18% of home school families earn less than $25,000, 44% of households between $25,000 and $49,000.
Religion
Over 75% attend religious services
(oh my.......could this be one of the reasons we outscore public education....we believe in God)
Regulation
States with High government regulation of home schools - homeschool battery score - 86
States with Moderate government regulation of home schools - homeschool battery score - 85
States with Low government regulation of home schools - homeschool battery score - 86
Certification
Performance of 4th grade home schoolers where at least one parent was certified - Composite Percentage Score 82
Performance of 4th grade home schoolers where neither parent was certified - Composite Percentage Score 82
(you mean a non certified teacher still scores the same as one that is certified.........and you wonder what that 4 year teaching degree is worth)
Minority Performance
Home school - average reading score (white) - 87 percentile; Public school - average reading score (white) - 61 percentile
Home school - average reading score (minority) - 87 percentile; Public school - average reading score (minority) -49 percent
(take note; what an embarrassing result)
Home school - average math score (white) - 82 percentile; Public school - average math score (white) - 60 percentile
Home school - average math score (minority) - 77 percentile; Public school - average math score (minority) - 50 percentile
This was just based upon 4th grade.....we can go to the higher grades and see how really ugly it gets........but then again that would be too much for me to laugh about, I can hardly contain myself now.
Looks like to me that the NEA and public educators have a long way to go before they catch up with us homeschoolers.
By the way, did you catch .....the average yearly spenditure for a homeschooler, $450.00. Dare we say what the average cost is for public education.......one that is inferior..........I cant help but laugh.
Enough about home schooling versus public education........the facts are there....you can either ignore them or tell the tax payers you need more money.......blah blah blah.
Any teacher that is teaching this nonsense about "separation of church and state" should read the constitution, that piece of paper that many God fearing Christian men wrote.
Oh, but we can talk about that fact lest we offend someone who isn’t Christian.
In regards to your Taliban comment, maybe you should keep up with current events. I can also see why public education is failing with unfactual comments such as that.
The reason we ran the Taliban out was.........can you say they supported and hid Osama Bin Laden, you know the man and his organization that is bent on destroying America...............had nothing to do with religion......which by the way.....he is a MUSLIM........oh yeah, all 19 of the terrorist were Muslim,......as were the ones that attacked the US Cole, as were the one that attacked the trade center the first time, as were the ones that cut off the heads of Nick Berg and company......as were the ones that...........huh???????.......is there a common theme here?
Christians believe its ok for women to speak, vote, have a right to choose a husband, dress in a manner that doesn't require putting a bag over your head....yet alone not cutting ones head off for not obeying...................need I say more.
NC
PS. As a parent, I am frightened that a teacher doesn’t know how to spell Afghanistan.
summerj,
Did you hit “post reply” when you really meant to hit “post topic”? Looks like your statement could stand alone as a new thread. Then you could have a whole thread to explain to us backwoods types what it is that you fear. I still dont understand what the taliban has to do with homeschooling. All the coverage I saw on the subject showed them to be in charge of the public schools over there.
I don't care for the "dems" policy of class warfare. Continually pushing the idea that the rich are not paying there fair share when the top 5% pay over 50% of all taxes, top half 50% pay over 96% of taxes last time I checked. Works well for convencing most lower and middle-upper class voters that there problems can be solved by further overtaxing the people that create most of the jobs in our country. This from Kerry/Heize that only married into money, or Edwards helping the poor by taking 30-60% of their settlements (money that costs the rest of us in higher insurance premiums and cost of goods/services related to those increases).
"Christians believe its ok for women to speak, vote, have a right to choose a husband, dress in a manner that doesn't require putting a bag over your head....yet alone not cutting ones head off for not obeying...................need I say more."
As you may be well aware, that is a farily recent phenomenon. And you might be suprised the number of women who would choose to keep the 'bag' even if they had the option not to. It is their religious belief.
I am not going to comment on the whole schooling issue since I don't have kids and there is no arguing that the american school system sucks. It is one of the worst school systems in the industrialized world. We b*tch about jobs going to India and China and Taiwan and what not but those school systems are much better than ours and in the name of capitalism, any company would choose a cheaper employee who can do the same job just as well.
You are obviously very religious and some of your comments are opinions you can have. That said, separation of church and state is important because the US is the worlds largest 'melting pot'. A large part of the population is not christian and you truly can't expect schools to take a bias.
I also hope you aren't one of those people who believe evolution should not be taught in schools any more and should be replaced by something else.
All that said, religion is too big a topic to argue on the TCI boards
And to some people who think I am obsessed with higher taxes...well, I'm really not. And one of the problems with higher taxes with be that the gov't would increase social programs instead of paying off the debt. However, do you think the tax cuts are working? Corporate profits were down this quarter, the job market is soft, outsourcing sees no end. As any Econ 101 class will show you, there are multiple ways to increase growth in an economy. Tax cuts to the public is one of them. Also, I don't see us having enough surpluses to overcome a 7+ trillion debt. We have had a growing economy for years but when was the last time we had siginificant surpluses? As the gov't increases revenue, it spends it on other useless sh*t.
I just think this debt is a massive issue and people simply fail to realize it. If we had a small tax increase that was dedicated to paying off the debt we owe to foreign nations, I wouldn't be too happy about the money I don't have but in the long run, it would be much better for the economy.
clegg
Well this thread just proves, "You can't win an arguement.
