Infidel

Poster Children for Insanity

Poster Children for Insanity

Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas

Daniel v. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_v._Waters

Hendren et al. v. Campbell et al. was a 1977 ruling by an Indiana state superior court that the young-earth creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, published by the Creation Research Society and promoted through the Institute for Creation Research, could not be used in Indiana public schools. The ruling declared: "The question is whether a text obviously designed to present only the view of Biblical Creationism in a favorable light is constitutionally acceptable in the public schools of Indiana. Two hundred years of constitutional government demand that the answer be no." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendren_v._Campbell

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982), was a 1981 legal case in Arkansas which ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Act 590) was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge, William Overton, handed down his decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that “creation science” is religion and is simply not science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life."The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

48,077 views 201 replies
Reply #151 Top

What about vegetarian animals?

Reply #152 Top

Infidel posts:

That's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. "Other creatures"? We're discussing the similarities between humans and only one other creature. I guess we're as similar to all the other animals as we are to apes. We don't have to eat apes.

Yes, to a certain extent, we are similiar to various other creatures, especially the apes. We have livers, intestines, eyes, ears, appendixes, etc. and it's that similarity that evolutionists argue we descended from apes, and have a common ancestor. Similarity is called "homology" in evolutionary parlance...but similarity really proves nothing at all for evolutionists as they need evidence of species change not evidence of simliarity.

I agree only on the point that similarities exist....I think they are similiar because they all have the same Creator!

You hoped no one would notice your attempt to confuse and fool us. I seriously think you need an exorcism.

Look at types of cars. Porche, Volvo, Datson, Volkswagon and Mustang have similarities...Does this give evidence that Porche descended from Volvo and so forth and so on to a common ancestor or does it show that someone intelligent made them all according to a common design....which is to roll down highways powered by engines?

 

Reply #153 Top

lula posts:

These similarities are necessary for us to eat.

It's not only similarity in shape and form but here, I'm talking about biochemical similarities. Biochemicals are common to all living things. Human cells do some of the same things yeast cells do. That is the code for the enzymes and proteins do the same kind of job.

So, even though we humans share similarities with apes, does not legitimize that we are related in an evolutionary sense.  You are wonderfully created in the image and likeness of Almighty God and apes are just animals. You can know, love and serve God and read this which no ape will ever be able to do. 

 

leauki posts:

So you are saying now that G-d had a limit He had to work around? .

No.

What I'm saying is that the similarities in all living things points to Creator God and the unity of the Creation is testimony to the one true God Who made it all.   

lula posts:

All Evolutionists claim that similiarities between apes and humans are evidence for Evolution and proof that they evolved from common ancestors.

Leauki posts:

No. It's evidence for evolution but not proof.

Who says similarity is evidence for evolutionary descent and common ancestors? Only evolutionists and those duped by their propaganda claim that...and the argument from similarities (homologies) is circular reasoning. 

 

   

 

Reply #154 Top

What about vegetarian animals?

It goes to biochemicals which are in all living things, including plants and vegetables.

Before the Fall of Adam and Eve, they and all the animals were vegetarians as death hadn't entered the world until they rebelled against God and disobeyed His command.  

Reply #155 Top

Look at types of cars. Porche, Volvo, Datson, Volkswagon and Mustang have similarities...Does this give evidence that Porche descended from Volvo and so forth and so on to a common ancestor or does it show that someone intelligent made them all according to a common design....which is to roll down highways powered by engines?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Reply #156 Top

Look at types of cars. Porche, Volvo, Datson, Volkswagon and Mustang have similarities...Does this give evidence that Porche descended from Volvo and so forth and so on to a common ancestor or does it show that someone intelligent made them all according to a common design....which is to roll down highways powered by engines?

We happen to know where cars come from. It's usually written on the things. That's what "Volvo" means.

If human beings had a "made by G-d" stamp, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Incidentally, the design of modern cars did descend from the design of the first car. Each designer looked at the designs of previous designers.

 

 

Reply #157 Top

You're a better man than me, Leauki.  All I could do was laugh.

