Reigniting the Evolution Debate in Kansas?

A Kansan activist is uncertain whether the most recent State Board of Education elections will reignite the debate over including creation in public school science classes.

Come November, half of the ten seats on the Board of Education will be subject to elections. It is expected that the Board will review the science standards of the state next year, after the election.

Robert Noland, executive director for the Kansas Family Policy Council, which supports including alternative ideas to the theory of evolution in science classes, told The Christian Post that he had not found any major candidates who are running primarily on this issue.

"I haven't found any serious candidates who are running on this as the sole reason for why they are running," said Noland.

"I know there may be a couple who think it should be looked at, given the fact that the Board is looking at the standards right now; it's just hard to tell what may or may not happen."

Continue reading at www.christianpost.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

blackhawk

When will we leard that theory means MAYBE with absolutely NO PROOF.
- Betz
  
  I suggest you look up "theory" with regards to the scientific method. Do you also reject the theory of gravity?
  - KentPerry
    
    You mean the Law of Gravity ? No I don't reject that and that is because, it, unlike evolution, has been proven without a whole lot of fanfare by the philosopher kings of science, the atheists, using it to advance their atheism. The fact is, however, we still don't know much about Gravity at all. Anyone who thinks we do, isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer on that subject either.
    - UF Gator
      
      My thought exactly, the LAW of gravity. But no, evolution does not explain the human brain. If anything the human brain is an outlier. So in making extrapolations statistically, the data on the human brain would be discarded.
      
      Can an ape come up with such a delightful, creative analogy as "the sharpest knife in the drawer"? I think not.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Brains come in many different sizes. The sea slug (Aplysia), for example, has only about 20,000 neurons in its entire nervous system. Coelenterates have an even simpler nervous system consisting of a nerve net and nothing even close to a brain. There are innumerable intermediate forms of brains between humans and brainless animals; gradual evolution of the brain presents no challenge.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html
      - UF Gator
        
        OK, suppose I accept the hypothesis that the human brain is the result of evolution, where is the civilization that the brain of some pre-man produced likened to the ones we have built? The gap is huge. The intelligence factors are NOT there to extrapolate through the ages from ANY creature no matter the number of neurons present. Therefore, I do not concede that evolution alone accounts for the brilliance of man's brain. It's not rational. Man's brain, for me, remains as an outlier in the extrapolation methods of evolutionary science, unless you can produce the civilization…
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        So, you want a brain that is not as developed as our to produce results that are similar to ours? Why would you expect that to be the result?
      - UF Gator
        
        In fact, what I am saying is that such a brain does NOT exist. I didn't say I want one like it, but the presence of such a brain that "to produce results similar to ours" is needed to prove your point that man's brain evolved in the world of pure micro-evolution. Isn't that your basic premise?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        There are many examples of primates that lead up to modern humans.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
      - UF Gator
        
        The link you offered will take some time to investigate Mr. Dixon. Thank you.
      - KentPerry
        
        The author can't even explain it himself without using numerous words that denote metaphysics of some kind
      - UF Gator
        
        Thank you Kent Perry. I will decide that for myself. My experience with Jeff is that he doesn't use metaphysics. So maybe he has a new angle.
      - KentPerry
        
        Oh yes he does,, in fact I have never seen an ARGUMENT by ANY believer in evolution that can explain it WITHOUT using such verbiage eventually in the papers I have read. It seems rather impossible to accomplish.
      - UF Gator
        
        I will decide that for myself as I always do with caution
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Of course not. Just like you have never lost an argument either. You are a legend in your own mind.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Shockingly, you expressed yourself without resorting to physical threats, Kent. Congratulations.
      - KentPerry
        
        Ha HA HA HA and I heard you stopped beating your wife too, Jeff
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Ha ha ha yourself. We know what you posted, you loon.
      - UF Gator
        
        Kent Perry: Be nicer. You are pretty rude. And get a sense of humor.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Actually, there are no metaphysics involved. That is merely Kent attempting to discount evolution. And doing a poor job of it, I might add.
      - UF Gator
        
        I know it.
      - KentPerry
        
        Jeff Don't assume you know what I said then once again YOU SCREW IT ALL UP. I never said there was any involved, I said they can't explain it without using words to that effect but whether there actually IS any metaphysics involved wouldn't be something YOU would have the capacity to wrap your little mind around regardless
      - KentPerry
        
        Nothing in that article is "Proof" that led up to anything.
      - UF Gator
        
        I will find that out for myself. Thank you KentPerry. I know Mr. Dixon well enough to know he is does not misguide, so I know I will learn something there, perhaps something you missed?
      - KentPerry
        
        Doesn't misguide? How would HE know and why on earth do you suggest you know what his intentions are? His intentions here are OBVIOUS. Antagonize Christians and spread atheism and his brand of religion called evolution.
        
        I lost all hope in any suggestion Jeff Dixon is a principled person of intelligent good character long ago. I guess we see him differently
      - UF Gator
        
        Kent Perry: I appreciate your point of view but really I am of the belief that if god exists that we are all his precious children, even Mr. Dixon, and that he would have us all return to him in the plan of salvation that granted only he, if he exists, knows the details.
        
        I think it is presumptuous that we know those details. I have just started on this quest to study both scripture and professional titles to question whether I can prove the existence of god for my own stability, and thus my family's. and not just accept testimonies of those I don't trust are telling the truth. I also wish to study whether evolution is tenable explanation for our existence as we know it. Jeff just happens to being doing both those things. He and I disagree on approach. He is an atheist. I am a blooming atheist if I cannot find that god exists. I know that the god of the bible is not the full story if it is the right story at all. It can't be. I have studied every conceivable Christian point of view. I need a rational approach!
        
        I think the debate is very important because we have a problem of malaise in this country. I can't think of a better way to reduce it then getting people to speak up, which is hard to do in a college classroom. Jeff is astute and mostly courteous. I see no threat to others in his beliefs. When we start getting hoards of of other religions here in the forum, we will need to articulate our laws regarding compassion versus law, and draw the line for them as to our meanings of these versus they way they interpreted by the other cultures, for example. Those exercises in debate have been the most frightening. Then we will all need these skills to not back down from the cliff that besets us if we do. see first debate on Ramadon
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is obvious you have no idea of my intentions. I am not here to antagonize but to educate. The fact that you are unwilling to consider any other point of view shows that you are the obstinate one.
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        See Jeff, you are a teacher. Caught ya! : ) You owe me a thumbs up!!!.
      - Myrtle
        
        It that what happened to the anti-CHRIST. the mind of a slug??? WELL, that would explain why they have so much trouble seeing the truth; how they cannot understand the truth of GOD'S creation, and HIS GREATNESS, HIS POWER, HIS LOVE FOR HIS PEOPLE, HIS GREAT PLAN FOR HIS PEOPLE NOW, HIS PLAN FOR THEM IN THE GREAT HEREAFTER'. IT IS A PERFECT PLAN!!
      - UF Gator
        
        Reid: You missed the point about the slug, so please re-read it and have a reasonable response on the topic. We want no intimidation on either the creationist nor the evolutionist side of this issue, it will get us exactly nowhere.
        
        Consider also, if you will please consider my intent in this forum. I have problems with people blatantly promoting their beliefs onto my children. I want my children to learn reading, writing and arithmetic well, as I did in a tiny country school in the USA. This business about introducing them to issues that will stifle their brains to make good rational decisions in their lives is irrational to me. I don't want irrational people teaching my kids. Your point of view is your personal point of view and it should be kept that way. I have mine and I do not want yours to be introduced by intimidation to my child. Such can lead to a lot of confusion in a child's mind and can thus lead to very serious problems. Let the parents teach their children at the dinner table, and let the teachers at school teach the children the rudiments for making a living for themselves.
      - Michael g.
        
        Size of brain (lets stick to primates) doesn't really matter much. It is the intellect behind that brain. Name one animal that is aware of the universe (other than man)? A race horse isn't. He may notice the clouds, and the grass; when the mere is interested in him, and the Finish Line. No one understands what a horse knows or doesn't know. Man is the only one who can measure anything.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Actually, the size of the brain in relation to body size seems to have a lot to do with intelligence.
        
        Gorillas are aware of many of the same concepts as people.
        
        The Gorilla Foundation conducts research in interspecies communication (language), cultural development, and intellectual and emotional awareness—treating gorillas as respected family members, for our mutual benefit.
        
        Koko has learned over 1000 signs.
        • She invents her own new compound signs, eg, "finger-bracelet" for ring.
        • Koko understands spoken English.
        • Koko is not unique: gorilla Michael was very articulate in ASL too.
        •Koko's use of grammatical aspects of sign language in complex phrases is evident.
        •This teaches us much about human language development/origns.
        
        Koko paints representationally and impressionistically.
        • She's painted many self-named works.
        • Gorilla Michael painted even more!
        • Their work has appeared in galleries and artists and critics are impressed with their use of color and technique.
        
        Koko (and other gorillas) appear to have the same emotions we have.
        • She can be happy, sad, jealous, frustrated, angry, willful, funny …
        • Koko loves kittens and she still grieves for her first kitten, All Ball.
        • Her empathy for others has changed our perception of gorillas forever.
        • Gorillas clearly deserve basic personal rights such as protection
        
        http://www.koko.org/friends/research.koko.html
      - UF Gator
        
        Jeff, I have this wonderful story. Thanks for posting it. I love it.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yet you are unwilling to accept that the brain can evolve.
      - UF Gator
        
        who are you talking to Jeff? My brain is fried after my encounter with Kent.
      - UF Gator
        
        No not at all Jeff. I just don't see the evidence. Please be more explicit… I have not read the link you sent yet … Please resend or I will have to go on a hunt for it or just tell me… I have the Koko story I meant the one on origins
      - KentPerry
        
        Here UF I think you might really enjoy this guy.
        http://evillusion.wordpress.com/
        Old friend of mine, a Dentist and NOT a theist by any stretch
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Right, he is not a theist. Yet he believes in Intelligent design.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Right, he is not a theist, but he believes in god and Intelligent Design. Goodness, you are thick in the head.
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        That was yesterday. I am putting one foot in front of the other.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, there is no actual anti-christ.
      - KentPerry
        
        Well yeah YOU can say that because you are the ONLY anti christ you know of but don't assume we aren't referring to you
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Given the number of people who comment on my posts, I usually assume you are referring to me.
      - KentPerry
        
        Your "educating the masses" again eh Jeff
        
        Yeah good Job!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Better than your idiotic attempts, Kent,
      - KentPerry
        
        Becareful Jeff, UF gets his feelings hurt when you speak so Calvinistic
        Oh and by the way, your attempts are not a pimple on my intellectual ass
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Kent, I would not ever be anywhere near your ass. You will have to find someone else to fulfill that fantasy of yours.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, the anti-Christ has the mind of a slug. Which makes it even more embarrassing that your god cannot prevent him from doing evil.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Even a so-called 'simple' brain is incredibly complex. Even a 'simple' cell is incredibly complex, so you are not going to win any pro-evolution arguments by claiming that 'simple' things could evolve, because there are no 'simple' living cells, organs, or organisms.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I did not say that a simple brain was not still complex. I merely stated that we can see the evolution of simple brains to more complex brains.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        We can? There is a vast difference between the brain of a human and even the brain of a higher creature like a dog. The amount of changes that would be needed to go from a dog brain to a human brain are staggering. And since there is no known mechanism for generating the vast amounts of new genetic information that would be required for such a transformation, we can categorically state that upward evolution of brains would be impossible.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Except that for the fact that we can account for it.
        
        Chen et al. found that a surprisingly large number of genes had arisen in the D. melanogaster lineage over this 35-myr period. Here’s a summary of their results:The authors identified 566 new genes that arose over this period. That’s about 4% of the total genes in the D. melanogaster genome. And that’s quite a few given that the divergence is only 35 myr. The genus Drosophila itself (including the scaptomyzids) diverged from its sister group about 63 million years ago, so we can estimate that, in the genus as a whole, at least 7% of the genome comprises brand new genes.The authors were able to take a sample of these genes (195 of them) and knockdown their transcripts using novel RNAi technology (this involves inserting transposable genetic elements in those genes and then using those elements to kill the genes). They found that about 30% of these new genes are essential for viability—that is, the fly dies if it has no active copies. This proportion didn’t vary depending on how long ago the “new” gene had arisen. Nor did it differ much from the proportion of “old” genes (those present in both lineages) that are essential for viability, which is about 35%. It seems, then, that even if these genes arise as duplicates from pre-existing genes, they quickly assume new functions that make the fly unable to survive without them.The “new function” conclusion is supported by two other pieces of data. First, the average difference in DNA sequence between the “new” genes in the D. melanogaster lineage and their parental copies (that is, the genes from which they originated, usually by duplication) is 47.3%. That’s a big difference—a change in nearly every other nucleotide. Second, there are new ways to determine what the new genes do: by estimating which proteins in the genome each new gene’s protein product interacts with. Chen et al. found that many of the products of new genes interact with proteins completely different from the ancestral genes. This implies that the new genes have evolved completely different functions. And, as theory suggests, that’s the way these genes become essential: at first they do the same thing as their ancestral genes (they’re duplicates, after all), but as they diverge they assume new functions (usually impelled by natural selection) that fit them into new developmental pathways. In this way a gene that is at first “gratuitious” can become essential. It’s nice that we can actually see this happening with protein-protein interaction data.In further support of the above scenario for the evolution of new genetic information, the authors found that in young and new “essential” genes, there was a strong signature of natural selection having acted, as suggested by the high rates of DNA substitution. As the “new” essential genes become older, and assume new functions, these rates slow down. This again supports the theory of how new genes originate: when they’re formed by duplication, they are quickly eliminated from the genome (see below) unless they diverge quickly to do something new. Thus the duplicates that do survive are usually those that have diverged quickly. Once the new function has been assumed, and the gene is essential, selection then acts to preserve its new function by eliminating new mutations (“purifying selection”).These results, which show that new genetic information (“FCT”s) arises quickly, don’t imply that every new gene duplication becomes a brand-new gene with a new function. That’s far from the case. We don’t know the figure in Drosophila, but in the human lineage it’s estimated that only about 5% of new duplications diverge to become new genes that do something novel. The rest are inactivated, becoming dead “pseudogenes” that don’t do anything. In Drosophilathese are quickly removed from the genome, but in our own lineage many of them linger, so we can estimate the proportion of duplicated genes that don’t go on to do something new.Nevertheless, genes duplicate frequently enough that they can provide sufficient raw material for genetic novelty. Estimates of how often a given gene duplicates in evolution run about one duplication event per 100 million gene copies. That seems low, but remember that there are thousands of genes in the genome, and, in many species (including Drosophila and now ours), there are hundreds of millions of individuals. That means that, in the species, there are many genes that duplicate each generation. Even if only a few percent of these survive inactivation, that’s a lot of raw material for evolutionary change.The presence of frequent gene duplications is supported by an independent study: Emerson et al. (2008) found that in only fifteen lines of D. melanogaster from nature there were several hundred duplicate genes segregating as polymorphisms (that is, some individuals had one copy of a gene, some had two or more). They estimated that 2% of the genome was tied up in this copy-number variation. Clearly, there are a lot of duplicate genes variants floating around in nature.
        
        http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/new-genes-arise-quickly/
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Yes, Drosophila, A.K.A. fruit flies, do have an unusually high rate of mutation. Problem is, none of these mutations have ever been shown to lead to the development of a new kind of creature. We always start with a fruit fly, and we always end up with a fruit fly.
        