It appears that we all have very different views here and those are not going to change from a few posts. I believe what I believe based on my life experience and you all obtained your convictions the same way. That is what makes us The United States.
I am sure that you homeschoolers out there do an excellent job on your curriculum-I would never dispute that. I wish we had you as parents in our schools helping out with the kids that are not as fortunate to have a parent that can read and write. Our schools would be much better if we had involved parents such as you all.
I honestly believe that you really can't say you support the war in Iraq unless you are willing to send your son's and daughters to die there,but I know others will disagree.
Well I have to quit spending so much time in this thread and start focusing my energy buying some properties- Plus I have to make some money so I can donated it to Kerry. (just kidding)
NC Yank...
Sorry about the the typo with Afghanastan(I am actually a math teacher )
Jim :-D
Clegg,
I agree that most scientists are God-fearing people, at least the ones that believe in Creationism. And I don't think all the scientists that believe in evolution are atheists. I know there is a school of thought out there that believes creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, although I don't go along with that thinking, and I think those who do are misinformed about both creationism and evolution.
It has been a few years since I did my studying on evolution, so I would have to go back and research some of the nitty gritty stuff again, before I could give you a straight answer as to why evolution is impossible, except the little bit I can pull off the top of my head: First, spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible. No scientist has ever been able to explain how we got something from nothing. Second, the idea of change over time has some major fallacies, mainly that no one has ever been able to find fossil records on the in-between species. Every time something has been found, it has turned to be either a farce or a misunderstanding of the facts. We creationists do believe in evolution within a species, but we prefer to call it adaptation. An example of this would the color of skin in people of different climates. We believe everyone was originally one color (and I'm not going to touch that one--everyone feel free to draw your own conclusions on which color, if you so please), but that change occurred over time in this area as each person adapted to his or her surroundings. That, however, is a far cry from one creature actually evolving into another. Also, the odds of our world ending up as perfectly as it did without a creator are astronomical: We live on the one planet that is in the perfect position to support life. We have a symbiotic relationship with the plants on this planet. Everything from the climate to the natural resources we have are perfect to support the types of life here on earth. Not to mention the perfection of the human body, as well as of all living things. I've heard it said once that to say that all of this stuff just happened as the result of a big bang would be even more ridiculous than to say that the Webster's Dictionary is the result of an explosion in a print shop. Everything on our earth points to design by a creator, and a very wise one.
Science and creationism are not mutually exclusive. There are many scientists that approach science from the assumption of creative design. In fact, I can give you a list of some very distinguished ones if you would like.
The other issue with evolution is the age of the earth. Creationists assume the earth is about 6000 years old. Obviously, we don't put much stock in carbon dating!
Another thing that many people aren't aware of is that Darwin himself questioned his own theory at the end of his life. And if you read his books, he bases it on a lot of assumptions.
The bottom line with evolution is the fact that it takes God out of the equation--makes Him nonexistent. There is no way that God can exist and evolution be true at the same time. That is why it is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many, that evolution is man's attempt to explain how the world could have gotten here without God as its creator.
I guess one of the biggest problems I have with the whole thing is with the cases I hear about in the public schools where science teachers actually get fired if they teach about the potential problems with evolution. I think it is horrible that a theory is being taught as if it were fact. Because the theory evolution plays such as huge role in education in this country, all children should learn what the theory says, and I plan on teaching it to my homeschooled children. But they have not been trained to believe the earth is millions of years old, that humans are animals, or any other tenets of evolution. They will be taught what the evolution theory says, so that they can understand the underlying thinking in the world in which they live, but I will be teaching them Creation as a fact, because I believe that Creation is accurate and scientific. Of course, I can do that because they're my children. I suppose in the public schools it would have to be taught as a theory, but if it were presented accurately, I think most children would find that it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation. Personally, I find evolution to be a little far-fetched.
I hope that answers your question. Perhaps others can weigh in as well.
Candace
Well, we are now in a totally different argument and I will present my case later, I am going out now but just remember, evolution makes no claims on the origin of life.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
Newcreation:
That was one of the most eloquent explanations of creationism vs evolution that I think I have ever read. I know that you cannot remember all of the facts, but the ones you could remember made sense. No one could ever tell me the fallacies within evolution without all strong religious overtones and telling me to just rely on faith, but you just did. I truly believe that the truth lies somewhere between evolution and the creation story. The big bang is ridiculous in my opinion, but Adam and Eve does not ring totally true either.
Do you know of any good books on the topic?
This discussion fascinates me...it's nice to discuss it with kindred spirits......
Results
Clegg,
I have much to say in response, but I will give you that response tomorrow,as it is getting late here. For now, I will say that I appreciate your willingness to share your point of view. As I keep saying, I find this type of debate quite enjoyable, and I hope you do too.
Also, I personally am not able to seperate the study of the origin of species from the origin of life. I will elaborate more tomorrow.
Good night.
Candace
Well this topic is very interesting. The topic of Religion and Politics will always create a spark in conversation. I personally do not support what is going on in IRAQ. No one knows the real reason why this "WAR" started, many can speculate; but only the ones in power know.
For thousands of years "Religon or Money" has played a heavy role in war, which I do not understand. It appears Christians, Muslims, Buddah, and any other forms of religion displays love towards a GOD or GODS.
