Let see if I can help in this conversation.
Say Ford wanted to build a new car, one that is so complex and awsome
that it would take many life times (if all) to figure out just 1/4 of
how all the car systems worked. In order for that to happen it would
take the most brilliant engineer ever to build such a machine. Man
hasn't even began to know the depts of the human mind and never will.
Why because it was created by the most brilliant engineer ever. For
those that don't know his name its GOD. Enough said.

what she said.

fanta.. do you really think that someone who believes in creationism is
doing so because of blind faith? ive already given you the math, a few
of the thousands of refrences, ect. there is sound science behind
creationism, unlike evolution.

rambill79,

You're shooting bullets through water, claiming that you've 'killed' the
water!

Creationists havfe invented themselves to be the 'guns' to Evolution
Theory 'Water'. Their 'ammo' is 'fuddle duddle arguments', disguised as
science.

I mentionned way back that in the opinion of MANY: 'belief-faith-dogma',
as absolutely no ties with 'fact-material-temporal-knowledge'. I don't
care how much 'amo' you've got, the rising water will flood you before
you kill 'it'!!! (AMMO will only FILL the bottom, and force the water to
RISE!!!)

To devote your energy to killing water is pointless, and the worse part
is that there's seems to be a need to point it out over and over again
in this post. People will move on.

Darwin's Evolution Theory is just that: a 'THEORY ON EVOLUTION'.

You are disturbingly trying to convince all, that it is 'THE LAW OF
CREATION'. Ruffled that you are, that it 'attacks' your beliefs!!!

You're confusing,
'law' and 'theory',
'evolution' and 'creation',
'scientific approach' and 'spiritual journey',
'the material' and 'the sacred and mystical'.

The confusion is such, one would swear 'Satan' 'itself' is working
overtime here!!!

Let's try and fight confusion with confusion. Maybe it will nullify!

Here's a riddle:

"... It's not because you 'disprove' something that never claimed to be
that which you've 'diproven', ... that something else, which has no tie
whatsoever with the first 'something', becomes 'TRUE' or 'PROVEN'!!!"

With all due respect rambill79!

So true Voil,
Faith is what it is. One chooses it, it is not given to you, and it is
not an intrinsic part of our nature nor is it written within our DNA.
This is why there have been and are so many different belief systems.
While it may be natural for a particular belief to follow a heritage, it
still can not stand up to scientific tests, that is why it is called a
belief and not a fact.

Science begins with theory. It is obvious to anyone that science has
proven truths that have progressed, enhanced and even changed the
atmosphere of humans and our world.
This science that has evolved thruths through so much theory has become
something that many depend on, and like religion, it is often
misinterpreted, misread AND a changing and evolving thing, again just
like religion.

We can all agree to disagree about our beliefs and still uphold each
one’s right to have their belief. We can even disagree in discussion
about the “theories” that have been set forth in science but in the end
these are theories and how much weight, in faith, we put on the
religious side of the scale versus the faith we give to the science side
of the scale is in direct relation to how that scale tips.

Until TRUTH, proven logically within the limitations of scientific
testing, is determined there is no right or wrong.

If I had 3 wishes, as one silly topic asked recently, my first wish
would be that every living person in the world, of sound mind, could
finally adhere to what is stated above. We’ve had such enthusiastic
conversation and there are so many good people here. I would be content
to live in a world where this type of conversation could finally have an
end in agreement, the kind of agreement, that allows us to agree to
disagree. An amicable end would allow for new beginnings of these
conversations without anger, without fear of retribution, a safe place
for all to have and hold their beliefs as sacred, without infringement
on any. NOT TO GET TOO MUSHY HERE – but this does bring up a fearful
amount of what a governments involvement should be, when and if one’s
religion affects the lives of others adversely. OH MY, the big picture
gets in the way again. LOL

whatever voy.

sounds to me like voy is the one preaching.

Again rambill79...

... CONFUSION!!!

Someone arguing a different point of view than your own, does not make a
preacher out of him!!!

and when I say : '... with all due respect 'rambill79'!', that means I
never intend to direct my arguments at you 'rambill79'. I argue for a
position that is neither 'for' or 'against' your own position rambill79.

It is rather the 'manner' in which your position is presented, that I
argue as impertinent, or erroneous!

As for you personnally, you can have the position you wish on the
subject, I respect YOU regardless.

I invite you to the same respect of others, and ask that you refrain
from suggesting that '...I might be preaching!'. Give me your
disagreeing or agreeing arguments, and let's keep the ball rolling.