        "Researchers have by means of genetic breeding, changed a two-wing fruit fly into a four-wing fruit fly. The four-wing fruit fly consistently reproduces four-winged fruit flies. But although a new species has been produced, it is not a new “kind.” The mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. As a matter of fact, the four-winged fruit fly is a weakened form. The second set of wings do not help the fruit fly; they actually get in the way. Its ability to take flight is dangerously hindered. Having been selectively bred in the laboratory, this species will also not survive without the caring assistance of researchers. This is a poor example of evolution by mutation. The bottom line is that mutations always weaken an organism and never change it into something else. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly.
        
        No New Information
        
        A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase. The system is limited to what it has and therefore cannot create new codes. Most frequently, information exchange leads to a loss of information.
        
        Bacterial Resistance
        
        The appearance of bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics is often touted as evidence for the “molecules to men” Theory of Evolution. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is just the most recent in a long line of bacteria that has shown evidence of resistance to antibiotics that previously was clearly susceptible to a certain antimicrobial agents.
        
        There are numerous mechanisms, e.g. loss of enzymatic activity can result in metronidazole resistance, mutations associated with antibiotic resistance involve the loss or reduction of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic, the antibiotic transport system was reduced or eliminated, a regulatory system or enzyme activity was reduced or eliminated, etc. and several bacteria, including Escherichia coli, construct a multiple-antibiotic-resistance (MAR) efflux pump that provides the bacterium with resistance to multiple types of antibiotics, including erythromycin, tetracycline, ampicillin, and nalidixic acid are just a couple of them. (Anderson 2005)
        
        Understanding that there are multiple reasons for bacterial resistance to antibiotics helps to see this ability as the result of a complex and often diverse interactions rather than a simple and straightforward ability of organisms to change over time. Remember, we are not stating that bacterial resistance to antibiotics does anything to substantially change the core components of bacteria. As with all other mutations, information is being lost or altered in some way. No new information is being transmitted and this is a basic requirement for the types of changes predicted by Darwinian evolution. Single cell bacterial remain single cell bacteria.
        
        These mutations also cannot provide a mechanism that continues to “evolve” the level of protein specificity or protein activity that is necessary for normal cellular function. While such mutations are excellent examples of bacterial adaptation, they are actually the antithesis of the mutational change necessary for evolution. Yet, these are the very examples evolutionists offer as verifiable demonstrations of “evolutionary change.” Ironically, these mutations are, in fact, verifiable examples of a creation model—initial complexity being mutated to a level of greater simplicity. (Anderson 2005) "
        
        http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/myth-beneficial-mutations.html
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        "loss or reduction of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic," this very occurance is a mutation event… you talk of cellular level… there is a more basic level and that is the adaptation due to ATOMic changes, i.e. previous events, at a "pre-existing" level. There are many levels of complication. We shouldn't set that fact aside to make any final conclusions. A just all mighty god would not want us to. These facts are being exposed every day in science, by people of all faiths including theists, atheists, diests, and agnostics and those who want no label… Many people who you think stand apart from declaring their Christian beliefs, are really, in my opinion for example someone like you, just constantly adjusting their knowledge of Him to include the truths of His creation. I am positive that atomic mutation events occur that we can observe in the experiment. Those mutations bring about change in the functionality as you pointed out. That is a mystery, some call it a miracle. The former is for science, the latter for theology. I hope for convergence, I am all for it, but it's not there yet.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        I think what you are saying is that we do observe changes in living organisms, either by mutation or natural selection, with which I would agree. Living organism are indeed very complex, which in itself argues against evolution.
        
        However, I do not need to "adjust my knowledge" of God based on what discoveries have already been and will in the future be made concerning the creation. We can observe the marvelous complexity of not only living organisms, but the entire universe, and note that it declares the infinite wisdom of God.
        
        But as far as the direct knowledge of God Himself, we already have the complete declaration of who God is and what He is like in the pages of the Bible, at least as much as He wants us to know and what we as finite creatures are able to understand about an infinite Creator. We have no need to adjust our understanding of Him based on human endeavors or else we are placing the understanding of man above God's Word
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        I am talking about adjusting knowledge of scientific discoveries.
        I don't mean to imply anything about your religious stance.
      - KentPerry
        
        You can see that? ha ha SHOW ME
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        please will you give me just a scientific paper confirming proof of the mutations that occur with brains like Koko, and the event by mutation event up to the brain of man. I want to see this more clearly.
      - KentPerry
        
        No it DOES present quite a vivid imagination. In fact after reading that highly refuted and thoroughly debunked article you chose to link, I will say a vivid imagination is REQUIRED with an ample supply of blind faith in a ridiculous set of circumstances so improbable that mathematicians in the hard sciences would say off record, a word I will say ON the record, as IMPOSSIBLE.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Debunked by creationists means it is a valid idea.
      - KentPerry
        
        Yeah,, LOL I know, and have been warned about those that call evil, good and good, evil. By your logic, we could have you believing in God merely be contradicting one exist's
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Since this comment makes no sense whatsoever, I have no response other than to say attempt to try and use actual English.
      - KentPerry
        
        Jeff, please share with us won't you, exactly WHICH word or words used in my post is NOT English and then , if you would be so kind,, IDENTIFY the foreign language or your best guess because there isn't a single word in that post, you haven't used yourself, Hoss and all of them ENGLISH
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is the way in which you attempt to use them in a sentence. Grammar is also part of English.
      - KentPerry
        
        Grammar is Grammar you nitwit and English is a language. It is the reason why you criticize Grammar when Grammar is incorrect and also why you never hear someone using it well say, " Your Grammar English is bad" NO they always say your English Grammar is bad. But if you want to make that argument, I suggest you clean up your own lousy grammar airhead. Quote:
        
        " I have no response other than to say attempt to try and use actual English." –
        
        No one would have said "use actual grammar", but someone thinking they were not speaking English would have said it like you did, and why I asked you to tell me what language it is, But it seems you are only being a DICK, again. Yeah Jeff you are busted again and only someone using that post in a context for language would have said it that way or the way YOU did.
        
        only using better grammar than you did of course.
        
        You're such a Puttz, Jeff.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Grammar is a part of every language. If you do not use grammar correctly, you cannot use language correctly. Which is a simple concept taught in grade school.
        It is not "being a dick" to point out you do not use it correctly. But it is fun.
      - KentPerry
        
        Oh I am glad it provides the comical relief you so desperately need Jeff but you see now I am really confused because if you can't recognize bad grammar, conventional wisdom would suggest, you wouldn't know the grammatical errors I have made and is why you can't PROVE any. So you erect a straw man like you did with your Moses the humanitarian and you go off into arguments I never made, and the one you erected again about language and grammar.
        
        But lets show everyone what a REAL logical fallacy in an argument ok Jeff because YOU ROCK, when it comes to putting an entire shoe store in your big mouth about your aversion to admitting you are stupid. In fact DAMN STUPID.
        
        This is not to criticize and if anyone knows a more accurate word to describe such willful want and disregard for truth honesty and intellectual integrity as I have seen with you just avoiding the logic traps you keep stepping in, I would love to hear it, else the word heretofore is true, Jeff Dixon is STUPID.
        
        You continue to complain about a grammar mistake I never made but YOU did.
        
        Then, in the same post you correct me, using accusation condemnation but never do you prove anything except that are so ignorant of your OWN Grammar mistakes and have so little regard anyone that might know more than you. It is this arrogance this tact that has retarded your ability to be taught because YOU think you are the teacher.
        
        You ought to SIT DOWN and LISTEN to the many that have been where you are but were humble enough to know the difference between being a good student to become a good teacher. You are neither of them and is why you have no life but this place. Once I ask you to prove something you accuse me of and follow that by calling me an idiot, I can't count how many times I have shook my head in utter disbelief someone could be so drop dead dumb and stupid as you my friend. I mean YOU just go off making an even BIGGER ass of yourself, AS YOU SO OFTEN DO WHEN YOU GET YOUR ASS HANDED BACK TO YOU BY THOSE OF US THAT DO KNOW.
        Now since you are too arrogant, indeed, too determined to remain an idiot, and it is your assumptions you are always right and never wrong that adds insult to the injury that has you already looking like the elephant in the room. I see this from you so much, I only correct you in the interest of those who mistakenly give you the benefit of the doubt. and as a WARNING to others of your narcissism. You see here is the problem .
        
        Here is the quote Jeff responded to alleging it was so hard for him to understand and OF COURSE THAT TOO,, was my fault as you will see.
        
        I said: Quote: "
        I know, and I have been warned kjv about those that call evil, good and good, evil. By your logic, we could have you believing in God merely by contradicting one exist's"
        
        I paste the very same into http://www.grammarcheck.net/
        
        No language problems Jeff, indeed no GRAMMAR problems what so ever BUT when I paste YOURS complaining about same, HERE is where we might see that it isn't MY reading comprehension skills nor my proper use of language and grammar, it is of course, and as usual, Jeff Dixon's bad grammar.
        
        Example Quote: Jeff said:
        
        "Since this comment makes no sense whatsoever, I have no response other than to say attempt to try and use actual English."
        
        Just what IS "Actual English" Jeff Dixon? Perhaps saying the words "REAL ENGLISH" or Proper English might have helped eh, Hoss?
        
        Not just that but using the word "AND" as if their are two separate issues here, rather than using the word "TO"
        
        So there ya have it, and Ill expect no apologies from Jeff whose criticism of my post had NOTHING to do with grammar, language and EVERYTHING to do with his own stupidity and his being a DICK about it.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Now this is amusing. I ran your sentence through the grammar check
        system YOU claimed found no fault with your sentence. Not surprisingly, it
        shows there is a grammar problem. It suggested using active voice instead of
        passive voice. So, you either lied about running it through or are unable to
        understand the results. However, it is did not pick up on the fact that you
        left out the word "by" before kjv. Stating you have been warned kjv,
        is simply wrong.
        
        The bigger issue is stating that one can believe in God merely
        by contradicting one exist's. The sentence is nonsensical. And the correct word
        should have been exists.
        
        As far as my results were concerned, it recommended that the
        word real be used instead of actual as it thought it was a simpler word to use.
        Not that it felt it was wrong word to use. It did think that using to was more appropriate
        than using and. I also tried another grammar check system and it had no issues
        with the use of the world real. http://www.spellchecker.net/grammar/
        
        Now I am more than happy to admit the word to is better than the
        word and. When will I hear from you on why you misrepresented your results? But
        you will merely bluster your way through this as you do with every topic we
        discuss.
        
        And please continue to show your superior writing skills by
        calling a woman a bitch and a tampon and calling me a dick. It shows the level
        of discourse you are comfortable with.
      - KentPerry
        
        No Problem DICK. Or is it dickless? Can't tell really, you are the only girl I know named Jeff or at least you complain like one. As for UF, yes I call em all as I see em BITCH
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Like I said, you would be unwilling to admit you lied. No shock there whatsoever.
      - KentPerry
        
        Have I lied? Of course Jeff, Everyone lies.
        
        Well,, everyone except YOU that is
        
        you're an atheist and they
        
        are perfect
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I may make mistakes, but I do not purposefully lie. But perfection is only something theists believe in.
      - KentPerry
        
        Wrong Again Moron, if theists thought they were perfect, they wouldn't have needed a savior. Another atheist thinking he knows so damn much about Christianity and showing once again, he don't know jack. Oh and can you tell me about the lie you keep harping about?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Except that as usual, you misread what is posted. I did not say theists believe they are perfect, I said they believe in perfection. And they do. They believe their god is perfect, all evidence to the contrary. Is there any topic you cannot misunderstand?
        
        I realize that lying is second nature to you, so you assume everyone does it, but actually many people consider it to be a bad thing.
      - UF Gator
        
        Re: Jeff Dixon
        I believe that you are WRONG KENTPERRY based upon what I know to be the integrity of the man. "highly refuted" and "thoroughly debunked" by whom? … specify your sources when you give testimony of a man's integrity. Knowing you even as little as I do, I doubt your research is valid, and given your religious persuasion, I would wager it doesn't matter at all about whom you give false testimony, since you are thus not accountable to anyone for any injustice that you might do to others. Prove me wrong KentPerry, so I might have hope for you above and beyond the path you are on now. I will be checking for your response early tomorrow. UF Gator
      - KentPerry
        
        Debunked by common sense airhead READ IT and WEEP https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jrLeuBpSBo_SXpAYpZKKKrj3_9dv1IxbfkRK8psuWXo/edit
      - UF Gator
        
        Airhead? Really I have a good one for you on the Gas Law of Learning … I need to type it up and then post… maybe tomorrow — yawn — speaking of which you did not share your benchmark with me… Is that what you mean when calling me an air head… that I respected your question and answered it!? So much for scholarship, friendship and all those meaningless terms, right Kent Perry?
        
        UF Gator Girl
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It does make one weep to realize just how idiotic your logic is, Kent.
      - KentPerry
        
        If your logic is so BRILLIANT Jeff, then why is it, you can only make accusations I use idiotic logic but you haven't ONCE explained how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm all ears smart guy, whatcha got?
        
        I mean besides your opinion,
        Cite the post, name the logical fallacy I am guilty of, and a brief description giving an example of same and where you see the same logical fallacy in my argument. Oh and by all means Jeff Go right a ahead explain your own logic for the ad-hominem you used as it seems to be the only thing ya got to substantiate your assertion, my logic is so idiotic.
        
        Simply telling someone they are so idiotic "it makes "one" cry", says nothing really. I have been trying to find something more that I might have missed, In fact, the only reason I will suggest for you, making such a comment, is merely to insult me. But to do that, I would first have to have a reason to think you were on to something but the only thing I see is you being an A-hole. No problem for me, its what you do. Then I would have to value your opinion and Whooops There's the rub Jeff. That dog won't hunt, you are merely to inexperienced and much too pre-occupied being a legend in your own mind for me to subject myself to the loss o I.Q. reading your usual monosyllabic diatribe and typical atheist arrogance. So go one if you think you can back up your bravado smart guy.
        
        Have at it Jeff, I mean, if it makes ya feel smarter, go for it, but between you and I,, your opinion of my idiotic logic, without citing an example or explaining yourself, doesn't mean you are right or that my logic is idiotic or that it makes one weep. All it does, is, portray you as just another knowitall atheist
        
        being a Jerk
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Your article starts off using an the fallacy of the Appeal to Ridicule when you use this question: "If god had anything to do with it, why don't I have eyes like a hawk?"
        
        Anything else you need explained, just let me know.
      - KentPerry
        
        Wrong again Jeff, it was an actual quote of an atheist in a debate jughead'
        Oh I saw the cute lil animated video mocking creationists. Here is one using REAL PEOPLE. http://youtu.be/SmS6yS967io
        
        Jeez I know just how eric Hovind feels talking to artful dodgers stuck in circumlocution gear
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Irrelevant. A comment from one atheist does not mean ALL atheists believe it to be true.
      - KentPerry
        
        Never said it did Jeff. I just used it as an example for the argument from design as an example of why I disagree. Jeff, the day you can write anything that intelligent, Ill take your silly straw man BS more serious, but now, you present no challenge what so ever and after that last grammar fiasco where now I know the trouble you go to just to keep from admitting your wrong, I know getting you to see you are stupid is just out of the question. So be stupid. I really don't give a rats ass Jeff
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You seem very fixated on asses. You mentioned a pimple on an ass and now a rat's ass. Very odd how you keep on referring to that part of the body.
        