Because the rules were "written" differently for each faith, doesn't mean Muslims are right, Christians are right, Buddism is right. The truth of the matter is, if you love GOD, ALLAH, or any other name you named the One creator; then that is fine. The message is "Love", love for the house (you) and your neighbor (other children of the ONE). I practice a very simple faith, "LOVE". Man and Woman are united as one entity, without one, there can be no balance.
I stop every morning before I start my day and think about what will happen if we run out of natural resources on this planet, what will happen when all the animals are slaughtered, when all the clean air is gone, and when the green lands become deserts. I think about this because if we take one second to truly love one another, whoever the creator is, will be filled with so much joy, and we can focus on other things.
Candace, take your time. It took me a while to get all my thoughts on paper.
"Also, I personally am not able to seperate the study of the origin of species from the origin of life. I will elaborate more tomorrow. "
I am not sure what you mean but I hope you are not arguing that evolution and the first emergence of life is the same thing. Because in that case, I can never prove you wrong. Your whole argument is based on your faith and there is no right or wrong answer to that. You can use that argument to discredit all the science in the world because you 'believe otherwise.' Obviously, I may be misinterpreting you so I will wait for your response.
blaqmyst, you have good points...mainly that it is amazing how many millions of people have died due to religion. That said, without religion which provides some sort of a moral compass, the world would go mad. Regardless of the fact that we all have our own beliefs and every few decades we slaughter a few hundred thousand of each other in an attempt to prove who is right, without religion, science would go mad and a person will have nothing to fear.
I personally feel a good set of morals and respect for your fellow being would serve society much better than religion but religion brings a fear that a set of rules never can. As most scientists are god fearing people, religion creates a sort of...boundary to science. It keeps it within reason and lets it expand slowly with concern for who it is hurting and who it can help. Sometimes it doesn't work out perfectly but for the most part, it does.
-clegg
Now I will attempt to answer Clegg.
First, suffice it to say that although my Christian beliefs do affect my views on evolution, I am not using faith-based arguments. I don't think it is necessary because I believe science is on the side of creation.
Second, whether or not evolution speaks on the origin of life is contested. Consider this quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky regarding this question: "Evolution comprises all the state of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human, or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is the product of evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life." Note that this quote comes from someone who supports the idea of evolution. The problem with taking the origin of life out of the equation is that evolution itself points to the question of where did life begin. It raises the question. Any reasonable student, when presented with the idea of evolution, is going to wonder where the first life came from.
Evolution falls within a number of categories: cosmic, organic, chemical, stellar and planetary, etc. Evolutionists are not completely united on its scope.
Evolution is based on several assumptions, first that life existed to begin with. In order for change to happen, the source of the change, the life had to be there to change. But failure to address how that life came to be in the first place makes the rest of the study fruitless. One is forced to make some sort of assumption of how and when life began.
From your previous post:
"Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup). That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep). "
You said yourself that it was proven that inorganic matter cannot create life--that life has to come from life. It doesn't matter whether the life form is simple or complex. A single-celled organism is a form of life that must come from another life. Obviously, my view asserts that that life is an intelligent creator, which you have made clear that you don't necessarily disagree with.
So I presume that what we are talking about here is biological evolution. Before addressing your points, I would like to state one of the chief difficulties with this: the laws of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is related to cause and effect. It basically states that in its natural state, everything moves toward disorder, or entropy. If you turn off a hot burner, the water in the pot will stop boiling and gradually get cooler. If you spin a top, without your further intervention the top will stop spinning as the energy moves from usable to unusable, because the available energy decreases. This is true with everything. All causes have a lesser effect, not a greater one. This creates a problem with evolution, because evolution claims that we went from simpler to more complex. Yet this appears to violate one of the foundational laws of science. In its natural state, matter becomes less organized over time, not more, unless of course, there is an outside energy source directing its activities, which is not the case with evolution. Some might argue that the sun provided an energy source that would allow evolution to take place, but raw energy by itself does not create order. The energy has to be directed, and there needs to be a mechanism in place to convert the energy into a useable form. An example of this would be the process of photosynthesis in plants.
Either way, for new organisms to form, there has to be new information. One might argue that mutations can create new information. The problem with this is that mutations seldom have positive results. One might then say that natural selection could weed out all of the negative mutations. Is this what evolutionists hang their hopes on? And while a mutation can create new information, can it really create a new species? Many people like to cite bacteria growing resistant to antibiotics as an example. It is believed that bacteria grows resistant to antibiotics through a series of mutations. Consider the following quote from Jonathan Safarti: "In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance." Obviously, evolution cannot sustain itself on information loss. Not only does all the information present need to remain intact, but a lot of new information needs to be added. This brings us to another point, from your post:
" 'We creationists do believe in evolution within a species, but we prefer to call it adaptation.'"
"Interesting as I was not aware of this. So while a person can have small genetic changes, why not something a little larger? After all, what you say you believe in is something along the lines of Darwin. We adapt to our environment and those who can't fall behind."
Consider this quote from British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward: "Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. Mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (but similar) species, but --despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders--mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life." But then one might argue that these mutations occurred gradually enough not to cause the organism any damage. But if this is true, there should be an exhaustive inventory of in-between species in the fossil records. There is not.