Reply #158 Top

We happen to know where cars come from.

Ya, from someone intelligent....someone intelligent made them. Scripture tells us the very same thing....some Intelligent Being made all living things.

Reply #159 Top

But unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that scripture is true, all it is is propaganda from your choice of religion.

Note, I'm not picking on just christianity with this statement but all organizations currently recognized by most governments as religions.

Reply #160 Top

Ya, from someone intelligent....someone intelligent made them. Scripture tells us the very same thing....some Intelligent Being made all living things.

Two things...

We don't know whether scripture is true. We don't even know which scripture is true. On the basis of your argument we could teach Hinduism in science class.

Either way, scripture is not disprovable and thus doesn't qualify as science.

Secondly, scripture was written for everyone, including people like you who don't (apparently) have the mental capability to understand evolution. I am not talking about your belief in Creationism, I am talking about your inability to explain evolution when you try to state why you reject it.

You are still not getting it. Science is not looking for explanations that cannot be disproven. Such explanations are useless because they do not define boundaries.

If you understood evolution you would understand science and if you understood science you would understand evolution. But since you understand neither, there really isn't much you can contribute. Creationism is just an escape for the ignorant which allows them to think that they understood something as complicated as science and are thus as clever as all these scientists.

That's why you don't understand evolution. You simply cannot imagine that it is more complicated than Creationism and hence you know only a parody of it, basically as much as you can grasp and as Creationist propaganda is willing to "explain" to you.

That's why you believe that evolution claims that species "turn into" other species or that "transitional fossils" make sense as a concept (in reality evolution denies the existence of "transitional" anything since there are no absolutes between which anything could be "transitional"). You just dont know any better but you believe that this is all there is to know.

If you actually understood evolution, you would talk quite differently.

 

Reply #161 Top

 

Look at types of cars. Porche, Volvo, Datson, Volkswagon and Mustang have similarities...Does this give evidence that Porche descended from Volvo and so forth and so on to a common ancestor or does it show that someone intelligent made them all according to a common design....which is to roll down highways powered by engines?

But it wasn't God!

Well, Nissan descended from Datsun. ;P

Reply #162 Top

 

lula posts:

Scripture tells us the very same thing....some Intelligent Being made all living things.

DOOMBRINGER90 POSTS:

But unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that scripture is true, all it is is propaganda from your choice of religion.

Sacred Scripture is true because Almighty God is the Principal Author and God is omniscient, Truth Itself and incompatible with all error.  I know the information about the Creation events of Genesis is true God was the only witness, incapable of deception. God is both Creator of all living things and the Principal Author of Scripture.  

So this brings us back to the basic questions.....Did the existence of all living things come about by naturalistic evolution or by Divine Creation?   It really boils down to who do we believe...man's philosophy of Godless evolution or the revealed Word of Creator God?

 

Leauki posts:

Two things...

We don't know whether scripture is true.

Speak for yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #163 Top

...

Reply #164 Top

Speak for yourself.

I am free to speak facts.

Neither you nor I know whether scripture is true.


Sacred Scripture is true because Almighty God is the Principal Author and God is omniscient, Truth Itself and incompatible with all error

Yes, but which book is that sacred scripture? We don't know which book G-d wrote.

Was it the Avesta? The Quran? The manual of a 1960 Porsche?

Either way, even if we knew which scripture really was authored by G-d, it still wouldn't be scientific, unless you want to claim that your god can err. Remember that scientific theories must be disprovable.

Ironically you keep claiming that evolution has been disproven, thereby adding to the argument for it being science.

 

 

 

 

Reply #165 Top

You still think that evolution means that one species "turns into" another, which is wrong.

The Evolutionist states that all life gradually evolved froma single cell.  The evidence the Evolutionist needs to establish his claims is fossils showing a gradual step by step development of lower animal life into more and more complex forms. 

The evidence needed to support creation is fossils showing complex life appearing suddenly with no fossil evidence of lower animals developing into new and complex forms of life. 

So which makes more sense?  Which shows more evidence?  Creation or Evolution? 