        But as far as the supposed grammar fiasco is concerned, you had grammar issues but lied and claimed you did not. You also had missing words and nonsensical statements. But go ahead and misrepresent the issue some more. Nothing your god loves more than one of his followers lying.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."
      In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
      We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.
      While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
      A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
      While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
      So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.
      - KentPerry
        
        Bad example. Magnetism is another thing science knows nothing about
        There are many things modern science cannot explain, and yet they occur anyway. This includes phenomena in the "hard sciences" as well as in the paranormal. These effects are now being proven in the laboratory, even though they defy present scientific theory. These unfolding mysteries point the way to a new, deeper science, a science which no longer denies spirit and consciousness, but acknowledges and embraces them while it exploits the flaws and limits of the Scientific method and the utter insult to average intelligence when ever someone suggests such a test be used when it can only test matter in the physical and observable and is only as accurate as the scientist is honest, impartial, and not motivated by greed, religion or an angst for religion.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        We know "nothing" about it? Hard to explain how we created magnets then, isn't it Kent?
      - KentPerry
        
        I never said we didn't know how to use them but your suggestion we created magnetism is hysterically incorrect.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You said science knows nothing about magnetism, which is absurd. What I said is we create magnets, not magnetism. Are you really that dense?
    - Michael g.
      
      Actually you can't see Gravity. But you can se what it does.
      - KentPerry
        
        I never said we could see it but I believe it exists nevertheless. When you say "we can see what "it" does" //end quote,, is where we have the disconnect. Just how exactly does "IT" work?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You can also see what evolution does.
      - KentPerry
        
        Evolution doesn't "DO" anything Jeff, IT (suposedly) EXPLAINS it, and not very well I might add
- Chris P
  
  Maybe you are completely ignorant about your own biology. Apparently you are unaware that you inherent traits from your parents and not the local priest. You are your own proof of evolution.
  - UF Gator
    
    Wrong on the latter count Chris P. The extrapolations made by scientists for "evolution" is just as precarious as those made by creationists. There is no missing link for the human brain, not even close. So neither evolution nor creationism have proof in the scientific sense. The data is not there.
    - KentPerry
      
      You got that right UF gator, in fact I haven't seen an argument for evolution that doesn't trip over the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent any less that those arguments for intelligent design always do.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Kent, very nice analogy. : )
  - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
    
    Chris P says: "
    Apparently you are unaware that you inherent traits from your parents and not the local priest. You are your own proof of evolution."
    
    That's a good argument against evolution, because I only inherited traits from my parents that were already present in their genetic pool. They did not need to create 'new' genetic information to pass on to me. Evolutionary theory requires that new genetic information must be created in order to supposedly 'evolve' an organism up the ladder, but in real life, we only see organisms producing offspring 'after their kind' just as the Bible says.
    
    Natural selection does indeed occur today, but that is merely a re-shuffling of existing genetic information. The traits I inherited from my parents were randomly selected at conception from the available traits my parents had in their gene pool, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
  - Michael g.
    
    Which kind are you talking about?
  - KentPerry
    
    You are your own example of something fearfully and wonderfully created. What is up with the comment about a Priest? Relevance?
- UF Gator
  
  The concept of 'theory" is a construct of our human mind. Regardless, evolution and creationism are both in the category of having NO PROOF.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    It would be exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the arguments for evolution in a concise fashion here. However, the most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem. What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it never acknowledges this fact, and so never takes on the burden of producing a better explanation for that original problem.
    So what was this original problem that evolution theory was invented to solve? It's called the Linnaean Taxonomy, named after Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). If you are not familiar with the term, it is the categorizations of plant and animal species into a hierarchical structure. This structure has 7 layers: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Now, the remarkable thing about this system is that the early naturalists classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree" structure long before the theory of evolution was proposed. In other words, all naturalists agreed long before Darwin that the animal kingdom appeared to be a family tree.
    Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance and development of animal features also looks like a family tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of the tree, and as you examine more complex organisms on any given branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this: ALWAYS) stay that way. They never jump back and forth; while features can jump between bacteria due to genetic material exchange (they're so small that they can literally swap pieces of DNA), we have never observed a feature exchange between complex organisms. There is no reason why an engineer would steadfastly refuse to take features from one product line and use them in another, so why would this be the case for an engineered biosystem?
    This is a classic example of a problem in need of a solution. It is not enough to classify it as coincidence, not when it is so incredibly consistent. And the problem gets worse: when those early naturalists examined the geographical distribution of the animal kingdom's "family tree", they discovered yet another impossibly unlikely "coincidence": species which appeared to be very close to one another on the family tree were also geographically close to one another. And whenever someone found what appeared to be an exception to this rule, they discovered a migratory path. Centuries later, the rule is unchanged: when species show a biological connection, they also show a geographical connection.
    The significance of these two intertwined globe-spanning coincidences cannot be overstated: it was an enormous problem for taxonomy. If someone had indeed designed and created these species, he went to enormous lengths to make them appear to be related, by carefully arranging their structures and geography to match! Why would he do this? There was no intrinsic need for this, as we have proven in the last century by artificially moving species outside their natural habitat and seeing that in many cases, they thrive in far-off environments. There was no intrinsic need for features to be arranged in a hierarchical fashion, or for structural proximity to invariably mirror geographical proximity. So why would the designer do this? No one ever provided an answer … until Darwin.
    This, then, is the single largest argument for evolution: it is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain. Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make the animal kingdom look that way, but they can't explain why or how. And if they can't explain why or how, then they actually do not have an explanation. Can anyone explain how you would derive the prediction of a "family tree" animal kingdom from the idea of God? It's not enough to say that God reused previous designs; that would explain the similarities but not the divisions in the family tree. The Linnaean taxonomy is a family tree, not a family sponge. Only evolution offers a real explanation: the kind of explanation where you can start from its mechanism and use it to logically work forward to predict the outcome.
    
    http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Page04.xhtml
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      It is circular reasoning to say that one set of speculations, namely Linnaean Taxonomy, in which early naturalists classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree" structure, is a proof for evolution, another speculation. Just because early naturalists arranged animals this way based on similarities of design and geographic location does not create a 'problem' that evolution needs to solve. It is an artificially created 'problem' based on presuppositions that closely related animals have a common ancestor. The fact that they arranged them this way indicates they already had an evolutionary bias before the actual theory was postulated.
      
      Similarity of design does not automatically convey a common ancestor, and therein lies the circular reasoning. Drawing a "family tree" structure and then assuming that similar animals in the hierarchy had a common ancestor is a mere speculation not based on evidence, but on presuppositions. Then those presuppositions are then used to create a so-called "problem" which only evolution, which is also based on those same presuppositions, can solve.
      
      The statement "all naturalists agreed long before Darwin that the animal kingdom appeared to be a family tree" shows that those naturalists already had an evolutionary presupposition even if they did not call it that. The arrangement of animals into closely related groups can just as easily be explained by a common design from a common Creator.
      
      Your source also says "If someone had indeed designed and created these species, he went to enormous lengths to make them appear to be related, by carefully arranging their structures and geography to match! Why would he do this? " Of course God created them similarly. You do not need an entirely different design for similar creatures designed by the same Creator using the same materials necessary for life. Ford does not have an entirely unique design for every car it produces. They are all quite similar in design. So why is it so hard to believe that God would create similar animals with a similar design?
      
      Finally, your source says, "This, then, is the single largest argument for evolution: it is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain."
      If that is the single greatest argument in favor of evolution, then the theory should be immediately abandoned for lack of evidence. Creation most assuredly can explain similarity, as I have indicated, by a common Designer using a similar design. Fossils tell us nothing about the origin of a creature, and so similarity is not a proof of common ancestry.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I did not say that one set of speculations, namely Linnaean Taxonomy, in which early naturalists classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree" structure, is a proof for evolution. You somehow wiggled your way into that opinion. I said there was an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance and development of animal features also looks like a family tree. People tried to come up with an explanation of why that occurred with no success until Darwin.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        The only reason it "looks like a family tree" is because those who come to that conclusion have a presupposition that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms of life. Similarity can easily be explained by the creation model, namely, a common design for similar creatures, Similarity in itself is certainly no indication that one creature "evolved" from another, nor is Darwinian evolution the only explanation for similarity, as you claim. The idea of a "family tree" is itself a speculation about origins, as is evolution.
    - KentPerry
      
      Quote:"
      the most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem. What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it never acknowledges this fact"
      
      That is because we weren't the one thinking God creating us was a problem to solve just an experience to live.
      
      Quote: "
      Only evolution offers a real explanation: the kind of explanation where you can start from its mechanism and use it to logically work forward to predict the outcome." //end quote
      
      The Mechanism doesn't cut it smart guy and that is YOUR problem. You don't predict an outcome, you cheat and make them up as you go. But lets cut to the chase here Jeff and just give me your absolute best most compelling argument for an example substantiating, molecules to man, evolution and Ill show you what a load of BS that pathetic pile of piltdown paleontology and faux fossil fiction and fraud, is and continues to be as one of the most destructive and harmful hoax's the likes of homosexuals like Huxley, have ever perpetrated on our modern academia polluting our children's mind with utter Bullcrap pontificated by self aggrandizing anti religious zealots like yourself, using more dogmatic dis-information and doctrine for damnation, than any hell fire and brimstone, born again baptist preacher I have seen. You major in minors and masturbate your cerebral cortex the same way you educate your mind using inflated partners that are simply as full of hot air as the flatulence you expel without any regard for the stench you create because you moron atheists have this idea you all piss glitter and fart rainbows but in the real world, you are considered the biggest A-holes in the universe and the most distrusted segment of society and THAT my ignorant adversarial interlocutor, is a FACT! Ipso Facto!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You keep interchanging biologists with Atheists. Many biologists are Christians who accept that Evolution is accurate. The field of biology has exploded in the past 200 years since evolution became understood. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". That classic quote from the Russian-American evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky stills rings true. Your personal dislike of the theory means nothing.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Biology is not dependent on evolution in any way, shape or form. We do not need to know the origin of living things in order to understand their structure and functions, because these are things we can observe and test in the present. Speculations about what happened in the unobservable, untestable past, do not affect what we can observe and test in the present. Whether an organism was created or whether it evolved does not have any bearing on understanding how that life form functions today.
      - UF Gator
        
        Key: As I read your post I wondered if you know that in a pre-medical curriculum one of the first courses requires the dissection of three creatures (dogfish shark, necturus, cat) each of whom can be likened to the features of the human. It's called comparative anatomy. In the climate we have today this approach to make comparisons in a developmental way is inevitable…. It was done that way years before evolution was mentioned .. after that course the next one is embyology… the study of the embryo… which is the fetal pig… all its features are exactly like the human embryo. Students don't get a human body to dissect until they are in med school. They already know all the parts of the body from animals before they touch the human. Go to your local university book store … you will see the textbooks.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        But none of this has anything to do with evolution whatsoever. Of course I agree that some animal structures are similar to those in humans, but that says nothing about their origin. From a creationist perspective, those similarities are present because a common design was used by the same creator.
        
        Comparative anatomy dissections are done in the present, without reference to the past origin of the animal being dissected. I do not need to know anything about the origin of the creature to observe similarities of structure.
        
        Embryology is the same–it is the study of fetal animals in the present, and nothing is needed to be known about the animal's origin to dissect and observe similarities. I take exception to you statement that " the fetal pig… all its features are exactly like the human embryo." They are not "exactly" alike or they would both develop into either a pig or a man. That idea is based on fraudulent illustrations by Haeckel in which he purposely changed the drawings to make it appear as though humans undergo 'evolutionary stages' as they develop from fertilized egg to birth.
        
        " Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first few months that it develops in the womb.
        
        The idea has not only been presented to generations of biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used for many years to persuasively justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn child being killed was still in the fish stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet become a human being.
        
        This idea (called embryonic recapitulation) was vigorously expounded by Ernst Haeckel from the late 1860s to promote Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany, even though Haeckel did not have evidence to support his views.1
        
        Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2
        
        Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!
        
        Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false.3Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan.4"
        http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered
      - UF Gator
        
        Key: Note I said, ".. In the climate we have today this approach to make comparisons in a developmental way is inevitable…." meaning to the Darwinian model of evolution. That was my real point… It is the avenue that is utilized to slip the concept into the lecture for some teacher who is Darwinian, and it becomes a part of the stuff the student learns as fact, you know "the teacher said… etc etc" it becomes part of the student's mindset. I am just expressing a fact.
        
        I think parents who are concerned, will just have to establish family dinner meetings. That would be a boon for our country: families gathered around the dinner table having a little talk about what they learned at school today, wouldn't it?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        key, you do not even begin to understand evolution, so you trying to say what is or is not evolution is absurd
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Then please present the observable and testable evidence that will show how evolution occurs, and facts that prove it did occur in the past. If evolution is supposedly an entirely natural process, we should be able to observe it occurring today if we are to believe it occurred in the past.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I have done that repeatedly. You simply refuse to accept what I have posted. However, it does not matter if you refuse to accept it. Your individual opinion does not establish whether something is accurate or not. The scientific community accepts it. And Key, your opinion means little in comparison to theirs.
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        I think my misunderstanding evolution is all semantics, Jeff. For starters, I know the biologists are not irrational people! So, let me try again: Is it correct to say that one mutation occurs in the DNA of one animal in the blink of an eye while it is sunbathing. That one mutation will cause some slight change in it's ability for good or bad (for lack of better terms.) If the change is good the animal will adapt to this minute change and proliferate. If the change is bad, the animal will die and therfore produce no progeny. So far so good?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        In a very broad sense yes.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        So science is based on "opinions"? I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was supposed to be based on observable, testable processes and facts, which I have yet to see in regards to evolutionary theory.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I did not say science was based on opinions. I said the scientific community accepts evolution. Since they accept evolution, they would hold an opinion that dismissing evolution is silly.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        But their "opinion" has to be based upon observable, testable phenomena or it is simply a statement of faith.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Exactly, which is what I continue to show you and what you continue to dismiss out of hand because you disagree with the idea.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        What you continue to show me are examples of adaptation, or micro evolution, which you then pass off as 'evolution'. You have not shown one example of an organism evolving into a higher form of organism. The experiment starts out with a fruit fly or a bacterium, for example, and at the end of the experiment we have….a fruit fly and a bacterium.
        
        Macro evolution requires far more than an improvement in an existing function that only serves to improve the survival ability of the organism itself. Macro evolution needs vast quantities of entirely hew genetic information that would result in entirely new forms or functions, not simply a slight improvement to an existing one.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        There is no difference between macro and micro. That is a red herring that Creationists have attempted to insert to the theory of evolution. What you call macro is simply larger amounts of accumulated changes.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Then please show me some changes, whether micro, macro, or whatevero, that display changes beyond simply improving the survival capabilities of the original organism. So far, you have not done so.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Evolution is not limited to only speculating what occurred in the past.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        But it cannot be reproduced in the present, so we have to conclude that it is only a speculation about the unobservable, untestable past.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Except that it can be shown in the present.
        
        Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob HolmesFor similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic GuideA major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.Profound changeMostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. colinormally cannot use.Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity."It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.Rare mutation?By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special – either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?Evidence of evolutionThe replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ – and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        That is a good example of adaptation, not evolution. All that happened was that the bacterium was able to acquire the ability to metabolise citrate, a substance that it normally cannot use. The bacterium did not acquire any new function, but rather a change occurred in an existing function (metabolism).
        
        But where is the evolution? We begin with a bacterium, and at the end of the experiments, we still have the same bacterium, albeit slightly modified in its ability to metabolize substances. This is far removed from the type of changes that evolutionists claim would occur if evolution were true. Vast quantities of entirely new genetic information, resulting in entirely new forms or functions, would be necessary for such changes to occur. This bacterium experiment proves nothing of the sort.
        