Now for the subject of carbon dating. Carbon dating is not used by itself for determining age. It is used in conjunction with other factors, like where in the earth's strata a fossil was found. This is based on the assumption that all fossils within a give area are of the same age. Yet larger samples have proven this otherwise. Also, the method of carbon dating is based on the assumption that the isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-14 have consistently maintained the same ratio in our atmosphere. This is not the case. In an attempt to explain this away, scientists will often cross-reference their finds with previously dated fossils. The problem with this is that they too, were carbon dated. This method is, at best, unscientific because it based entirely on assumptions rather than proven fact.
I am familiar with the concept of natural selection, and creationists don’t disagree with it. You may not be aware of this, but this concept was around for 20 years before Darwin, and it was originally put forth by a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth, but as a process, rather than a means. We witness natural selection at work in nature all time, for instance, a predator will attack the weakest prey in a herd, thus leaving the herd proportionately stronger. While natural selection does explain the survival, it does not explain arrival (from a quote by Hugo DeVries).
From your post:
“The universe is billions on years old and as we find out more, we are not even absolutely positive of how many billion. However, considering that probability, let me introduce you to the junkyard analogy. I am rephrasing this and forming a summary so pardon any small mistakes.
In the junkyard analogy the idea of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and creating a 747 is presented. To make this analogy more fitting, have the tornado sweep through the junkyard once a second for millions of years, and have the pieces that connect properly stay connected. You will find that you will most likely have your 747. Now that is not science and has nothing to do with evolution but a thought I can't totally ignore.”
I’ve heard this analogy before, as well as the argument about the amount of time involved, but as you said, it is not science, and even if you could end up with a 747, there’s going to be at least one little thing wrong with it (a wing out of place, a motor issue, etc). No matter how much time is involved, odds are still against it coming out perfectly. And I still find it pretty far-fetched.
To quote another of your statements:
“Throughout history, when we didn't have an answer to a question, the answer was god. Till science had a chance to provide a better answer. Therefore many things cannot be answered today by science, or our understanding of science but I certainly don't think that means it can't be done.”
Good science points toward God. It doesn’t provide an alternative to God.
“The Vatican has historically done a lot to suppress science and I think you would agree with that. Many Christians these days, while deeply religious, put little confidence in the Vatican. I don't know where you stand on that.”
I am not a Catholic, so I don’t put any stock into anything that comes from the Vatican. I don’t want to offend anyone here who may be Catholic, so I won’t comment further.
Another of your comments:
“There is a growing mountain of evidence that supports evolution. It will never be proven true because we can not know for sure. But by using the scientific method, we can make a good guess, based on careful observations of the earth as it exists today. A long answer to a short question because evolution is a complicated theory.”
I’d be curious to know what that growing mountain of evidence is. I personally think the opposite is true.
“I think this paragraph would also be my response to the rest of your paragraph. Everything seems to be so perfectly aligned and works well. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have made it so far. The earth’s atmosphere is perfectly suited for life but it wasn’t always like that. There was an important transition at around 2.3 billion years ago, when the Earth's atmosphere became much more oxygenated.
This is based on the assumption that the earth is billions of years old It is meaningless to me because I believe in a young earth. It sounds like a lot of speculation to me.
“You are assuming that the environment was made to support the life forms when in reality it is the other way round. Life forms have evolved so they can best adapt to their environment and survive in it.”
You are correct—I am making that assumption, which is based on my previously mentioned assumption of a young earth, and also on my assumption that all forms of life came to exist at the same time (yes, I do believe in dinosaurs; I believe they existed at the same time as man). I believe a lot of extinction occurred after the great flood, which is referred to in ancient literature other than the Bible, and I also believe that catastrophic events such as this, rather than time, caused the fossil records to be the way they are.
“Since I know very little, I will have to base my arguments on facts and logic. I will not argue how the world began. Science has not given me a good enough answer and therefore I will not argue against the possibility that a creator was involved. However, the creation of the universe has very little to do with evolution. For someone who obviously understands what they are arguing and has some sort of a scientific background, I didn’t think you would make this common misconception. Unless I misunderstood you.”
I do not believe science and creation to be mutually exclusive, but I do believe evolution and creation to be. Of course, I am also working on the assumption that the study of origins is within the scope of evolution, but I am willing to respond without relying on that assumption. As a creationist, I believe that all life was created at the same time. This contradicts evolution, which asserts that different forms of life evolved over time. So in addressing the question of evolution, I have to address the question of origins at the same time.
Now for another subject you mentioned:
“ I am not making accusations but I think too many people take religious texts literally. As you are aware, many things in the bible or other religious texts are used as symbols or just to give an idea of a concept. It is not an exact timing. Similar to how Jesus didn’t walk on water but he did something that was so unbelievably brilliant that it is equated to walking on water. Or many other instances. Too many people ignore the history during the times and take everything literally. The bible is an amazing text written by some very talented writers…they took their creative freedom like any other author.”