All higher categories of living things such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly. 

The case for Evolution to be taught in school (Scopes Trial) was based on a lie.  Reminds me of the whole abortion issue as well.  The right to abort went into law in 1973 based on a lie as well. The hoaxes revealed later were buried under the rug.  We know who the father of lies is don't we? 

Then there's the whole universally accepted laws of thermodynamics which totally contradicts the theory of evolution.  The second law of Thermodynamics says that all things left to themselves always tend to go from the complex to the simple, from the organized to the disorganized.  Evolution would require the exact opposite which is the continually building up from the simplest to the more complex forms. 

I want to rant about how the Bible doesn't actually say that the entire planet was flooded, but we have been through this here a lot. A literal reading of the text only gives us a flooded planet if the word "eretz" is read as "planet earth" despite the fact that it is usually translated as "land", as in "Eretz Yisrael" ("Land of Israel").

and I want to say a literal reading of the text (taking in the WHOLE context) does give us a flooded world.  But you're right been there; done that :) 

 

Reply #166 Top

Yes, but which book is that sacred scripture? We don't know which book G-d wrote.

There's only one that has stood the test of time.  A Professor M. Montiero Williams, former Boden professor of Sanskrit, spent 42 years studying Eastern books and in comparing them with the Bible said this:

"Pile them, if you will, on the left side of your study table; but place your own Holy Bible on the right side-all by itself, all alone-and with a wide gap between them.  For...there is a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East, which severs the one from the other utterly hoplessly and forever...a veritable gulf which canot be bridged over by any science or religious thought."

It's unique in its continuity, its circulation, it's translation, its survival, its teaching, it's influence on surrounding literature, etc.  If you are an intelligent person, you will read the one book that has drawn more attention than any other, if you are searching for the truth. 

While this does not prove the Bible is the Word of God it does prove it stands alone among books in it's survival through criticism, its survival through persecution, and through time etc.  If the book had not been the book of God, men woud have destroyed it long ago.  Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried ther hand at it.  They are all dead and the book still lives. 

Incidentally, the design of modern cars did descend from the design of the first car. Each designer looked at the designs of previous designers.

I believe as God states in the bible that nature and creation itself reveals that there is a Creator.  We know that for every design there is a designer, and for every law there is a lawgiver.  "in the beginning God created" is still the most up to date statement on the origin of the universe and all that it contains. 

 

Reply #167 Top

We know that for every design there is a designer, and for every law there is a lawgiver. "in the beginning God created" is still the most up to date statement on the origin of the universe and all that it contains.

Quite scientific, too. ;P

Reply #168 Top

If the Bible is so holy and sacred, why isn't it free? Shouldn't all items which are truly holy, sacred and imbued with some kind of supernatural power be separate from capitalism?

Reply #169 Top

If the Bible is so holy and sacred, why isn't it free?

It is.

You can find the text online and there really is no lack of Christian missionaries trying to give you free Bibles. I myself got a Christian Bible in Hebrew (!) on the train to Haifa last year.

 

Reply #170 Top

You can find the text online and there really is no lack of Christian missionaries trying to give you free Bibles.

Ok, but stores still sell them and other religious items.

Reply #171 Top

Ok, but stores still sell them and other religious items.

Those are copies. Moses got the original for free.

 

Reply #172 Top

Those are copies. Moses got the original for free.

LOL

 

:thumbsup:  

Reply #173 Top

I myself got a Christian Bible in Hebrew (!) on the train to Haifa last year.

Just because you didn't buy it doesn't mean no one did. Someone had to.

Reply #174 Top

Just because you didn't buy it doesn't mean no one did. Someone had to.

well paper, ink and materials are costly not to mention the labor involved.  So do you think Walmart should just give out free bibles? 

There are plenty of groups that do like the Gideons at no cost to others and almost any strong Christian will spend his own money to buy another a bible (I've done so countless times) but because it's the #1 best seller of all times there is quite a market out there as well. 

 

Reply #175 Top

So do you think Walmart should just give out free bibles?

Yes. Should you have to pay for salvation?