        Creationists do not oppose the concept that organisms can undergo changes, but these changes are simply a re-shuffling or re-arranging of existing genetic information. Such changes can improve the survival abilities of the organism being studied, but do not result in entirely new forms or functions, and so no 'evolution', or more specifically, no macro evolution has occurred. Adaptation passed off as 'evolution' is merely bait-and-switch.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        New traits are not adaption.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Call it what you want, but the change in metabolism only served to allow the bacterium to use substances it does not ordinarily use. In fact, this is not even a good example of natural adaptation because the researchers artificially introduced citrate to the culture when it is not normally present in their environment. So at best, it was an adaptation to an artificially induced change to the environment. There was still no change in form or function, and the bacterium still remained a bacterium.
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        Jeff, I wonder about the problem researchers encounter in repeatability of specific initial evolutionary events on up to the proliferation in progeny. We have many issues observing small molecules, and even diatomics, so it is a concern! To clarify: do you want to observe a change in an atom (mutation) in a strand of DNA that would cause a particular structural modification of the DNA, that in turn causes some positive usable structural change in a part of the animal, which then are useful enough the DNA results in such changes proliferated through progeny? If so, how do we know just what exact event occurred to cause a particular change? How do we know the particular change is the cause of a structural change? How is event then linked to actual change in behavior? No doubt umpteen parameters are involved with the initial event, deciphering the accompanying initial events cause untold complications and of course, compromise results. I am a novice at these levels of complications, so just wondering how to get around them.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Kent says: You major in minors and masturbate your cerebral cortex the same way you educate your mind using inflated facsimile's as your teachers, all of whom are as full of hot air as the flatulence you expel without any regard for the stench you create in science because you moron atheists have this idea you all piss glitter and fart rainbows.
        
        Now that is humorous because that is all creationism does. It makes no effort to explain anything and merely says their point of view can explain everything without every saying how. Creationism is the comic book of science where every issue can be solved by the hero of the story in implausible ways, which everyone accepts, no matter how asinine the explanation is.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Phil-M-Stilliard/1529643147 Phil M Stilliard
  
  My thoughts exactly, did anyone see a human born of an ape?
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    If that occurred, it would be proof that evolution is not accurate.
    - KentPerry
      
      Yes is also why we agree as to how it is not possible we share a common ancestor to apes. Glad you finally see the light Jeff
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Evolution never stated we were born from apes, you loon.
      - KentPerry
        
        Evolution states quite unequivocally you nit wit, that WE Humans are apes. That means we are PRIMATES and that would mean my mother is also a primate jack ass. So it DOES claim we are born from apes. I just don't agree with that because unlike you ya twisted tweaking meth addict, , My Dad was not MaGilla the Goriila.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        What a surprise, another topic, little man-child Kent knows nothing about.
        
        Apes are Old World anthropoid mammals, more specifically a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea. The apes are native to Africa and South-east Asia. Apes are the largest primates and the orangutan, an ape, is the largest living arboreal animal. Hominoids are traditionally forest dwellers, although chimpanzees may range into savanna, and the extinct australopithecines are famous for being savanna inhabitants, inferred from their morphology. Humans inhabit almost every terrestrial habitat.
        Hominoidea contains two families of living (extant) species:
        Hylobatidae consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang. They are commonly referred to as lesser apes.Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes.[3][4][5][6]
        Members of the superfamily are called hominoids (not to be confused with "hominids" or "hominins").
        Some or all hominoids are also called "apes". However, the term "ape" is used in several different senses. It has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for any tailless primate with a humanlike appearance.[7] Thus the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape" to indicate its lack of a tail. Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[3] or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid".[6][8] See also Primate: Historical and modern terminology.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
      - KentPerry
        
        There is no contradiction in my use of the word in the context I use Jeff. All you did was give a detailed description but I assumed most people would have already figured out that we are HOMOSAPIEN'S AND ALL THAT EXTRANEOUS, SUPERFLUOUS, MINUTIA, is just something you learned about as you read it for the first time in your google search. Oh and JUST so you could look like a jack ass again announcing your superior understand of the word ape
        
        Here is Dawkins using the same example I gave as Primates and Apes, several others too
        http://zomobo.net/african-apes
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Since your reading skills do not seem to be very good, let me repeat the key point. "Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans," Therefore, you are incorrect when you call humans apes.
      - KentPerry
        
        I don't call them apes you dumb jack ass that is my point! I have never believed that crap. But I believe "evangelical evolutionauts" and dumb ass Darwits, do!
        
        you say they never did. I say they have for years ! You get it now?? So WRONG AGAIN JUGHEAD!
        SEE Exhibit A
        
        http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846609,00.html
        
        B.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html
        
        C
        http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-to-human-evolution.html
        
        D http://youtu.be/Jfhf1p8WKDk
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You are dense. You said evolution says we are apes. I showed that, in fact, it does not.
      - KentPerry
        
        Hey Jeff How much you want to bet I can prove your little metro sexual Dick Dawkins himself has said it
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Even if true, that does not mean that it is accepted by the scientific community.
      - KentPerry
        
        Consensus science is a logical fallacy Jeff
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        We are not talking about science that was achieved by consensus.
- Myrtle
  
  Not likely, ever, when the theory is what you want to believe, when you won't accept the truth.
  - UF Gator
    
    What do you mean Myrtle?
    - Myrtle
      
      I think the comment you are referring to is knowing the meaning of theory. If that is the one, I mean you will not accept the truth about "the theory of evolution" therefore you won't admit the truth of it.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The reality is you do not understand what theory means in science, myrtle.
      - KentPerry
        
        PfffT and what are you Jeff Dixon?
        The alternative? ha ha
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        What then, Mr. Perry!? Are YOU the Designee to create an "informed citizenry" in the United States where the need exists? Rather, in my view, in the republic, isn't that the duty of all citizens? Mr. Dixon, therefore, is performing his civic duty. Don't you think?
      - KentPerry
        
        No on all counts
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    When the bible can easily shown to be wrong, it cannot be held up as the benchmark of truth.
    - Michael g.
      
      The Bible is Not a Science book, Jeff.
      - UF Gator
        
        It is a list of intimidations and instructions on how to correct the path to go where the writers of the book thought we ought to go. If there is an infinitely good and knowing father in heaven, his words would be endless and there would be a lot more then is in a 2 inch book.
      - Myrtle
        
        Just because they cannot understand the WORD OF GOD, that is what all ignoramuses say. As long as you reject GOD you will not be able to understand it.
      - UF Gator
        
        Answer me this Myrtle: If you understand why God has Chosen one twin brother over the other to be saved, please tell me.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        He likes one more than then other.
      - UF Gator
        
        absurd… this is not the true god (if indeed he exists)
      - KentPerry
        
        I didn't know you had such an intimate knowledge of a "True God". Is this anything like the true scottsman Mr. Cum Laud de fricken da. You don't see the flaw in such a statement as you just made? You are too busy qualifying Gods to ever have the objective impartiality one requires in not missing an opportunity to meet such a being
      - UF Gator
        
        I am not a mr. I am a miss. I can't compete with elitist snobs, I blame myself, for had I been alert early enough I would have held my words, because Calvinists can do no wrong, so they do a lot of wrong, if you get my point… imputation …now that you know things enough about me to undercut and destroy me, you happily have found a whipping post… you just can't live without one… you forget or did I tell you I had a colleague who is Calvinist. It means something and you know it, and I hope you know that I know what it means. UF Gator Girl
      - KentPerry
        
        THAT'S why you act like such a BITCH. You are a FEMALE and yes the accurate description is given without ambiguity meant just as I see you act. Don't worry, I don't get my feelings hurt that easy so continue your PMS embellished angst aggression while you swing from Jeff Dixons Vas-Defrens like some Justin Beiber Groupie all you like
        
        I really couldn't give a rats ass what your issues s with John Calvin or Calvinists, happen to be, in fact I am amused at the tirades you have posted about them so far.
      - UF Gator
        
        Kent Perry the Unaccountable … Again you speak in tongues… I hate repeating myself so much, it is you with the angst problem. And don't you have Ash to support your contentious ramblings. Jeff has lots of friends on the forum, are you jealous? I just admire Jeff so much for his constancy in dealing with others, that's all. I don't see why you call it all you do, really Mr. Perry!
        
        The "tirade" as you call it is but a reaction to the fact you fit the scenario perfectly of a, well, Calvinist who worked with me. The person was devoid of a work ethic. I began to think work was anathema for the person. Major serious symptom.
        
        Most of the Calvinists I have referenced would understand what I am talking about and even if they did not acknowledge, I know they would see the issue, internalize it and perhaps learn something from the experience.
        
        UF Gator Girl
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Ah, now that is the Kent we know that has been attempting to restrain himself from lashing out.
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        Jeff: I had a question for you in the real debate section of the page, where you were talking to Key.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Admin?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=ghtoPiAE1sA
      - Evermyrtle
        
        We should not even answer such comments, they are meant to annoy, to draw "blood" if possible, I normally just ignore them.
      - UF Gator
        
        ah yes, the twins, and only one was Chosen… that is what's got you upset… you really need to stop and listen to Jeff. He won't move the goal posts on you as he is an ethical man par excellence. Don't miss the next chance you have to talk to him. UF Gator Girl
      - KentPerry
        
        Don't flatter yourself so much Hoss, what God does or doesn't do is NOT for me to judge so I don't make such an outrageously arrogant suggestion. ONLY IDIOTS and people with experience being God would have a CLUE about such things. How long have YOU been a Go again, Hoss?
      - UF Gator
        
        Hoss? flatter yourself? Your "God" does not exist… is that your problem? You mean you have experience "being god"? again you speak in tongues. You may need this. Get some education is my recommendation: It's from a link Jeff' left for us in the forum.
        http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787
        
        You may be the "missing link." : )
        
        UF Gator Girl, Alberta the alligator
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You have no idea if the god you worship is the true god, or even if there is a true god. You merely claim to know.
      - KentPerry
        
        Like YOU claim to know there is no God?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I know the biblical god cannot exist.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Kent: I am rather humble actually and never have I claimed to be a God. Why do you think that? I am the first to say I don't know it all. So why do you think I am judging God? I am just trying to get some rational explanation why he seems to act like Satan. I don't think that's right but some of the stories make him seem that way. How can you possibly justify some of the things he does and believe that there is good (God) and evil (the devil)!!! Isn't there suppose to be a distinction there, for heavens sake, and why do you think people should not ask questions and try to understand it? Atheist arguments are sounding better to me all the time, though I like the security in the church. Will you please explain why you think I am so arrogant if I just don't see a whole lot of sense of it. Isn't that part of the reason for us being here? I love the stories actually, and I need to derive some sense out of them, for class I teach on Sundays. I need some moorings here. Please explain.
      - UF Gator
        
        I see your 5 points have prepared you accordingly, but my center is not that center! Do you think?
        
        :)
        UF Gator Girl
      - Mary Wood
        
        Do you agree with the story I told about the twin boys Esau and Jacob. I really don't know how Calvinists justify God choosing one over the other. It seems to take a torturous route to explain this (re: R. C. Sproul in his book Chosen by God.) Is it so complicated? I would like to hear another point of view really? I want to understand the glaring contradiction. I feel it is at the base of my misunderstanding the Calvinist point of view.
      - Mary Wood
        
        That is obvious but what is the premise for him doing so. They have not been born yet.
      - KentPerry
        
        You already know and just don't think its fair. Ha ha ha Ya know UF, Life was given to you FREE so it doesn't owe you a damn dime much less an explanation you approve of
      - UF Gator
        
        You speak in tongues Kent Perry. I have no idea what you just said!
      - UF Gator
        
        are you talking about imputation?
      - UF Gator
        
        or chosen
      - KentPerry
        
        That too
      - UF Gator
        
        I think when Myrtle realizes the fraud you guys are perpetrating on her, she will be the free, healthy spirit "Her God" meant her to be.
        
        So, NO, I don't have the deep dark sinful nature of a Calvin.
        
        : )UF Gator Girl
      - KentPerry
        
        No calvins sin is calvins and your deep dark sin is yours and mine is mine. The wages of sin is ?? So it's sort of like standing face to face waist deep in gasoline I got lighter and she has a book of dry matches. I think UF has a self concept one molecule away from being an eggshell. If she gets her witto feewings hurt hearing the truth, then how did she survive having any at all. As much as she claims she has it. Her shaking her pom poms for the likes of Jeff Dixon, tells me all I needed to know.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Enigmatic. Lovely. Poetic. I like the part about pom poms, but you know I don't like your elitist perspective. You get an A-, you missed 5points, for dishonesty about feelings. No appeals. I don't have matches. : )
      - Mary Wood
        
        Why this reference to Jeff? What is going on here?
      - Mary Wood
        
        Life was not given to me free, I volunteered and knew it would be difficult, and I have never expected a dime, I have worked for everything I have , just like my 8 brothers and sisters, nor have I need of an explanation to justify my view of life … but you are not my life, my work nor my home teacher. I am just me, a new blogger on zionica looking for answers, sometimes desperately to understand why people hate my religion, and are they justified in doing so, and if so, what are the other paths. Why does anyone come here?
      - Mary Wood
        
        not really
      - Evermyrtle
        
        I'm sorry I just read your question. Are you referring to Cain and Able? If so, GOD does not choose hell or heaven for us, if HE did we would all be saved. We make our choices, HE gave us that right.Cain chose to kill Abel because he was jealous of the blessings that GOD gave Abel because Abel's offerings were from the best he had. Cain did not offer HIM the best because his love and respect for GOD was not the same as Abel's, Cain "chose" to kill Abel out the greed and lack of love in his heart for either GOD or his brother Abel.
        
        Cain and Abel made these choices, not GOD.
        
        Why anyone may receive more in life, is not for me to say, because I do not know. I just live every day the best that I can and leave the rest to GOD
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Cain and Abel, who is to
        blame?
        
        The concept that god is all knowing gets glossed over
        with this idea. God is all knowing. He is fully aware that Cain will kill Abel.
        He knows why Cain will kill Abel. Does he warn Abel? Does he mention to Adam and
        Eve that Cain is unstable? Does he give a talk to Cain about the evils of pride
        and killing? Does he offer Cain some compliments to make him feel better about
        himself? No, he does nothing.
        He is all powerful and all knowing. He knows
        that people makes mistakes, after all, he is still mad about the whole eating of
        the forbidden fruit thing. But he does nothing.
        Yet the debate is focused on
        Cain. The debate should be focused on god. He is the only one in the story who
        knows what will happen and he is also the only one who can change it. But he
        does nothing.
        Christians say that god is all knowing, but they really do not
        comprehend what the concept means.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        I can only answer only from the human viewpoint. Of course, GOD knows us and He knows what we will or will not do in our life time. There is nothing that is hidden from HIM. I believe there are times when HE prevents us for doing something stupid but not always and I do not know why. I do know that if HE did not give us a choice in what we do, good or bad, that would make us robots. I believe HE wants us to live for HIM by choice not because we are programed to do it. If we live for HIM because we are programed to do so, means we are machines, more or less, and do not get a choice which makes us human.
        
        If Adam and Eve knew Cain was unstable, is one I can not answer, I have not a clue what they could know about the out come of their children, That is not my business, it is entirely between them and GOD.there is no reason why He should answer our questions.
        
        I believe that you are the one who does not have a concept, because you do not know GOD, you seem to think that GOD goes by what we think is right instead the other way around. We answer to GO, He doesn not answer to us. He has no need to ask our opinion about anything, His business is not out business. Actually, HE made the universe and everything in it, it is HIS to do with just as HE chooses, HE does not need to do anything because we think that is what He should do or what we think is right. HE made us, we did not make HIM. The choices are HIS..
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It does not require that people be robots for a god to actually help them out.
        