I definitely take the Bible literally. I believe the story of Adam and Eve, and the story of Jesus walking on water, and the story about Jonah and the big fish (the Bible doesn’t say it was a whale). I believe all the miracles and far-fetched things that are recorded there. How can I believe such nonsense? Because I believe God does not share in our limitations. His only limitations are that He cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself, He cannot violate His own nature. Because I have read between the lines and looked at the character of God, and these things fit within His character. These are things He would do. And I don’t deny the natural explanations for some of the miracles. I don’t remember the details, but there is a natural explanation for why the Red Sea divided. The miracle was in the fact that it happened when the Israelites needed it to, and right when Moses lifted his rod at God’s command. God worked within the laws of nature to perform a miracle in that case. He was not bound to that law because He created it, and we see other miracles (such as the sun standing still) where God did work outside the confines of the laws of nature). The Biblical accounts would be very far-fetched without an all-powerful God, but I’m using the assumption that He is all-powerful.
“This is my view and I know so many people would damn me for sharing it but I had to.”
I wouldn’t damn you for sharing that view. I simply disagree with it. People get hostile about religion because everyone is out to prove themselves right, or to force their beliefs onto others. I’ll defend my beliefs any day of the week, and I’m willing to share my beliefs with anyone, but I believe it violates what the Bible says to try to force it onto someone. I wish more Christians realized that.
“This is also the view shared by many scientists…this doesn’t say religion is wrong, it is simply misinterpreted by the masses.”
I agree that it is misinterpreted by the masses, but not for the same reasons.
“The bible is too deep a text with too much context to write it like a textbook. Not just the bible but other religious texts as well. Today, the biggest concern for one is medical bills and car payments. Life was very different thousands of years ago and the bible needed to use metaphors that people can relate to thousands of years later to see how some of the incidents were brilliant and out of the ordinary. Not literally but metaphorically.”
Yes, many of the parables Jesus told were metaphors, and we would be remiss to interpret the Bible according to what it would mean if the same things were written in our day. However, the things that were recorded in the Bible as events, I believe, truly happened, but that they serve as examples of spiritual principles for us today. And while it has only been 2000 years since the New Testament was written, almost twice that much time had passed between the beginnings of the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Those people still considered Genesis important to their lives. While our concerns have changed since Biblical times, the human condition has not, and the morality of the Bible is enduring for all time.
“The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. To deny evolution (as defined here) is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance. “
I would hope that some of the statements I have made previously, such as the second law of Thermodynamics, will show that there are reasonable objections to evolution.
I would also assert that there are some areas where we agree:
change can happen within a species (micro-evolution).
There are many extinct animals.
Natural selection is a real process.
The earth is an ideal setting for life to occur.
Regards,
Candace
I hope not to offend anyone but evolution AND creation are just theories.
Mathematics and science have proven that there is a 60% chance that God exists. That being said, there are billions of people on here that believe in thousands of ways.
The problem is that Christians have taken an 60% chance and convinced themselves that it is truth. Then they take a book, the Bible, that claims to be inspired by God, and follow it to the letter.
But the Bible was written by men over the course of thousands of years in several languages, all original texts of which have been lost. Eventually it's been translated into english and we are supposed to believe that nothing has been lost in the translation?
The arguement that creation happened because God said so in the Bible is weak. The theory of evolution, with all the scientific evidence is more plausible but we will never know.
Why is it so hard to fathom that God created evolution? God being something beyond human understanding just might have had something in mind that we aren't supposed to or ready to know about.
Or it could all be a waste of time and bandwidth to argue something trivial like the origin of the species in a topic that began on Presidential Candidates.
Ya know I sat here... writing and deleting, writing and deleting and decided to cancel my train of thought. We would never agree on this and I would rather make a friend than an enemy here. I can see this going down an ugly road very soon and I don't want to go there.
Take care,
erik
Astrojunkie,
I agree. Anytime you get into religion, it can get ugly. I'm very appreciative of the fact that it hasn't here, which is probably why the moderators haven't put a stop to it. I would imagine they're watching it pretty closely though, just because of what the subject matter is.
I know the word "intolerant" gets slung around our society a lot for a lot of different reasons, but I think the true definition of intolerance is when a person refuses to accept or like another person just for having differing views.
I think it is wonderful to be able to have a healthy debate without people getting offended. But we are talking about human beings here with varying life experiences, and I can also understand why people may feel offended by differing viewpoints.
Well, for whatever that was worth!
Candace
Well, it looks like blaqmyst's post nuetralized a lot of anger in this thread. I must admit I was touched by his simple, yet from the heart kindness. Why is the greatest commandment the most difficult to obey? I guess it's easier to hate than it is to love.
YOU GO NC YANK!!!!!! GOOD ONE!!! tHIS gOV'T nEEDS oVERHAULED. As stated to much waste!!! If you ran your business like the gov't opperated none of us would be in business very long. God Bless America!!!!!
Arborliss,
Was there anger in this thread? I hope I didn't come across angry or hateful in anything I said. I was just trying to present my views. I certainly didn't mean anything hatefully or angrily.