Preaching I certainly I'm not. I don't agree with the premise you've
presented, which opposes Creationism and Evolution, and I have
documented that, and that alone, extensively.

Here in it is in a couple of sentences:

'God as the creator of all things' as a belief based on one's faith, and
in faith as such, is untouchable. It stands on its own, without any
need to be defended.

'Darwin's Therory of Evolution', as a theory based on the scientific
approach, and suggesting an evolutionary dimension to life itself, does
not require 'belief' or 'faith'. It reqires study of facts,
understanding of those facts, and mastering a level of scientifically
validated knowledge about those facts.

Nowhere is the Theory of Evolution claiming to be some sort of 'law of
creation'!!! Yes, it questions as a hypothesis, 'the origin of
species', but again that is an hypothesis, even further from law than
theory.

Science will never be based on faith, and faith will never based on
science. It doesn't matter how far one pushes his arguments, nor how
many people he convinces with his arguments, when the PREMISE is
ERRONEOUS, so are the arguments!!!

This is what brought a famous wise philosopher to claim:

'... IT MATTERS LITTLE THAT THEY ARE SO MANY TO BE WRONG, IT DOESN'T
MAKE THEIR PREMISE AND ARGUMENTS RIGHT!!!

Again with all due respect to you rambill79.

still dont see why creationism has to by its name be considered a faith
based belief. science in my opinion shows clearly that creationisn is
the only logical possibility. faith has little to do with my feelings on
this.

why is there a vs evolution was made from God....scientists try to
seperate the two all the time but it was all apart of 1 there is no 1
side unless the story is told from an athiest or that sort of
person(lost sheep)

okay yesterday it was 0 to l, and the monkeys were ahead. today it is l
to 0 and the creationists have the forum.

creationism is not only faith based it may well start that way but if
you've ever had the holy ghost inside you, you would know that he
exists, just like the wind you can't see but you can feel. You have to
have experienced this feeling to understand it.

You can see the effects of the wind as well

Ok for the sake of argument, let's consider this.

It is fact before any single god that many gods were worshiped.
It is fact that there were and still are many religions in the world,
many of them do not worship the same god and worship many gods and some
practice a philosophy of life.
These are known facts. In a very logical way, in fact it can be
argued in a scientific manner that this is proof that the human species
has always sought to find solice from the questions it can not answer by
putting it into a supreme beings hands. It free's the incapable mind
from having to continue to find the answers.
You may not agree with the psychology of that statement but you can
not disclaim the fact that humans have, and will continue to, create,
and worship gods and religions. There is no proof, no matter the
religion, that creationism is even probable, much less a science.
Unless you or anyone can prove scientifically, with no faith
involved, that one of the hundreds of thousands of religions to date is
correct.

>> still dont see why creationism has to by its name be considered a faith based belief.

rambill, i would agree that there are some people who made a sincere
effort to take rational/skeptical approach to the question of humanity's
origin, and STILL come to the conclusion that creationism was a better
explanation than evolution.

Personally, I think that most (or all?) such people are only looking at
'evidence' and 'arguments' which were carefully selected for them by
others, for whom creationism was the foregone conclusion (but i know
that i could be wrong). Their personal process may have been unbiased,
but they were unknowlingly heavily biased by the selection of 'evidence'
and the spin given to that 'evidence'.

Further, I think these people (such as you, it seems) are the exception.

Can't we agree that most creationist have the Bible as their primary
basis for their belief in creationism? And for these people, faith
(such as their faith that the Bible is God's literal word...) is the
basis for their belief?

Thanks for your counter argument 'rambill79':

And here is what you wrote:

"... still dont see why creationism has to by its name be considered a
faith based belief. science in my opinion shows clearly that creationisn
is the only logical possibility. faith has little to do with my feelings
on this."

There are a large number of 'creationism' versions. And THAT in itself
would become the first major puzzle for scientifics: which 'creationist'
version are we talking about??? And why would ONE particular version be
'THE ONE' amonst them all. Hindus have jut as strong a belief on the
word of the Vedas, the oldest preserved Indo-Aryan texts (their
equivalent of the book of Genesis, in the Bible). How could scientist
'materialise' that theirs is THE TRUTHS OF ALL TRUTHS, and how would
youfeel about that, if it were imposed on your beliefs???

"There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation myths among the
peoples of the world. Many Christians object to having their beliefs
called myths, but a myth is simply a story which is (or has been)
considered true and sacred by a group of people. Other cultures believe
their creation myths for exactly the same sorts of reasons that
Christians believe theirs." Their is no suppremacy of beliefs!!! And
science certainly couldn't help change that.