        You have made it perfectly clear you are willing to believe fables are fact.
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        These twins… Jacob and Esau: One CHOSEN
        by God and one rejected by God before birth IN THE WOMB; here is a bit of the
        history, when they were adults, quote: Genesis 27: 30-45 And it came to pass,
        as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone
        out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from
        his hunting. And he also had made savoury meat, and brought it unto his father,
        and said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son’s venison,
        that thy soul may bless me. And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou?
        And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau. And Isaac trembled very
        exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it
        me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and
        he shall be blessed. And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with
        a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me,even me
        also, O my father. And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken
        away thy blessing. And he said, Is not he rightly named aJacob? for he hath
        supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he
        hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for
        me? And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord,
        and all his brethren have I given to him foraservants; and with corn and wine
        have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son? And Esau said
        unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also,
        O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. And Isaac his father
        answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the
        earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; And by thy sword shalt thou live,
        and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the
        dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck. And Esau hated
        Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said
        in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay
        my brother Jacob. And these words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah:
        and she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy
        brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee.
        Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother
        to Haran; And tarry with him a few days, until thy brother’s fury turn away;
        Until thy brother’s anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which thou
        hast done to him: then I will send, and fetch thee from thence: why should I be
        deprived also of you both in one day? end of quote, accessed 080212
        http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/27?lang=eng
        
        the whole story is in Gen 27
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        Genesis 25:22-26 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold,there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was three score years old when she bare them.
        
        http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/25.24?lang=eng#23 080212
      - Owns a Bible
        
        Are you and Mary Wood joined at the hip?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Nope.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Why did he say that Jeff?
      - Mary Wood
        
        Dear Owns:
        Why would you say that? Please tell me.
        Also, can you answer the question why a gracious Father would choose one twin over the other to be Chosen, to be saved, that's Esau and Jacob in Genesis? I think these kinds of questions bother Jeff, too. Maybe that's why you think we seem to be Siamese twins. I am just beginning to think he is right about a lot of things, but I do love bible stories. I just think he would like to see the many contradictions corrected.
        There are some discrepancies that are very disturbing and very irrational written in the bible. Since you imply you know about bibles, I would like to know your opinion.
        Thanks in advance for your reply.
        Mary Wood
        8/10/12
      - Mary Wood
        
        No. I am referring to Jacob and Esau in Genesis. I did not know that Cain and Abel are twins… Where does it say they are twins?
      - Evermyrtle
        
        "Answer me this Myrtle" I did not say anything about GOD'S choice of anybody over anybody else, as far as I remember and I cannot find any such comment. I can only tell you what I find in the WORD OF GOD. I do not analyze it.I do not know of any scriptures that says GOD chose one twin brother over another.
        
        Jacob and Esau Genesis 27
        
        Pharez and Zarah Genesis 39:27-30 These are the only Biblical twins that I know anything about and if GOD chose over the other, I do not know I did not have the time to read about them.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The sad reality is that you want to believe that fiction is fact.
      - KentPerry
        
        There is more reason to believe it, than there is to believe your reasons not to
      - UF Gator
        
        KentPerry: You only fantasize (not reason) that you are on the right side. : )
        
        UF Gator Girl
      - UF Gator
        
        your opinion KentDixon
      - KentPerry
        
        Ya ThinK!
      - UF Gator
        
        What you do't understand is, I do understand what you call the "WORD OF GOD." I have followed it ALL my life, until finally subjecting it to REASON, which in my humble opinion, exposes TRUTH. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing! If you met me today I would look just like your good friend at the church you attend.
        
        ONE MORE THING: I am on a mission to find the proof that "GOD" exists! I am absolutely certain, IF "God" exists, he would be like my Earthly parents, who were extremely religious, more so then you could possibly be, who encouraged the USE OF MY BRAIN to think. One who blindly follows the "Holy" bible is NOT thinking.
        
        A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR YOU: Look up the story of the twins, one of whom was chosen and one who was not. Do you think "The Father" is JUST? Just answer that question please.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        UF Gater, and others concerned, we are much alike, both sinners, breakers of GOD'S commandments., both have far too much pride, judgmental attitudes and self righteousness. But, God tells us there is something we can do about that, and I am trying every day to do that. We must repent and put GOD first, and place ourselves in HIS hands, because without HIM we are only little groveling lost people. This is not a one time thing, it is a continuous thing. We slip, have self-righteous temper tantrum, fall flat of our faces. There is only one sensible thing we can do , get up and try again. As long as we are earnest and want HIS help, HE is there to help us.
        
        Me religious? Never! Christian? Yes, but one who fails to meet HIS standards, everyday. I never meant to try to cause people think that I though I was good, because I am not, I am a sinner, a repentant sinner. Anything I write is something I know and want everybody to know, I ONLY WANT TO SHARE HIS WORD THE BEST WAY I CAN. I HAVE MADE MANY MISTAKES AND LIKELY WILL MAKE A LOT MORE.
        
        By the way "THE WORD OF GOD" IS EXACTY THAT, WRITTEN IN HIS BIBLE FOR EVERY PERSON WHO EVER LIVED IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, IN EVERY AGE AND WILL NEVER CHANGE OR EVER GROW OLD. spoken by a sinner who loves GOD with my whole heart.
      - UF Gator
        
        Thank you for your comment Myrtle! Please open your bible to the story about the twins and tell me if you think "GOD" is JUST in Choosing one and not Choosing the other?
        
        : )
        UF Gator Girl
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Thank you, so much for replying, I will pray for you, and hope that you find what you are looking for, GOD says if we seek, we will find HIM. We just have to continue on the way toward HIM and He will reach out to us. May GOD bless you and yours in your search for the GOD'S truth.
        Myrtle
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is not a matter of rejecting any god. It is that the book is full of contradictions and stories that cannot be possible.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Jeff: some good stories though… where would you be without them… did you see the twins I was asking Myrtle are from Genesis Esau and Jacob.
      - KentPerry
        
        Quote:"
        It is a list of intimidations and instructions on how to correct the path to go where the writers of the book thought we ought to go."
        
        Ya THINK!
        
        It's the idea you have that you know better than those ancients that is the saddest part of your life so far
      - UF Gator
        
        You can turn that one onto yourself… it is your battle with the ancients, not mine. I do think. That is one difference between you and me, that is not sad at all, but liberating, in a sea of anathemas where you live. Here is another attempt to help you out: Sam Harris on intellectual honesty
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=BpHcrcrXAbw&NR=1 accessed 080112
      - KentPerry
        
        Oh get real bimbo, Jeff can't even explain under what authority is slavery immoral because it is part of our evolution as far as he knows, its all part of nature you know, pitiless indifference
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am still waiting for you to explain why you think slavery is wrong since your god gave rules for owning slaves.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Jeff, the comment you responded to is deleted
      - KentPerry
        
        Where did I say it was wrong Jeff. God thinks Murder is Wrong but you are still free to do it. Does that mean God endorses it? I made a commandment about that too.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        So you think it is right?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        We do know better than those ancients. For example, we know that slavery is wrong, they did not.
      - KentPerry
        
        You don't know jack squat then moron because MAN still believes in slavery in many parts of the world and I guess Moses threatening Ramses saying Let My People Go, is one them ignorant ancients that didn't know slavery was wrong.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Oh right, Moses the humanitarian.
        
        (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
        
        They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded
        Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi,
        Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of
        Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and
        children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.
        They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After
        they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they
        brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of
        Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across
        from Jericho.
        
        Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the
        people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the
        military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the
        women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice
        and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They
        are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all
        the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who
        are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
      - KentPerry
        
        Jeff just because you can find things you disagree with Moses for doing DOES NOT CHANGE MY ANSWER TO YOUR POST ON SLAVERY! All this history lesson is great and is relevant to my post giving an example for his part in freeing the slaves of egypt how?"
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Just because he did not want his people to be slaves does not mean he is against anybody being a slave.
      - KentPerry
        
        Yeah Jeff that's great stuff there . Just because a Rape victim didn't enjoy being raped robbed and beaten to a pulp, doesn't mean she wouldn't like it is someone else did it to her.
      - UF Gator
        
        John MacArthur, contemporary, author of SLAVE.
        What is the meaning of, and what are the implications of his definitions of slavery?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Why do you think slavery is wrong since your god gives rules for owning slaves?
      - KentPerry
        
        Yeah he sure did give them rules, he wanted them treated like human beings Jeff
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If he was against slavery, he could have merely said "Thou shall not own other humans as slaves". Sol, once again, why is slavery wrong since your god gave rules for owning slaves?
      - Mary Wood
        
        important book http://www.christianpost.com/news/interview-john-macarthur-on-being-a-slave-for-christ-middle-east-unrest-49087/
      - Mary Wood
        
        Did Kent ever respond to your question about slavery, Jeff? He didn't respond to mine about the book SLAVE.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Of course not.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Actually no surprise there… yet, I am still spreading word about the book.
        MacArthur believes becoming a slave of Christ is the ultimate freedom and from that situation, by extrapolation, one becomes a slave of the state… while it is controversial with many in the Christian community, it is a natural extension of the 5 points of Calvinism. MacArhtur is the one using his grand daddy's good name, as grandson's are prone to do, but he does have a very different vocation with many publications. .
        http://www.christianpost.com/news/interview-john-macarthur-on-being-a-slave-for-christ-middle-east-unrest-49087/
      - KentPerry
        
        You don't understand the difference between the bond woman and the free woman Jeff. Slaves? What kind? People sold themselves into slavery as indentured servants. Most slaves were like today's version of employees.
        
        I get it though, you don't like the way God operates, and I can tell you with confidence. He doesn't give a rats ass what you think. Life isn't going to be fair and you assume evil doesn't have a purpose or that God doesn't meet with your approval. So what? You don't meet with HIS and that is the only opinion that matters. You wanna criticize God because he didn't tell you owning someone as a slave is wrong. See, this is why I don't believe ATHEIST'S know right from wrong or have a basis for a righteous morality. You have to be TOLD slavery is wrong. Well I never had to be told that but I am not surprised you lack the common sense to figure that one out on your own.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Kent, you believe Satan is God, it's you not Jeff who knows how Satan operates. You have quite possibly convinced others of your God concept. No wonder Jeff doesn't believe in God.You are one insulting man.
      - KentPerry
        
        Mary shut the hell up you stupid air head. Your post doesn't deserve a reply so take your in-SIN-uation about your father Satan and shove it ok hammer head. Jeff doesn't believe in God because Jeff thinks HE is God
      - Mary Wood
        
        Jeff does not believe he is God for heavens sake, Kent. I think deep in your dark heart, I think you do. AND I am going to stand by a good man. So there. You need some manners.
      - KentPerry
        
        and you need to go back to your village
      - Mary Wood
        
        Some one has to teach the illiterate how to read:
        
        Mary Wood • 3 days ago • parent−KentPerry: Kent: This is an experiment in debate only. I am new at this (can't you tell?.) I was born and raised in the Catholic church, never missed mass until I found out the pope during WWII supported Hitler. I left and couldn't wait to find another since I missed Sunday church (really). I studied the plight of the Mormon church and joined, just because they I liked the people. I really see going to church separate from my personal study of God's word. I am no different than the lecturer's I have listened to time and time again at the Reformed Seminary or CD's I buy from Ligonier, so you are wrong to think I take it all so lightly. What do I hear from these good men: I hear they are searching too. Why aren't you less judgmental, as they are? I don't understand you.0 •Edit•Reply•Share ›KentPerry • 2 days ago • parentMary Wood: You ask me why I am not LESS Judgmental as "They are "? I don't know who "They" are because I have never met all of "Them" to say what "they judge less than I" and I doubt you have either. In fact I know you haven't met all of them to know they are less judgmental or more judgmental. As for all the rest of that history, establishing your character for the part you play in the story of your life,,I didn't ask and yes I could tell you are a rookie at this0 •Reply•Share ›Mary Wood • 2 days ago • parentKentPerry: … they are = the good men from Ligonier. KentI studied sentence structure with a Shakespearean actor… he wasn't a real teacher, just an actor who knew English lit.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I understand it completely. What is humorous is that you ignore what the bible says about slavery. The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.
        However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
        Even Hebrew slaves could be owned forever, which would not be the case with a bond woman. How many employees agree to having an awl inserted into their ears?
        If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
        
        The Christians are the ones who needed their god to tell them what was good or bad. It is idiotic to claim otherwise. But then, you are an idiot.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Have you read John MacArthur SLAVE?
        http://www.christianpost.com/news/interview-john-macarthur-on-being-a-slave-for-christ-middle-east-unrest-49087/
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The common apologetic response to the question of how God feels about slavery is that he definitely opposed the historical tradition. The long-time practice of holding innocent individuals against their will could very well be the worst crime humankind has ever committed. The Hebrew god, who is purported to love his people to a degree that we could never comprehend, would certainly have to declare some explicit opposition to slavery, wouldn’t he? Truth be told, the Bible contains not one mention of God’s desire to end slavery. Out of all the “thou shalt nots” and multitude of rules that he provides for us; out of all the chapters that God spends giving us intricate directions for making candles, tents, and temples; and out of all the chapters that God inspires the authors to spend on telling us who begat whom; not once does he ever take the time to abolish, admonish, or reject slavery.
        Because God is omniscient, he knew a time would arrive when the results of his silence would include the capture, torture, castration, dehumanization, and/or murder of tens of millions of Africans around the world. Even with his unlimited knowledge, God still neglects to spend two seconds of his infinite time to ensure that we have his documented denouncement of slavery. Using elementary deduction and common sense on this scrap of information, we’re already able to conclude that it wasn’t displeasing in the eyes of the Hebrew god for a more powerful individual to own a lesser.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Great post, Jeff!
      - Mary Wood
        
        I think your clues to the real purpose of Christ and mankind hinges on the very tale you tell here. You really must read that book Slave by MacArthur. Link two comments down from here.
      - KentPerry
        
        Like I said Jeff, WE DO ALL kinds of things God knew we would do, that he doesn't approve of, things he knew were happening that made him want to throw up like Men sleeping with Men and fools who claimed he was not the creator when they are without excuse. Doesn't mean he endorses these things nor is it his OBLIGATION to impose his will on us but that we follow his will on our own volition.
        
        Evil exists in the world but to assume it doesn't have a purpose, in defining our Moral Soul's is a Concept I wouldn't expect an unsaved godless atheist to even begin to fathom. You think you can shoehorn God into being good with slavery as if we either feel too boxed in to not face the truth, that our God is not so nice,,
        Think it all you like, but until you become ALL KNOWING, Omniscient and omnipresent, ie; GOD,, THEN, you can tell MY God, how it's done ok hotshot.
        
        Else I really couldn't care less what you think Jeff. You see, I am not here to share the good news about Jesus Christ, to you Jeff
        
        I already know who you children of the grave are and
        
        who your father is
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The point is that the bible is filled with rules against certain behaviors or actions. It says not to kill. It says not to lie. It says not to cheat on your spouse. But on the topic of owning another human being, it never says not to do it. It gives rules for HOW to do it. Are there rules in the bible for how to kill since it will occur? No. How about rules for cheating on your spouse? Nope, that is not there either. The reality is that there is no condemnation of slavery in the bible.
        