Candace
Anyone that would ever profess to KNOW anything about our origins in regards of there being a specific design executed on behalf of some GREAT Creator, or by any other means for that matter must either a) take me for a fool, b) must be a fool him or herself or in serious error themselves, or c) may be just smoking something. A true scientist, a term that I would never use to describe or define any creationist, would never claim to KNOW anything. Science is about making observations of our world, and from these observations obtaining data that allow us a better understanding of everything around us, thus affording us the knowledge to improve the world (and make reasonable predictions) for the entire lot of the human race (perhaps we can make predictions of catastrophic disasters in the distant future, if we learn of similar disasters that occurred to other species in the distant past). Bioscientists and geoscientists, at all levels, from microbiologists to ecologists, physiologists to geologists all observe data that do not reject the theories of natural selection and evolution. A microbiologist observes natural selection (and what can be thought of as a mini-bioevolution) every time he observes that a previously actinomycin non-resistant strain of bacteria becomes actinomycin resistant through successive generations of reproductions. An ecologist might well inform you on how a species of frog that at one time could interbreed, have lost that ability (have become different species) after a long separation between two different geographic environments-- or what they would simply refer to as spatial isolation. Any physiologist or morphologist could inform one that in the early embryonic stages of life, many developing embryos appear divide the same, as well as, take the same form (evidence of homologous genetic programs, at least at the embryonic level). What about the fossil evidence? I would have to side with the morphologist, over the creationist, as the explanations rendered seem to be more objective and in accord with what is generally observed. If truth is what one seeks one must be objective as is humanly possible, and abandon all preconceived notions for and only for his or her observations. I believe it to be the case that creationism and the theory of evolution are, for all matters, mutually exclusive. This statement I believe to be unequivocal, and any scientist claiming anything contrary does not deserve to be placed in the class of persons that are referred to as scientists. Science is about knowing, whereas, religion is about believing, about faith. These two realms of the intellectual sphere cannot cross. Any scientist should be convinced to abandon his or her theory on the grounds that a more compelling theory that accounts for gaps previously unexplained (and there are some) would do so, and while it is highly unlikely, if the theory of evolution were found to be no longer valid in explaining all of the accumulated evidences it would be abandoned tomorrow for the more pertinent theory. On the contrary, faith cannot be challenged in the same; what one believes today, he must by necessity believe the same tomorrow. A believer must be steadfast, and nothing must shake his or faith. So it seems that those who argue in favor of creationism must not be so secure in their faith, for a theory that is so far removed from their realm has caused them such great alarm. While a scientist, and/or proponents of evolution may reject the claims held so dear by the creationists, not one true scientist would ever claim to BELIEVE that evolution in itself (everything we know now) is the story, the end-all, tell-all, and, further recognize that he or she may go to the death not knowing the total picture. If a scientist would ever be so brave, arrogant, ignorant, and/or deliberately misleading as to say BELIEVE IN ME, for I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS and I WILL MAKE EVERYTHING ALRIGHT, then a distaste and discord of the strongest kind should be held for him much in the same way that creationists now hold this same distaste and discord for all scientists who do not make or imply any such claim. Then I would have true distaste and discord for anyone that would ever claim that any answer could be found in one place, from any one source, in lieu of individual and collective experiences, and that that source was the end-all, tell-all----but that's just me. So I have rambled on about this all to ask that reason be applied to this conundrum that I don’t find at all to be so complicated no matter what your faith, or lack thereof (which is totally acceptable, as well). If you believe, continue to believe (so long as you feel thus compelled) and when all else fails, be willing to accept that you do not KNOW if what you believe is the truth, but that this belief is what you hold dear on the basis of faith (perhaps justified by emotion). If you reject creationism, understand that the theory of evolution, or any other theory deemed and accepted as valid, is not a system of belief (and should not be used to replace one), and that it is a system of knowledge, but a system of knowledge where one admits to knowing nothing definitely (because what one knows today can change tomorrow). However, it is a disservice to the fields of science to allow obstructionary interpretations of any religion (Judeo-Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, shintoist, Hindu, or any other) to interfere with the discrete observations, occurrences that occur outside the influence of any one particular thought or belief, and to assign to these occurrences a change of meaning that is translated according to what we have been conditioned to believe.
In answering another topic that I read within this board, I remember reading a statement that stated that if all Muslims would better understand what their religion taught they would be convinced that they were wrong and happily march onward to join the ranks of Christianity. If we can move past the contention that any man or woman may possess in believing that there is a supreme being that has created the universe and everything in it, then what would give one the right to proclaim one religion claiming the same on a set of premises versus another religion making the same claim (one god, creator of the universe) on a set of slightly differing premises? Largely, I believe this answer to be one answered simply by looking at person’s circumstances of birth. An American being born to parents that are of a Christian denomination (and there are many denominations) or Catholic, would have a high probability of being raised Christian or Christian Catholic, and thus remaining so into his adulthood (no matter how loosely or strictly he or she defined him or herself Christian). We might expect that a man would be raised in the Islamic tradition and remain Islamic in his faith if this man were born to Islamic Arabic parents in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, and so on, to include any place where Islam has for centuries been the indigenous religion. In saying that, how either side could justify denouncing the other is an action that is totally intolerable in the civilized world, borne out of ignorance, arrogance, and ethnocentricism.
