Evolution? How?

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


Comment:

During the time of Constantine these verses were "doctored" to imply the trinity... but this alone could not erase how how much the Bible is against the trinity.

If Jesus was not God then who was he? Very simply? A man...

The human aspect of Jesus is also a thing that religious people have messed up. They make Genesis look like God just walked around and created every little thing one after another (and in seven days to boot) and ignore that evolution certainly took place... Then they take the human side of Jesus and deify him so that the average person cannot even relate to him...

Hmmm Rex is providing convincing evidence for his claims. Jack is providing dogma and lack of evidence.
Advantage Rex.

I liekd that previous post Rex.

Rex said,
They make Genesis look like God just walked around and created every little thing one after another (and in seven days to boot) and ignore that evolution certainly took place...[/quote]


Rex, just curious, it sounds like you have some knowledge of the bible so where is anything that shows evolution took place? Just wonderin.

Pennsylvania, in a GREAT LEAP BACKWARD, has had introduced into legislature a new bill that sucks up to the active and well funded minions of religious darkness. Heres the URL, read line 12A BILL REQUIRING TEACHING ID IN PA BIOLOGY CLASSES

It says may include, its not mandatory.

And if they do its an opportunity to show just what a pile of **ap ID is.

There is no real law that expressly forbids teaching ID now. The PA ed board, in 2001, has set guidelines for teaching of science and attainment of standards . This takes the next step in the establishment of a state religion because it is the only worldview that is based solely upon a Fundamental Biblical interpretation.

I dont understand you point Farmerman. I thought you were pointing out that the law required teaching ID but when I looked it doesnt.

Yeah, but non-scientific theories shouldn't be taught in science class. No need to mention it in a law. Period.

Yeah ok Brandon, agree with that.

In fact teaching it as science should be positively illegal. Dressing up opinion as fact and selling it to children is a form of child abuse.

In any legislative act, the word"may include" is like opening the flood gates to whatever comes after. The IDers hope that we take this like a little poison. Its written to be a source of a pseudo scientific explanation of origins. Once the "may" is accepted and believed as an acceptable way of "teaching a controversy" (where none really exists among scientists), then the next blocks in the Creationists wall will build themselves. They wish to deny much of mainstream physics, chemistry and biology. It just happens that geology is in the main target line since its so obviously "in conflict " with the ID worldview.

In thi legislation, the sponsors are seeing a novel way for them to cement their Evangelical bases while saying "screw you" to all their other constituents.

A note to Rosborne-Do you now agree that this will no doubt go to the USSC? See how carefully the wording was made so as not to include Creation language and how it apperas to appeal to scientific "data"?.
I knew of this coming out a while ago but it only cleared the que in the Capitol Print Shop last week like 29 March. It appears to be on a fast track , because Gov Rendell has got himself bogged down in Slot machine wars that promise minimal tax relief. The legislature could squeeze a bill of Secession and he wouldnt see it coming.

I'm not aware that there is *any* supporting evidence for ID. As far as I know, nobody has tried to offer supporting evidence. All anyone has ever done is try to challenge evolution, which is the only currently valid theory.

Even if someone did succeed in invalidating evolution, which obviously hasn't happened and never will, doing so *still* wouldn't validate or support ID.

The whole argument here seems so nonsensical that I have a hard time even seeing what they will be talking about in class.

The closer you look at ID, the more irrational the whole idea becomes. It makes you wince, shake your head and want to walk away to start doing something that makes sense.

What they will talk about in class is "religion" without mentioning god.

In past cases, the court has recognized the underlying intent of the legislation and asked if it "furthered the states ends" to create such a law. Since the states already have the right to teach any valid science they want, the law adds nothing.

If it gets to the Supreme Court, I think they will find that what they are being asked to do is to validate science, because that's what is at the core of this. It isn't even about ID or Evolution, it's about what constitutes valid science. And I think the Supremes and any court before them is going to throw it out on that basis.

But what do I know.

rosborne, You don't think the conservative court will act on this?

I don't know. I just can't see how this can go anywhere, conservative or not.

Basically, the law says that the school can teach ID in science class if it wants to. But this is already the case for all valid scientific theories, so nothing has changed. And all the court is being asked to do is to evaluate whether ID is a valid scientific theory or not, and I doubt the courts will see that as their role, it's just outlandish to think that they would "rule" on the validity of scientific theories.

A challenge in the court *would* make sense if someone objected to the teaching of ID as a violation of the first amendment. And this may well happen if ID gets pushed into schools in PA, but at the moment, I don't think this is what the courts are being asked to rule on.

Maybe I'm confused here. What exactly is the case that the courts are being asked to judge? The thing Farmerman posted just seems to be a local ruling that the school is allowed to teach ID. By itself, that won't be something the courts will rule on. It's when someone in the town objects to what they consider a violation of the first amendment that something will have to be ruled on.

If you're asking me what will happen *if* and *when* the court receives an objection to the teaching of ID in PA, then I think one of the courts will eventually say that ID is really just a thinly veiled attempt to push religion back into schools, and it will be rejected on similar grounds to other cases in which the courts have looked beyond the surface and recognized the basic falacy involved.

Ya never know how the Supremes will vote on such "religious" matters.

Remember, the 1987 decision was only as a result of about 10 years of dealing with the Louisiana Creationism law. A similar requirement here, strips away cReationism with a less ominous sounding Intelligent Design. Thus skirting the establishment clause. I can only imagine that, poor Eddie Rendell, who would reluctantly fit the role of Gov Edwards, were this ID law passed. As ci asked, "what about the conservative courts" Thats still not the case up here in the NE yet, so the ultimate appeal to the USSC seems like it may get its day as final arbitor. The first phases of the case are moving, because the Dover school board is now being sued by 8 families.They are suing under the state Constitution.This case may be a bit more gnarly than Louiswiana since , what is being proposed by the Dover Board (unless the spring election says otherwise) is reflective of community standards, as whacky as they are.

I hope the proposed bill in Pennsylvania is defeated. The fact that the word "may" is used does not lessen the impact of what the proponents intend. If the bill is passed, any local school district in Pennsylvania can recklessly introduce intelligent design and then protect themselves by saying it is allowed under state law.

The proposed bill would allow school districts to give equal time to intelligent design in any class where evolution is taught. Why not also give equal time to geocentrism?

Hmm good question CI, the Supremes have in the past been quoted as saying "You can't hurry love." and also "Stop! In the Name of Love" So anything is possible.

Not to mention "Love Hangover."