        It is not necessary to be omniscient or omnipresent to discuss the absurdities of the bible. That you accept it without question is of no surprise to me whatsoever.
      - KentPerry
        
        So the Bible doesn't say, love your enemy as yourself treat others how you would like others to treat you? God doesn't say NOT to do it? So what? its meaningless Jeff,, you're being ridiculous
      - Mary Wood
        
        Kent: This is an experiment in debate only. I am new at this (can't you tell?.) I was born and raised in the Catholic church, never missed mass until I found out the pope during WWII supported Hitler. I left and couldn't wait to find another since I missed Sunday church (really). I studied the plight of the Mormon church and joined, just because they I liked the people. I really see going to church separate from my personal study of God's word. I am no different than the lecturer's I have listened to time and time again at the Reformed Seminary or CD's I buy from Ligonier, so you are wrong to think I take it all so lightly. What do I hear from these good men: I hear they are searching too. Why aren't you less judgmental, as they are? I don't understand you.
      - KentPerry
        
        You ask me why I am not LESS Judgmental as "They are "? I don't know who "They" are because I have never met all of "Them" to say what "they judge less than I" and I doubt you have either. In fact I know you haven't met all of them to know they are less judgmental or more judgmental. As for all the rest of that history, establishing your character for the part you play in the story of your life,,
        
        I didn't ask and yes I could tell you are a rookie at this
      - Mary Wood
        
        … they are = the good men from Ligonier. Kent
        
        I studied sentence structure with a Shakespearean actor… he wasn't a real teacher, just an actor who knew English lit.
      - UF Gator
        
        What is truth Michael? Of course, if the bible is right, it can be held up as a benchmark of truth. What kind of a father, if he does exist, would he be if he did not demonstrate truth in his proclamations?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        That is very true. It is also not a history book.
      - KentPerry
        
        Some of it is yes
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Some of the book Gone with the Wind was true as well. That hardly means it is a history book.
      - KentPerry
        
        The Bible isn't one Book Jeff it is a collection of many books, some of them HISTORY. Now you can split hairs over it all you like and spout off your idiotic contradictions that have been solved so many times over the last two century's but your typical; Google educated brain stem only knows how type a search query looking for dirt not solutions. Scholars answers to bible contradictions might get you to eliminate many of them
        https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=+Scholars+answers+to+bible+contradictions&oq=+Scholars+answers+to+bible+contradictions&gs_l=hp.12..33i29.3407.3407.0.6223.1.1.0.0.0.0.149.149.0j1.1.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.htONnJFjckE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ba2d63190956a087&biw=1067&bih=513
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        There are parts of Gone with the Wind that are historically accurate as well. However, no one would consider it to be a history book.
      - http://profile.yahoo.com/RQSXJIXIII53M6WBYPBPI5I5HI A
        
        Jeff,
        Much of the Bible is very accurate history of the Israeli peoples. This has been well proven by archeology and comparing the history with that of some of the nations which conquered Israel and Judah. You may think you're well informed but there are areas in which you seem to be woefully ignorant.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am sure some is accurate. However, much is not. There is no evidence that the Exodus ever occurred for example.
      - owns a Bible
        
        If the history in the bible is not true,how is it, the National Geographic Magazine has used the bible to find sites that were "unknown" until the NGM searched out these sites and found them exactly where they were said to be in the Bible? Jews are everywhere, look about you,also pick up the book and read it without the prejudice of a reprobate.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If the history of the bible is true, why can no one find any proof of the exodus? I did not say nothing in the bible was true. I would also bet that your story of the NGM using the bible is highly suspect.
        
        So, pony up, let me see some of these NGM finds
      - KentPerry
        
        Yes there is
    - KentPerry
      
      How is it Wrong?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark–is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem–a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
    - Evermyrtle
      
      There is no true honest way the Bible can be proved wrong, only aa liberal anti-GOD would ever speak such damning word.
      
      II Tim 3:1-5
      1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
      2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,disobedient, to parents, unthankful, unholy,
      3. Withour natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
      4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of GOD;
      5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    - aRareSaneOne
      
      Sorry for my earlier post, I see now that you are willfully ignorant and self-decieved.
    - Mary Wood
      
      But they are good stories if you carefully choose, Jeff. : ) feeling better.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If you choose carefully, there are good stories in Aesop's Fables.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Do you read those? Aesop's Fables are European fantasy. On principle do you object to bible or book of Mormon stories? You didn't mention what you thought of General Alma's sons, the stripling warriors, they are at least, American Fables! There's an idea. I could write a Book of Fables, following the success of Aesop, loosely based on characters in the wars of the book of Mormon.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I have read them. It is not on principle but that the bible is filled with absurd stories that could not occur. Not merely that they did not occur, but they could not occur. It is based on the reality that the supposed basis for morality is filled with examples of the exact opposite.
  - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
    
    The twins Easu and Jacob in Genesis
- Truth Sayer
  
  Actually in science, a "theory" is a well substantiated explanation based on a set of recognized facts. If, as far as our ability to observe in "every" circumstance, the theory always proves true, then it becomes known as a "law".
  
  Darwin observed and documented natural selection. Breeders use coerced selection. In both cases new breeds (subsets of the original) occur by loss of certain information that was available in the parentage but has been bred out in the descendants. This breeding or "speciation" is due to a loss of information, not a gain. In all cases, while the resultant breed may look different in size, shape, and other characteristics it remains genetically the same. That is, a dog is a dog is always a dog, no matter how you breed it, and no matter whether you have a chihuahua or a great pyrenees.
  
  He and others further conjectured, and proposed as an explanation (the definition of a "hypothesis"), but never observed nor proved, that if natural selection could result in new species by loss of information it might be possible for more complex life to form if natural mutations could add (enough) information. No one has ever observed this to happen in nature. In fact, in nature, mutations are seldom beneficial, often result in irreversible harm and death to the victim of the mutation, and never apparently are cumulative to alter the form of life. The fossil record has no evidence that this ever occurred in nature – something Darwin continually lamented as the great flaw in his proposal, and which has continued to plague believers in evolution. No one has or can make it happen in a laboratory, where we can control the environment and protect mutations that would die in nature and even control which mutations are applied.
  
  Since there are no indisputable facts regarding evolution, it is not a well substantiated explanation, and therefore can't even, by the scientific method be called a "theory". It is and will remain only a hypothesis – a proposed explanation which needs empirical proof to substantiate it.
  
  On the other hand, God's creation – in all its variety, and adaptability – can be seen all around. We can breed dogs together, can't breed them with cats or pigs or sheep or goats or monkeys or man, and we'll always get dogs as a result. There is constant substantiated proof of the order of life. That makes creation, at the very least, a scientific theory. And, since in all cases where we know life exists from the minute to the gigantic, on land or in water, the theory of creation continually proves true, it really is the law of creation.
  
  Thanks for listening.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Theories never become laws, ever. You need to learn more about the differences between theories and laws.
    - Michael g.
      
      Oh really! Have you checked out Newton's Laws of Motion. He never started with a Law!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        He did not call his ideas a theory either. After they were investigated, they were called a law.
      - KentPerry
        
        No but Scientists did
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No they did not.
    - KentPerry
      
      what a load of crap.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Shockingly, another topic you have no grasp of.
        
        Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
        http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html
      - KentPerry
        
        Quote:" " Shockingly, another topic you have no grasp of."
        
        Don't I? Thats funny because as an educator with an agent that has booked my speaking engagements in every state of the union I am considered one of the BEST in my field, or was before I retired from speaking. Unlike you Jeff, I am NOT here to "educate" and neither are you despite your assessment you are here to educate people, I had a general audience anywhere from 200 to as many as 74,000 on one occasion at the Jacob Javits convention center I didn't claim I knew more than anyone giving me the impetus to educate, they REQUESTED me paying me an average $2000 per Day or Two Hours and my perdiem, rental car, miles etc,.. Tickets averaged $30.00 dollars. I spoke on everything from field emission scanning to the humectant properties of mucopolysacharides alll the way to marketing beauty via science and Chemistry, and I could introduce you to colleagues and friends like Dr. James Shapiro who would BUST a GUT at your suggestion it is impossible for a theory to advance to a law or set of laws in science. In fact smart guy, theory for the "rules of evidence" has become Law in our current judicial system.
        
        Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
        
        Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute.
        
        They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
        Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
        
        All of them started as theory's by the same name.
        
        I Understand they are two different things I agree but to suggest that any theory can't become so well established and so predictably proven, it can not advance to the scientific status of scientific law, is pure rubbish coming from atheist websites but NO REAL Scientist would ever suggest something so absolute a fixed opinion.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The idea of anyone paying to hear you speak is very funny. But
        then people paid good money to listen to Tony
        Robbins and got burned for it. So, anything is possible.
        
        You post a video from someone you claim is not a theist, yet he
        claims to believe in god and Intelligent Design. You claim to understand
        science, yet cannot understand the why a theory cannot become a law. You also
        compare a law from the legal system to a law in science, when they are
        completely unrelated. Your arrogance is amusing as you show nothing to support
        being arrogant about.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Theories can not become laws, because the purpose of a theory is different from a law.
        
        A theory explains a law. The law of gravity states that there is gravity- this is clearly a fact, and is concrete. Einstein's theory of gravity (or whichever theory is currently supported) explains how gravity works. Theories can be replaced if another, better explanation is formed. New theories do not need to be radically different from their predecessors, and can simply be modifications (although if the modification is very slight, it may still be considered the same theory).
        
        Laws state that something happens, and theories state why.
        
        Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_theory_become_a_scientific_law#ixzz22KcMcJQ6
      - UF Gator
        
        this is what I mean Kent Perry. this kind of language is unnecessary
      - KentPerry
        
        What kind of language? That I said something is a load of crap? Hey UF, when something is a load of BS I could call it a pile of excrement a vat of fecal frolicking foibles and fiction but something tells me, it would still ruffle your tender sensitivities in which I will not concern myself.
        
        You see I never said it because I thought it was necessary and the last thing I would do, is seek your sanctimonious approval
      - UF Gator
        
        As I said… a symptom of Calvinism… I should have recognized… do you know how obvious that is… please read the link I just sent you, it's from Jeff's website, and a person of your faith wrote it. It is a critique of Calvinism.
      - UF Gator
        
        I am well aware that the last thing you would do is seek my approval. Calvinists are tops. You are an elitist bunch. Don't need anybody. I know R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, Zacharias, Mohler, Land of SBC, Greg Beale, Gaffin of Dallas Theological Seminary, and others… I have either heard them or read them. It is an austere discipline. I don't want to sympathize or empathize with you because I know you don't want it, but I just want you to know that I know about imputation and if any doctrine stinks, it is that one. I think it is the reason you don't have to be nice to anyone, and when you are nice it is all a fascade. See you in on the page ***
      - KentPerry
        
        Quote: "
        I think it is the reason you don't have to be nice to anyone, and when you are nice it is all a fascade"
        
        If I were Jeff Dixon, I would be asking what the hell is a fascade ? But rather than act like a total moron (as Jeff so often does proselytizing his atheism behind the guise of "educating" the neanderthal knuckle dragging Christians) Ill just ask where you get this CRAP from UF? Sylvia Brown or are you a mind reader your self ?
      - UF Gator
        
        LOL
      - UF Gator
        
        You do have a serious case of Calvin disease
        Again I don't know what you are asking me
      - KentPerry
        
        You make patent, everything John Calvin said and your hero over there at knowitall's unlimited, expressed in this quote which you personify.
        
        "
        Total Inability. Man has sunk so far through the Fall that he is no longer capable of believing the gospel. He can no more repent and believe than a dead man can rise up and walk. This is all the result of the sin of Adam, who communicated th is absolute inability, this loss of free will, to all his posterity."
      - UF Gator
        
        KentPerry: I respect that you have a different center. My main "beef" with your point of view is not your center. It is how you and the very few other people I know of your faith, treat people, cold and calculating, superficial and scary, a lack of a generous "spirit," for lack of a better term. I am going to defend myself and my point of view. To you, evidently that matters not, it also matters not that people have their own reasons for being. You do not know what my beliefs are. All you know is a few tidbits that I am beginning to regret that I shared, and that Calvinism is not my faith.
        : ) (I don't think any of this is funny, as you asked once, but the smiling face helps to take the edge off a serious subject)
        UF Gator Girl
      - UF Gator
        
        who is my "hero over there at knowitall's unlimited"
        
        you make stuff up… you see, I have no idea what you are talking about… evidently, you have a perspective that permits you to fabricate things that don't exist … care to comment?
      - Mary Wood
        
        What! You think I don't have an answer for that piddling point? I love copy/paste, don't you, Kent. Check out our 13 points:
        
        1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
        
        2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
        
        3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
        
        4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
        
        5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
        
        6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
        
        7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
        
        8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
        
        9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
        
        10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
        
        11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
        
        12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
        
        13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
      - UF Gator
        
        who is sylvia brown… I am not into metaphysics at all… I have a certified member of a religious persuasion and teach sunday school to 5-year-olds
      - KentPerry
        
        You teach sunday school? ha ha ha Okj I'll bite, why do you teach something you have admitted their is no evidence for even existing?
      - UF Gator
        
        Why do you say that? I don't teach them out of your book of 5 points or of a vastly treacherous god, if that's what you mean. The rest is internal KentPerry and none of your business. I am surprised you asked.
        :)
        UF Gator Girl
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Kent, you would never be able to pull off being me. You lack the
        intellect, the charm and the wit.
      - KentPerry
        
        I also lack your affinity for being fisted by well calloused construction workers smelling of sawdust and beer but what you think you got upstairs Jeff,, ain't a pimple on my intellectual ass. You are nothing but a stupid little godless loser who spouts off words you copy from other atheists like some knee jerk conditioned, cookie cutter, copy pasted quotes authored my quasi queer cast members of TV's Big Bang Theory and Glee. You think you piss glitter and fart rainbows but the one thing YOU will never achieve and that is coming anywhere close to being an adult Man with a Job who does't harbor deep seated anger that God gave up on your dumb ass, leaving you lost in your delusional state that you have an IQ any higher than 6th Grader after a lobotomy.
        
        You are everything evil in this Country today Jeff. In fact, I would venture to guess, as antagonistic an atheist troll you are,, I'd say the only reason you're still breathing and not stuffed in a pine box 6ft under, is merely because it is illegal to commit murder. Even if your demise would raise the world populations IQ 70pts.
        
        I would say you have few friends, save for the idiot atheists queers posing as Priests at the local Catholic Church procuring some pre-pubescent twinks for your entertainment.
      - Mary Wood
        
        most definitely
      - UF Gator
        
        why don't you use the dictionary!
      - Mary Wood
        
        GOOGLE dictionary online
        fascade: An outward appearance that is maintained to conceal a less pleasant or creditable reality.
        architecture: front of a building
- Michael g.
  
  Blackhawk, you;ve got that right.
  First: The idea…
  second" The Postulate is next…
  Third: Comes the Theory (at this point investigation should be going on. You either prove or disprove the Postulate).
  Fourth; Is the Law. Or in the case of a Theory that is a negative…the Nul-Hypothesis.).
  
  We never saw the Theory of Gravity, or the Theories of Isaac Newton, or Galileo, or Einstein; but we continue with thew "Theory-of-Evolution>'
  Go figure…
- Owns a Dictionary.
  
  Actually,it means "factual" in science language. Look it up in a real dictionary printed before 1980.
mwood13

if you were raised in the country like me you would understand that evolution is how god created man.
- UF Gator
  
  evolution to me is as nebulous an idea as is god, really… both lack rational proof. you did not go to the same school in america that I attended.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    No, actually, evolution is the most documented theory in science.
    - UF Gator
      
      While yes, it does articulate the physical evolution quite nicely, it comes nowhere close to explaining the capability and brilliance of man's mind, it simply doesn't, Jeff!
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Jeff says:
      "No, actually, evolution is the most documented theory in science."
      
      But where is the evidence? Why do we not observe evolution occurring today? If we are to believe that evolution could occur randomly in uncontrolled conditions, it should be a piece of cake to reproduce it under controlled conditions in a laboratory. Yet not one single shred of evidence has ever been produced that macro evolution has ever occurred.
      
      Oh sure, we do see natural selection occurring today, but that is merely a re-shuffling of existing genetic information, not the creation of new genetic information. And yes, we do see mutations, but the vast majority of them result in a loss of genetic information, not an increase, and the few that could be considered beneficial only help the parent organism to survive better in harsher environments rather than an upward mobility into an advanced form.
      