Since the comment made was directed against Islam, in favor of Christianity, I will answer accordingly. One respondent was correct in writing that Islam is a "different can of worms", but that is to be expected, as it is a religion born out of different circumstances, but surprisingly from the same source as the Christian religion. This same respondent would again be correct in asserting that the religion hasn't changed; a fact that Christianity cannot claim itself. Looking through the lens of History we see that Christianity has changed quite a few times, numerous times, throughout its life span. However, is this a great thing since the word of god is supposedly immutable? Is it not the case that what your God spoke to Moses at Mt. Sinai then, is true today? I would believe so. The Christian religion has been changed not by prophets and messengers from their God, but by kings and "great" men (King Henry, Ferdinand in the Inquisition, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pope Innocent, Pope Frederick, and the list goes on). Who could ever forget that it was Constantine, a man that Had his son murdered (and anybody else) for the control of his empire, a man that went about seeking war with neighboring barbarians (I include Constantine in this category) to slaughter them out of their land and possessions, who validated the Christian religion as the new law of the land, as he claims to have seen JX (Jesus Christ) in the sky before a battle that he would win (more likely that he was delirious, but I will not downplay his professed miracle, as I was not there to reject or accept). Who could forget how the loving and strongly believing in their purpose the Crusaders were when they went about slaughtering and pillaging (in the name of Jesus of course), and were thus rewarded for the raping, torture, cruelty, and murder with gold, silver, and land (some were prisoners granted freedom and even land, if they fought, some were poor serfs who had promised an ascent to nobility or faux nobility should they fight, some were just greedy knights owning much land, and wanting much, much more.....and of course, they were the ones to get most of the booty). How could one forget the slavery and rape, the pillage that took place in the new world, done by Christian hands to an unsuspecting people (but they were not Christians so I guess that makes it okay). I guess I never read all the fine print in the Bible, where it did state that one could kill if it were in the name of acquiring riches and new land...oops I mean converting savages to Christians. So I guess that the Europeans had gotten so tired of beating up on each other, and blaming the Jews for everything else, that they then proceeded to spread their avarice and poisonous seeds to the new world. Who can forget how Africa was robbed of its most precious resource----it's PEOPLE, among others (gold, diamonds, fuel oil in Nigeria, and of course, land). This happened at Christian hands, right? Oops I forgot, in the name of conversion (silly me). And now examining, Christianity today. It exists on every Continent, in some form, and so I guess this speaks to how well the Great powers went about doing their www.conversions---i.e. They had BIG GUNS, and broke just about every one of the Ten Commandments daily in pursuing this great feat, ensuring that they went to HELL, sending these poor savages to heaven (if the two places do exist). Perhaps, that is the way your God wanted it, but if so one would have to contend that he is not the merciful almighty that allows each and every his own free will in his choice of belief or non-belief. This is inconsistent with every thing we have been told of the Great Jehovah.
I have many a Muslim friend that would contend that their religion is much more peaceful, and has been since its conception...but I NEGATE this claim as well. It impresses me though that slavery has been outlawed for several hundred years in the Muslim world, and throughout this time there have been few aberrations (never anything as regional, and grandiose as the slave trade triangle). Current on-goings in Sudan (see Darfur region) make it evident that any counter claim to the claim "If Muslims were to learn more of their own religion they would become Christians" is not a good one if it any similar claim about Christians. Both religions have much in common in that they both urge peace, and morality in accord with the powers of a supreme being. Unfortunately, men often misinterpret the simplest of messages, and in their insecurities, in their greed, in need to feel vindicated, empowered, in need to feel more righteous about his own actions, and sometimes in just being deliberately and clandestinely antagonistic to any teaching for the purpose of achieving ulterior motives to the dismay of a large group of unsuspecting persons that will deal with the consequences of such action. We are at a time in this country when it is very easy for us to turn our xenophobic associations with those of the Islamic faith into a claim that there exists therein a bitter seed in all of Islam that supports and fosters a virulent fundamentalism. Such a claim is untrue. In making such a claim, we must be sure to examine ourselves, for in making such claims as the one that so moved me toreply, so that we do not become fundamentalists of a different sort---and fall prey to some sly demagogue/politician that may use these xenophobic, ethnocentric, illogically based emotions to pursue his ulterior motives and worst of all, tell you that he is doing so in the name of your GOD. Please, again, I wrote this in the hopes that you will use reason to examine your claim, not out of anger (as anger does nothing for anyone). I have so much more to say, but I determine this to be a valid point to retire for now. I am sure someone will write back out of malice, but if you do write back, out of malice or to counter, or both, please use REASONING...SOUND REASONING...that isn't so much to ask.
I would just like to respond to an argument that I have just read (the original author: Candace).
About the second law which states simply that entropy of the universe increases, your understanding seems somewhat flawed. In stating that every cause has a less effect, is more a direct result of the first law (Energy cannot be created or destroyed; only chabged from one form to another). However, this is a digression. It is widely accepted that within our bodies, in the many processes involved in maintaining homeostasis, that our bodies are at anything but equilibrium, and an imbalance must always occur within a living organism to ensure this homeostatic balance (sodium/potassium pumps, glucose/sodium transporters, interaction of enzymes, co-enzymes, and enegy , molecules of the Krebs Cycle, or Fatty-Acid Oxidation..just to name a few at the molecular level). Just to reiterate, the the entropy of the system (a living organism) can decrease so long as the entropy of the surroundings increases accordingly (and organisms....anything living...has become very good and exploiting this law). (Also keep in mind that entopy, is not an observable quantity, but is in some way related to heat, as for any process occurring at constant pressure, the entopy is equal to the change in heat divided by the temperature at which the process occurs).