So which one is THE ONE, of the several Christian versions:
Flat Earthers
While very fe in numbers, there are still people who
litterally believe in the 'word' as it is in the Bible.
And that word is 'fat earth', so it is flat. So much
for science (observation)
Geocentrists
Very few of them also, these accept the sperical earth,
but haven't made to the sun as the center of our
planetary system. It is Tom Willis, a Geocentrist
'creationist', whom has pushed for the now
'unconstitutional' Kansas educational reform of banning
references to evolution, earth history, and science
methodology, from its schools curriculum.
Young Earth Creationists
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal
interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs.
(Omphalos)
Close to YEC, they simply offer something about the
earth had been created by God with and 'OLD LOOK AND
FEEL'!!! (put that through your scientific approach!!!)
Old Earth Creationists
(Gap Creationism)
(Day-Age Creationism)
(Progressive Creationism)
(Intelligent Design Creationism)
Evolutionary Creationists
Theistic Evolutionists
Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists


Or which one is THE ONE of the several Non-Christian versions:

Raelians

Panspermia

Catastrophic Evolution

Islamic Creationism

Vedic Creationism (Hinduism)

American Indian Creationism

American Indian Creationism based on the 'Kennewick Man'.


Or which one is THE ONE, of the Creation Beliefs of Other Cultures

Cosmic Egg (example: Finnish)

Separation of Earth and Sky (example: New Hebrides)

Creation from a Primordial Being (example: Norse)

Earth Diver; Dualism (example: Huron)

Emergence (example: Lipan Apache)

Creation by Spoken Word; Repeated Creation (example: Quiche Maya)


If these are not beliefs based on truths, founded on words or myths
which groups of people chose to believe, there is no end to establishing
as THE ONE!!!

In your Constitution, you and all citizens of America are afforded the
Freedom of worship, or religious practice.
As a perfect corrolate of that constitutional right, your Supreme Court
has ruled 'unconstitutional', the notion that 'creationism' be called a
science, or be offered as a part of any science curriculum.

If your Surpreme Court did not stand and defend YOUR constitution,
America would be today, the last place on earth, WHERE THAT EARTH WAS
FLAT, AND THE SUN STILL REVOLVED AROUND IT!!!

Remember 'rambill79', you may not agree with 'me', but I'm not the only
one you need to deal with in your arguments.

How do you handle YOUR SUPREME COURT position???

Or, all your other fellow Christians whom don't subscribe to YOUR
version of 'creationism'???

Or yet, these other religions, whom believe in other books, other
words, other myths, or stories which they consider just as you do, to
be THE truth???

Or yet the Pope, 1950—Pope Pius XII rejects Biblical literalism
Calling evolution an “open question,” Pope Pius XII rejects literal
Biblical creationism as the sole explanation for biological origins,
acknowledging the importance of scientific principles in conjunction
with spiritual faith.


Or Pope John Paul's II declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere
hypothesis” as “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the
evolutionary debate.

Or, VATICAN OBSERVATORY DIRECTOR, Father George V. Coyne, SPEAKING ON
EVOLUTION: “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.”
“Science Does Not Need God, or Does It?
(http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503)

Or yet again the Archbishop of Canterbury: in a Tuesday March 21, 2006
article in The Gardian:
" The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the
controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying
that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of
the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.
"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible
were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a
stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just
been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up
reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," he said.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html)


Again 'rambill79', don't get me wrong, I am not saying you or anyone
else cannot believe in what you chose.
I'm only saying that beliefs are not today, were not in the past, and
will never be in in competition or in the same arena as science.
Someone whom believes, can be a scientist. But science in itself has NO
DIRECT RELATION with faith, belief or religion.

That is the ONLY WAY a person can simultaneously BELIEVE in a particuler
version of creationism, and subcribe to the therory of evolution!!!

well, so the monkeys lost big time.

suede you can see the effects of God entering peoples souls as well.

yep Fed, like a blind man receiving his sight

Fedman wrote:

>>> creationism is not only faith based it may well start that way but if
you've ever had the holy ghost inside you, you would know that he
exists....

Fedman, do you believe that the existence of the Holy Ghost requires
that evolution theory is 'wrong'? Is it possible for a person to have
the Holy Ghost in them, and for that person to also believe that the
biblical creation passages were metaphorical and that evolutionary
theory is possibly valid?