      Fossils? Yes, we have fossils, but they tell us nothing about the origin of the organism whose fossil we are observing. All evidence must be interpreted. Evolutionists interpret similarity as a common ancestor, but creationists interpret similarity as a common design from a common creator. The only thing the fossil conclusively tells us is that a creature died and was fossilized (a good evidence for the worldwide flood, BTW)
      
      Evolution is not science in that it is not observable and testable, nor can experiments showing creatures evolving be repeated. It is simply a speculation about the unobservable, untestable past. To claim that it is the most documented theory may be true only in that more books have been written about it in an effort to convince gullible people that it is true.
    - KentPerry
      
      Ha ha IT would have to be knowing how many times they have re-vamped the whole thing. LOL
  - KentPerry
    
    Quote:" you did not go to the same school in america that I attended."
    
    Yes it is evident you were not home-schooled else you could think but thinking is not your forte.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Phil-M-Stilliard/1529643147 Phil M Stilliard
  
  The major difference between man and animals is that humans know the difference between right and wrong, animals live by the rule, might is right. Only humans have God's holy spirit, animals cannot know God. God gave us the 10 commandments, not to animals. Evolution is just chance.
- John Munro
  
  evolution has alway had scames the Bible has never been proven wrong ever!
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Of course it has. It has been shown to be wrong from the very beginning of the book. it gets the order of the creation of the universe wrong.
    - UF Gator
      
      I agree, Mr. Dixon!
    - KentPerry
      
      How do you know that? where are you getting this idea from, whose stupid contradiction of the bible remark did you get this from and why do you continue to use that same LIE when I have seen dozens of members here explain it to you to the point you were when I showed you lie making parallels to Buddha. You do exactly what I said, you just keep repeating the same Bunkem
  - UF Gator
    
    I beg to differ here on interpretation of the bible, especially for Calvinists and Arminians, which form the basis of all Christianity. I know for a fact that the biblical interpretation is an ongoing pre-occupation especially of the "perfectionist" Calvinists whose efforts are impelled by the brilliant minds of people like R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, even Land of the SBC, Zacharias, G. K. Beale, to name a few contemporary biblical researchers, who study the so-called original texts of the word of god. Not any of these reformers will tell you they know it all, which leaves your premise wide open for debate, if not just plain contention.
    - John Munro
      
      evolution has been a fraud more than once and even after once for a so called idea like evolution should be enough to buerry it.
      http://www.etrilobite.com/?p=56
      The bible has never yes never been proven wrong! if fact they are still finding
      more and more evidence. evidence from king David more reciently.
      so the bible is proven socially/ love those who hate you pray for those percuit you.
      have you ever looked at these words of Jesus with an open mind why is it so many evolutionist/ athists conver to christianity? Jesus loves you!
- KentPerry
  
  Yeah I saw the movie "deliverance" so I kinda think I get what ya mean
Harry Fogle

I don't and have never believed in Evolution even, from a little kid and have never
under stood why it is taught in our schools, but do believe in creation and think we should
have classes in Creation
- Chris P
  
  How can you have a class in "creation" there is no evidence to support it at all. No fossils, no DNA evidence, no tree rings, no nothing. It's pure fiction. There is no debate. I am sorry that your parents brainwashed you and the schools failed to rectify your ignorance because, contrary to popular opinion, the unions don't control the schools, religiously biased school boards do.
  - KentPerry
    
    I can say the exact same thing about evolution,
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jrLeuBpSBo_SXpAYpZKKKrj3_9dv1IxbfkRK8psuWXo/edit
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Phil-M-Stilliard/1529643147 Phil M Stilliard
    
    So you believe in 'Survival of the Fittest'? Did tyrranosaurus Rex have small front legs so they were not used, or they became small through lack of use? Why didn't all humans have bigger right arms than left, because the right arm was used for swords and spears? In fact human and animal bodies have symmetry, which displays intelligent design, not just chance.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Eyes, legs, and all the rest are not evolved anew in each animal. Bilateral symmetry evolved more than five hundred million years ago. Animals since then have inherited that symmetry.
      
      Bilateral symmetry is implemented by signalling molecules that give identical domains on left and right. A person's left eye (normally) is exposed to the same development signals as their right eye, so the two eyes grow alike. A single mutation that varies how an eye develops would still affect both eyes equally. For asymmetrical eyes, an additional mechanism must evolve to supercede the symmetry and give different development signals to each side.
      - KentPerry
        
        You keep saying this as though it is FACT Jeff and the ONLY FACT is, that YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE KNOWS THAT. I read BOTH of the TALK ORIGINS LINKS AND NO LIGHT THERE. LIGHT HERE for those that have ears and common sense https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jrLeuBpSBo_SXpAYpZKKKrj3_9dv1IxbfkRK8psuWXo/edit
  - http://www.facebook.com/williame.ramer William E Ramer
    
    Chris, What incentive does a partial eye that cannot see have to continue developing ?
    How you can look around you and see no proof of a creator makes me wonder if your eyes are working yet.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
      
      Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
      
      Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
      
      In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
      The last paragraph is critical in understanding. Scientists have found every one of these corresponding stages in existing living species.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        And some day goggles with elastic bands around the head to hold the goggles in place to protect the eye will evolve, in a few hundred million years.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Dwayne, luckily, we can count on you to offer nonsense on the topic.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Depends on which way you look at it Jeff . The non Born Again person such as you would look at how science would say how eyes evolved , and say, there is the perfect answer! To the person that is Born Again and knows beyond a shadow of doubt how eyes were created , would say everything Jeff said about the evolution of eyes is complete and utter nonsense. To the educated mind, such as yours, Jeff, God creating the eye would be to simple to accept . What I said about goggles is no more foolish than what you and science has to offer on the topic!!!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Of course it foolish. What you have described is not natural and would never be part of what anything that could ever evolve. But, you would not know that for you have no idea how nature actually works.
      - KentPerry
        
        and YOU DO? HA HA HA
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Obviously more than you ever will have the capacity of understanding,
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        In the Word of God , it says (para}, Hi IQ people are ever learning, (Man's truth), but never coming to the true Knowledge (of GOD'S truth) ,,,,^^^ SO SIMPLE
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am quite sure you find that to be very comforting.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        I find it to be the truth Jeff, after talking to a few high IQ people
      - KentPerry
        
        I think adding nonsense was the point Jeff
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        You would think Jeff would have the IQ to know that Kent
      - http://www.facebook.com/sbolling3 Sharon Bolling
        
        Hypothesize, think, may have, and could have…no "proof" of evolution there either – just your "belief." Sooooo, by your own standards, evolution should not be taught either. What you want proof of, we rely on our belief in God's Word. What we want proof of is more than hypothesize, think, may have, or could have. Science is a guessing game — Einstein hypothesized there is nothing faster than the speed of light; well, we recently found out from the CERN hadron collider THAT is untrue didn't we. So what else does science have wrong?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        So finding living species with every one of these stages equates to "Hypothesize, think, may have, and could have" in your mind? Now that is amusing.
      - KentPerry
        
        Only if that set of circumstances were true Jeff but they are not
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You should try to stay current on the topic. In a paper at the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and
        Astrophysics in Kyoto, Japan, on Friday, Bertolucci explained that four separate
        experiments had confirmed the neutrinos were not flying faster than light — and
        that the original anomalous reading was due to a problem with the experiment's
        fiber-optic timing system.
        http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-faster-than-light-neutrino-cern-20120611,0,2050787.story
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You should read up on current information on the topic.
        European researchers said Friday they have measured the speed of neutrinos and found the subatomic particles don't travel faster than light after all, refuting another team's measurements that prompted widespread disbelief among scientists last year.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/faster-than-light-neutrinos-cern_n_1353973.html
      - UF Gator
        
        I look at it this way: There is an infinity of things to know and for the time man has spent on the problems of understanding the universe, we are doing just fine. .
      - KentPerry
        
        yeah? Compared to what? Whats your benchmark Gator?
      - UF Gator
        
        You are a very impatient man, Mr KentPerry:I think you will have to look at other posts to see a bigger picture:
        B.A. Philosophy of Religion (studied under a died-in-the -wool Baptist minister from California); B.A. Chemistry; Ph. D. Chemistry (Quantum Mechanics, Spectroscopy… my training is not just theoretical it must match the experiment to be valid; that is my "bench mark" in my work, I think you can see why I feel the same way about my beliefs and how I would like to confirm them); Chemistry teacher, 9 years; Religion: born, raised Catholic (no longer a member); Hobby study Calvinism, Mormonism, Reformed traditions, personal family research; New since June 2012: Intense debate on Zionica ; And only now beginning to work on my religious dissertation. I don't know the topic yet. I am exploring. I seem to be drawn to the holy bible and the stories that diminish women.
        
        In short, I have dedicated my life to learning about the very tiny world, which I believe is the handiwork of of a brilliant creator. My original statement on this page indicates that I want to find a more assuring stance with my father (if he exists). I don't see why I am demeaned for this, I really don't.
        
        What is your benchmark?
      - KentPerry
        
        Shhesh what a presumptuous and pompous ass. My Benchmark? Compared to the one where I exist in another universe? Your lofty resume has been noted and your scholarly claims accepted as probably true but your argumentative nature only shows a willingness to argue and sadly NOT THE INTELLIGENCE ordinarily displayed by someone of your alleged achievement in academia.
        
        I too have done things YOU would probably not believe NOR do I think you would have the "stuff" to accomplish but what I have learned in my travels as a Veteran and Public Speaker for a Chemical Laboratory making products for consumers, is that I Know an educated idiot when I see one and when YOU tell me what God is going to be like, IF (and that is a big IF) but IF you find him, I can tell you this, YOU DON'T GET TO PICK THE GOD OF YOUR DREAMS Professor!
        
        HE PICKS YOU! and I know the only way that is going to happen is if you dropp the attitude and come as a child. NOT the one that resents his parents for lecturing him but the one who has NO pre-conceived notions what so ever.
      - UF Gator
        
        LOL I am NOT a professor, thank heaven!!!
        I just solved a problem that no one could solve in 80 years, so your limited experience in actual trenches of chemistry problems is noted. You are not qualified.
        So you are a chemist also?
        Also, you don't know what the father (if he exists) is like any more than I do. Who is the pompus a**?
        Calm down.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        So Gator, when did you get Born Again, and what was the most noticeable immediate change in your life?
      - Mary Wood
        
        I solve problems in solitary as all good scientists do.. I didn't go into science to be a Hollywood star as many do, nor did I ever intend to teach or present. I have presented work on my specific expertise, but I am not a grand-stander and in my profession grand-standers and Hollywood types don't make it.
      - KentPerry
        
        That evolution is science when it isn't
      - UF Gator
        
        Yes, Mr. Dixon, that does seem to be an amazing and absolute truth on the pure physical nature of things, however, the complexity of thought from ANY creature when compared to the complexity of thought in man's brain… do you see my impasse in a total belief in evolution?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am afraid I do not. We previously discussed Koko the gorilla who can paint, use sign language and feels emotion, even though a gorilla's brain is less developed than a humans. It is easy to see how a more complex brain accomplishes more complex actions.
      - UF Gator
        
        I don't mean to imply that your inference is wrong, at all. It's just that the knowledge of what Koko can do does not convince me we can extrapolate to the actual complexity of the brain of man. I guess it is just a matter of degree to whether I can accept the inference of Koko's brain to the ever amazing evolutionary thought processes of man's brain. WE are not there yet in the research. At this point, then, the research doesn't prove at all who is wrong about this. I think I expected a greater similarity between the creature who is our forefather versus the one you say exists.
      - UF Gator
        
        This is true: "It is easy to see how a more complex brain accomplishes more complex actions." I expected there to be however, some microevolution to many more intermediaries.
      - UF Gator
        
        I am looking at this perspective of micro-evolution as is discussed in the very small nuances that occur from one species to another, Mr. Dixon. That is my understanding of evolution, and it is also the reason that I have a difficult time believing in it. I think I see now where we differ: I am looking for the missing link. I see the more complex nature of the human brain. But what I don't see is the development of that brain from a brain like Koko! Is that clear now? I am sorry for my poor choice of words. I am trying to get the point across.
      - KentPerry
        
        Less developed denotes a developer who is the developer
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        And where did this supposed "simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature" come from? There is no such thing as a 'simple' light sensitive spot, nor would such a spot ever undergo the incredibly complex changes needed to produce an eye. Remember, in order for sight to occur, we not only have to have the incredibly complex eye itself, but there also has to be major changes in brain structure to receive and interpret the images.
        
        Again, I have to ask: Where is any observable, testable evidence that anything evolved into something else? if evolution is supposedly an entirely natural process, then there is no reason why we would not see it occurring today, either in the laboratory or in nature, yet we do not. Your fanciful narrative about the eye evolving is pure speculative fantasy.
      - KentPerry
        
        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jrLeuBpSBo_SXpAYpZKKKrj3_9dv1IxbfkRK8psuWXo/edit
      - Mary Wood
        
        Jeff: " …EVERY change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight … eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been FOUND in EXISTING living species" This is precisely the case with the brain. is it not?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Then where is "every stage in this sequence" for man's brain?
    - IM1Ashman
      
      William, they never will. Romans 1:21-23 tells us about people such as Chris P, UF Gator, and Jeff Dixon–It says:
      
      "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Professing to be wise, they became fools,(23) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."They will be held accountable before God and all we can do is pray for their souls. Their minds will never change because they have been raised in a Godless school system that puts man above a Holy, all knowing, all seeing God. It is satan's biggest lie. It was told to Eve in the Garden of Eden and it is still being told today in our classrooms by those who hold theory's as fact. They lack faith, because they can not trust.
      - UF Gator
        
        Intimidation to the max IM1Ashman: IF a father of mine in heaven exists it would not be of the holy bible of the Armenian or Calvin or other "reform" traditions, and If I do find proof of him, he gave me this awesome brain, and he desires that I use my brain, one of his many gifts, for one, to use it to prove his existence to others. That is a noble cause. I trust that eventually I will find that proof if it exists. I seek it. If he exists, I am quite sure I will still have his love and grace, as you would like me otherwise. You will be the one to explain to him if he exists that you did not use your rational faculties. Where will that leave you?
      - IM1Ashman
        
        so sad….IF YOU KNEW YOUR SCRIPTURE….SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST…NOT BY WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST…. For the wages of sin
        is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. YOU MUST FIRST BELIEVE TO BE SAVED…YOU MUST ASK JESUS INTO YOUR HEART. IT TAKES FAITH…FAITH IS BELIEVING IN SOMETHING YOU CANNOT SEE. HOW SAD…I HAVE USED MY RATIONAL FACULTIES ALL MY LIFE AND THEY BROUGHT ME BACK TO JESUS EVERY TIME. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY LIFE OR WHO I AM…HOW THEN CAN YOU TRY TO JUDGE ME. I AM EDUCATED, HAVE FOUGHT IN PLACES YOU WOULD DARE NOT DREAM OF GOING, HAVE SAVED LIVES, HAVE EDUCATED STUDENTS AT THE COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL. I HAVE ASSISTED SURGEONS AND HELD A BEATING HEART IN MY HANDS…SO I HAVE USED MY FACILTIES AND USED THEM TO GLORIFY GOD AND WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR ME….SO GO STUFF A SOCK IN YOUR RATIONAL THOUGHT AND BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE…I WILL NO LONGER WASTE MY TIME WITH A PERSON WHO MAKES JUDGEMENTS ABOUT OTHERS WITHOUT KNOWING A THING ABOUT THEM. BUT, WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT. YOU CANNOT FIND THAT RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT FAITH, UF, AND TO HAVE FAITH IN SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT SEE OR TOUCH IS VERY DIFFICULT…I PRAY THAT YOU WILL GET THERE…BUT I WILL NOT RESPOND TO YOU ANY LONGER BECAUSE MY TIME IS IMPORTANT TO ME AND I DO NOT WISH TO WASTE IT ON SOMEONE WHO MAKES JUDGEMENTS ABOUT OTHERS WITHOUT KNOWING THEM.
      - UF Gator
        