You are correct in stating that the fact that energy from the sun (the ultimate source of all life) alone is not explanation enough for the new information to support more complex life forms. However, you must realize that all multicelluar organisms are a complex aggregations of many cell-types and that some of these components are well conserved and repeated across many classes and orders within the animal and plant kingdom (mitochondria, and chloroplasts). Furthermore, you must realize that across the many forms of advanced and lower life forms one may encounter within the ecosystems of our planet, that many common structures are of similar construction (cell membranes have similar chemical compositions {fatty acids}, bones are bones {calcium phosphates}, etc..This said, it should not seem so surprising that some would suppose that the endosymbiotic theory would have some validity. Answering in regards to the comment on mutations and new information, consider this. While I can understand you in your belief that mutation could not increase the biodiversity on this planet, there are a number of processes that occur sexual cell division that may allow for large introduction of genetic information, to include translocation (whereby a chromosome breaks at a certain point is is ligated by an appropriate ligase to another part of the same chromosome, or a neghboring chromosome..changing tttgggaaaatttend..........to www.tttgggaaaatttaaaattttggggcccccccttttend.in effect lengthening the chromosome, and changing the shift and information contained within). Not to mention the introduction of transposons (pieces of DNA or RNA that are foreign to the organism being taken up, and effectively a part of the host cell's genome). Let us not forget the crossing over that may occur and cause new combinations (variations) within a species. This answers your question in how something other than mutations could possibly have introduced information for the highr orders. I would further like to point out that though most mutations are deleterious, there are scientists that believe mutations to have had some part in evolution (to what extent remains uncertain).
If you can move past the introduction of new information, it does require that the Earth has been here for longer than 6000 years to allow these new informational instructions to be operated upon. You say that you do not believe that the Earth is older than 6000 years, and I suppose your intuition is what serves you in that respect (and that is fine). I would only like to point out that the geological record, in absence of any biological evidence, supports the idea that the Earth is exponentially older. Even culturally, is it possible that the over 800 languages, cultures, customs, and biological variations within the human species alone occurred within 6000 years (even we Westerners were only able to boast our current conditions for the last 300 years)? Here, I will only say that if you allow for the earth to be billions of years old, then the mathematical probabliltiy of ending up with some viable organisms from differing environments is highly probable.
I would also like to question the validity of any claim that Dinosaurs and man walked the arth at the same time. The fossil record shows this to be highly improbable. Furthermore, the shear size and ferocity of the dinosaur ensured that he was ther most dominant life form at the time. If man was alive at this time, it is sheer miracle that we survived in such fierce competition. And the K-T crater that many believed to have finished the dinosaurs off (some say they were dying off anyway; reason unknown), why would man survive instaed of the dinosaurs? (an axolanation)..........About the arch, is it possible to constuct a ship large enough to include within it every specimen, male and female, of all the species on earth.....some being natural enemies of each other, some dangerous to humans.........and then on top of that, considering they all managed long enough to make it to the new destination that the two provided were enough to spawn an entirely new generation of organisms that would go on to preserve the species (and to do such without severe inbreeding).
I wish that I could go on, but I find it sufficient to quit here. In closing, I only ask that you truly do apply reason. Creationism and Evolutionism are at odds, and I don't think reason can be used to reconcile the two. Either you believe in what you believe or you dont. However, one should not hope to mix elements of science, with elements of Christian faith or religion. The result is something horrendous, hideous, rediculous, humerous, sad, dangeous, threatening-something that is not Christian, and something that is certainly not science. I would rather make friends with you, for who needs enemies in these times, so again I hope that in speaking to you I come across as a friend talking over lunch, at the water cooler, at the office, or whatever....but certainly not as your enemy. Best regards........
I believe that when true science and true religion meet, there will be no difference.
I believe that God Created the earth.
How did He do it???? Well...that I'm not quite sure of. He may have choose to use Evolution as the method for creation. He may have put things in motion so that they would be created. Am I more flattered to come from dust on the ground VS a monkee that has eyes, ears, and intelect? Nope, not at all.
Creationism is a proposed answer to the Question of "Who"
Evolution is a proposed answer to the question of "How".
The problem is that we fail to see that there are 2 questions being asked.
The other problem is that we pretend to know everything. In Genesis it says that God made the earth in 7 days. Many christian scholars interpret that to mean 7 periods of time. Afterall....how could you have a "day" before the darkness was separated from the light??? It's possible that the periods were different lengths......and that each was millions or billions of years long.
Adam was immortal while he was in the garden of Eden. How long was he there??? A day? A year? A billion years?
Evolution:
1. Earth was a big ocean
2. Life appeared in the ocean
3. Life appeared on land
4. Life learned how to fly
5. Life became Human
Creationism:
1. Water was formed
2. Fish were made
3. Land animals were made
4. Birds were made
5. Life was breathed into Adam
Interesting parralels, don't you think???
Creationism and Evolution can go hand in hand beautifully.
I am religious. I believe in God. Who am I to tell him how he CAN and CAN NOT go about creating worlds.
The genetic makeup between humans are uncanny. Could it be that Adam was a severly mutated, and very funny looking monkey that god chose to gave a human spirit to?
Could it be that Crow Magnon man was an animal rather than human?
There are MANY assumptions that we make (as scientists and as christians) that are often times premature or unfounded.
Creationism and Evolution are only made mutually exclusive by those who have drawn conclusions prematurely.
When a post goes off topic, it should be locked so other topics should be created.
Sorry guys. I know many of you have been reading this post.
Yeah, I have been following it too. Sorry....