        You must be of the Calvinist or at least the Reformed tradition, since no Armenian I know would yell at me so viciously. Sir, you are the maximum at intimidation and I do not trust your methods of teaching. Now do you see why I would not attend your church nor do I want you to teach my child anything? You are barbaric. Yes I know the bible quite well and that is why I believe through the ages, notwithstanding the efforts now made by some brilliant Reformers whom I have named previously, that if the bible is true I want nothing to do with that father, who has not seen to it that his children have a reasonable set of instructions because I know such a father would be infinitely logical, that we would see him to know without a doubt that he exists, and that he does not play favorites choosing the nefarious elements of society to live with him over the faithful (remember David), and the twins, just to give you a few. I hope for your sake that you simply look for proof that he exists. That is my goal. I sincerely hope he does, but I am not going to burden my children with a vicious god.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        HOW WRONG YOU ARE…I WONDER..HOW DOES ONE TELL IF ONE IS YELLING THROUGH THE WRITTEN WORLD??? I THANK YOU FOR JUDGING ME…AND YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN…SO WRONG IT IS SAD….I GUESS WE WILL JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE. I HAVE ALWAYS SEEN THE PROOF THAT HE EXISTS IN HIS CREATION….MAN….NOT THROUGH EVOLUTION, NOT THROUGH MAN'S LOGIC, BUT THROUGH FAITH THROUGH LIVING GOD OF FAITH, AND YES JUSTICE….WE ARE TO LOVE GOD, BUT THE BIBLE ALSO TEACHES THAT WE ARE TO FEAR HIM AND HIS MIGHTY POWER. THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THE BIBLE…LAW AND GOSPEL…GOD IS NOT VICIOUS, BUT HE DOES HOLD US RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS. DO YOU NOT HOLD YOUR OWN CHILDREN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS…AND THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR EACH ACTION THEY TAKE…GOD IS THE SAME WAY…AND YET HE LOVED US SO MUCH THAT HE SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO DIE ON THE CROSS, IN OUR PLACE, BECAUSE OF OUR SIN AND OUR SINFUL NATURE. I HAVE SAID NOTHING OF A VENGEFUL OR VISCIOUS GOD AND I HAVE NOT MADE ANY ATTACKS ON YOUR PERSONAL NATURE, JUST COMMENTS ON WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR POSTS. YOU, NOW SIR, ARE MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME JUST BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOU. IT WAS NOT MY INTENT TO ATTACK YOUR CHARACTER OR PERSONALITY IN ANY MANNER, AND IF YOU TOOK IT AS THAT I AM SORRY…
        ps: BY THE WAY, I DO HAVE A DEGREE IN MINISTRY, EDUCATION, AND HEALTH CARE….WITH ALSO A MAJOR IN CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE AND LAW….SO PERHAPS….JUST PERHAPS, YOU MIGHT WISH TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE THAT THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY COIN.
      - UF Gator
        
        Sir, you are yelling at me by using all caps. It is the protocol of this forum to not do that. Also, you do not have to be vengeful toward me personally, but I do realize that the god of the holy bible is vengeful. You have read favorite parts. There are many other parts you well know that are very disturbing. I know there are two sides to every story… ask Jeff Dixon on this page, he will tell you I have examined them all. And you know after all that, what I seek is the existence of god, i.e. proof that he exists, LOGICAL, rational proof that he exists and also rational proof for evolution, which I am only studying at this point. I also think a gracious and loving, all mighty and all knowing father will say more than what he has said in the bible. I am well aware of all the scriptures you have referred to and there are some that a gracious and loving father is described as though he were evil. I don't accept that so that is why I question. Also I am a girl gator not a man. Forgive me for being incognito but I fear reprisal when I tell the truth about my identity.
      - KentPerry
        
        Yeah you have a font volume control there, see it on the bottom task bar? hehe
        
        CAPS LOCK: Unleash the POWER. lol
      - IM1Ashman
        
        you are so right Kent
      - KentPerry
        
        No one can intimidate you without you consenting to it. Just what exactly did you find so blasted intimidating? The all CAPS ?
      - UF Gator
        
        Just quoting internet protocol…, this forum says no caps or the posts will be deleted, because internet protocol says it is yelling… I have at least seen this before in forums:
        
        From libertyalliance.com (accessed at the top of this comment column, above)
        We have a zero-tolerance policy for comments containing violence (threats, suggestions or direct statements permitting violent or threatening acts or sentiments), racism (suggestion that one “race” is superior to others), crassness or profanity (any word or phrase considered by courteous society to be profane), all caps (a violation of internet etiquette), discourteous behavior (calling names, rude or insulting statements directed at another user/post) or violations similar in nature to any of these offenses. Posts violating our policies of posting are subject to removal and the user may face banning.
      - UF Gator
        
        IM1Ashman: Interesting you use the word trust. If you like you can seek the exposition I gave on trust on this page, linking trust or the lack thereof to intimidation, which is the glaring elephant in your comment above.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        So strange that you connect the Holy Bible with intimidation…or the written word with intimidation. Are you so threatened by the TRUTH, that you think I will back down or feel bad by you trying to use tactics of the far left progressives??? Yoru game is up UF. The Conservative Movement, The Tea Party, Christians, and Jews see your lies for what they are. It is not intimidation to speak the truth according to God's Holy Word and it is not hate speech either….I am sure that would come up in some of your next posts. WE see your posts and your thoughts and we know them for what they are….the ramblings of far left progressives that started in the very early 1900's with Woodrow Wilson and continue with mr. obama. WE are tired of them and we will not back down and we are regaining this country again….because we love it and we do not wish it to be destroyed by people who do not believe in God…a God who loves us so much that He sent His only Son to die on the cross in our place because of our sins. You, wish to try and marginalize my comments by saying they are intimidation…Bring it on…I have God on my side…and that is the side of TRUTH…I just wish you could see that and accept it…but you will not….because you believe in yourself more than your God who wants you to be saved. YES, he is still God whether you accept or not…HE IS still there….and you will see that when you have passed on from this mortal life. NO intimidation here…just TRUTH–TRUTH from God's WORD…TOO bad you missed out on that…and by the way…who was talking to you. I was speaking to William….but thats OK as well….God uses all situations to work for His glory. May God richly bless you UF Gator, and watch out for the Seminoles this year in football. You shall be in my most fervent prayers tonight.
      - UF Gator
        
        I am an ultra-conservative constitutionalist with no desire to see the failed president repeat himself. Your rabid analysis of me which is now declared to you to be absolutely WRONG should humble you immensely, and I hope it does because you are fodder for the progressives, and you sir will cause the re-election of your said adversary, the current president. You have mistaken me on more than one front, as you have pointed out, you don't know me. I don't recommend the path I have chosen to anyone because digging this deep in to rational thought is hard work. I do so because no amount of malaize which I see all around me in the south, will prosper this country for my children.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        i CHECKED OUT ALL OF YOUR POSTS…ALL YOU TALK ABOUT IS WHEN PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU, THEY ARE WRONG, THEY USE INTIMIDATION TACTICS, THEY CAN'T THINK LOGICALLY. YOU, SIR ARE THE FODDER FOR THE FAR LEFT…THEY LOVE TO FIND "CHRISTIANS" WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD'S HOLY WORD." DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME RESPONDING TO ME ANYMORE…IT IS EVIDENT…YOU INSULT THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR POINT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS CORRECT. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS MISGUIDED AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR ALWAYS TALKING DOWN AND SHAMING OTHERS WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU…THAT IS NOT WHAT A DISCUSSION IN AMERICA IS ABOUT…IT IS ABOUT THE SHARING OF THOUGHT WITHOUT CONDEMMING OTHERS FOR VIEWS WHEN THEY ARE DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN. YOURS IS THE VIEW THAT IS OUTDATED AND FUEL FOR THE PROGRESSIVES. YOU SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO ALL OF THOSE YOU RESPONDED TO IN A NEGATIVE, INTIMIDATING MANNER YOURSELF. GOD FORGIVE YOU. GOOD BYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE.
      - UF Gator
        
        Typical minister who knows it all in an infinite universe.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        have you gone off the deep end…where did I say I was God??? I have FAITH in GOD and believe in the Word of God, written by men, inspired by the HOLY Spirit. I base my answers on God's Holy Scripture, and have faith in HIM…not myself…and especially not you. NO I do not have all the answers, nor did I ever say I did…YOU were the one who said that…As usual, you turn things around to meet your own needs because you lack the faith in GOD and HIS HOLY WORD…so why dont you start reading other posts that have been supporting me, and stop using the "intimidation" word for those who disaree with you….and twisting the words of those who dont buy into your beliefs or views. I am not a minister of God's Word…I am actually dying from complete kidney failure, UF Gator, and I will be in heaven with my loving, gracious, merciful Savior, praising HIM with others in Heaven, as you continue to search for FAITH and still denying the Bible…God's Holy Word…I am thankful that I will be with God soon, if it is His Will, or if I am to suffer a bit longer here on this earth, to engage people like you, who know not of His great love and grace. So, watch what you say to people when you know not of what you speak about or to who you speak about. All of your posts to all of those who disagree with you are hateful and antagonistic in nature…You are the one who is spewing hate…I have actually told you that I am going to pray for you…does that sound like hate…Just think, you have a dying man praying for you…Hmmmm….now who is the one who should be looking at himself??? Please do not write to me any longer…I have so many others that are writing to me who are speaking in a positive, rational manner.
      - UF Gator
        
        The "holy" bible is a book of intimidation that the father I seek would not write. My earthly father was a better man. Why don't you try reading my responses before lashing out at me. Re: my old posts that you "understand": Well then you will just have to read the conversations to see what a rational person is up against in this forum.
      - KentPerry
        
        HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN? You are still seeking a God of your own liking, your own image.
      - UF Gator
        
        Typical now I am to blame for upsetting you; low blow Ashman for a man of God
      - KentPerry
        
        Oh spare us the nicey nice goody good Christian reputation to live up to jack ass when you've done nothing but act like the little emotional tampon you are the whole time, "accusing us of "calvinsim" and bragging about your staggering intellect while you display the behavior of your typical two year old BRAT just before they say something deserving a swat on their ass.
        
        Does this statement NOT make clear, just who you might be talking to and WHY they may seem to come off so ugent?
        Quote:"
        .I am actually dying from complete kidney failure"
        
        Jeez you are a dick
      - UF Gator
        
        Also, I am a girl and My parents are proud of my accomplishments also my father in heaven (if he exists). I also celebrate my success as an American scientist, for I passed tests the people from Russia and other foreign powers, failed. So there.
        
        signed UF Gator
      - UF Gator
        
        NO!!! Its your friend on the forum dying of kidney failure not me. The guy whose last name starts with Ash
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Admin, is this acceptable?
      - KentPerry
        
        I didn't know the Universe is infinite. Can you explain how the expanding universe can measure the rate of its expansion if it is infinite to start with?
      - UF Gator
        
        I don't know everything… when you call me a pompous a** you acknowledge that you think I think I know every thing … that is absurd… you know enough about chemistry to know that if I am a spectroscopest studying atoms, that I do not know astronomy studying the universe off the top of my head. I only know that there is an infinity of things & space in the big universe as well as the small universe I study.. Also, the more you know, the more you find out, you don't know. That is why I would not be a professor for million of $$$… you couldn't pay me… they "live lives of quiet desperation"~Thoreau
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        As soon as you explain what the limits of the universe are.
      - UF Gator
        
        Jeff you know Kent Perry?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Luckily, not personally. But we have "debated".
      - UF Gator
        
        I just spent over three hours debating him
      - KentPerry
        
        What gives you any reason to suggest I would have any idea what that answer is when I just got finished asking a similar question to someone claiming to know the universe is infinite. I mean Seriously Jeff, catch up or shut up but don't ask stupid questions you know, NO ONE has an answer for.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If you know the universe is not infinite, then you have to know what the limits of it are. It is not may fault if you are incapable of understanding logic, moron.
      - KentPerry
        
        Jeff could you please explain where I made the illogical error? Since I wasn't making any claim aboutg the universe either way? That would sure help us in seeing just who really is the mental midget when it comes to logic
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I already did explain it. Let me repeat. If you know the universe is not infinite, then you have to know what the limits of it are
      - KentPerry
        
        I didn't sense the intimidation either.
      - UF Gator
        
        No doubt you both see the bible as truth. I don't believe a vengeful god who invites the people like David to live with him. That sound more like Hell
      - KentPerry
        
        I believe in a vengeful god and is why I believe vengeful people are created in his image. So if the proof isn't to your liking or you didn't agree to the rules your Daddy made by grounding you as a kid, then Dad doesn't exist.
        
        Yeah I get it
      - UF Gator
        
        No you don't get it. You are typical in making assumptions that are far off the tract of the truth of who I am, what I believe and now my good earthly parents are to be damned. Go ahead, like I said if there is a god he will be gracious and good not your vengeful one who allows children to be aborted by the millions, to start…. . and like my parents, he will be pleased that I used the mental faculties and other gifts I have that cannot be stolen, which he gave me to know him.
      - KentPerry
        
        Hey jACK Quote:
        " if there is a god he will be gracious and good "
        
        Or else what!
        
        You will kick his butt? He will be what ever he WANTS and DO what ever he wants whether YOU like it or not, so IF there is a GOD and I believe their is, WHO AM I to DEMAND he be anything like I desire him to be!
      - UF Gator
        
        ever hear of satan, KP? no, my father is not satan nor is he like him
      - KentPerry
        
        Your Father is who then? Who am I talking about when I refer to your Daddy, Hoss
      - UF Gator
        
        I have three fathers
        1. my earthly dad
        2. my mentor in chemistry
        3. The Father (if he exists, in heaven, "Our Father who art in heaven…") this would be the one I am talking about when I said he is not like satan… it is satan's job (if he exists) to be satanic!!) Get it?
      - KentPerry
        
        THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION UF, READ IT AGAIN ONLY THIS TIME TRY THINKING THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU FOR ONCE.
        
        Uh ohh I hit the caps lock because YOU DON'T LISTEN!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, you hit the caps lock because you think your point of view has some special relevance. But as usual, you are wrong.
      - KentPerry
        
        No I'm NOT wrong Jeff, I am right and YOU are a fool and it looks like that is all you will ever be.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You have been shown to be wrong on so many issues, it is amusing you can even say that with a straight face.
      - UF Gator
        
        I don't under stand … are you talking to little ole me?
      - UF Gator
        
        I see now I forgot to say (if he exists)
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        That is your response, Kent.
      - KentPerry
        
        Yeah, I know, I was there when I typed it out.
      - UF Gator
        
        KentPerry:
        
        "Or else what!" answer: Or else he is SATAN.
        http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shutupimtalking.com%2Fthere-thats-better%2F&h=DAQGdj6u_AQFZ5lJPhfJylYA4vWkN8cZ3y4sFO_qAUVHzOQ&enc=AZNSbYyn3AfUZiTBYnYg_DWyd6zaqsMZQ-p5-FfddI_iEWXA6r7AaIlhc7KvQ7IY1ehZX33KM8tm1gPbK2JtYtFp
        
        My earthly father was better, lots better.
        : )
        UF Gator Girl
      - UF Gator
        
        I am not David! Save your lecture for him.
      - KentPerry
        
        David who? Have I quoted any scripture to you? Tried to convert you in anyway? Told you the "Good News" ? You are quick with the condemnation without investigation I get that, and I have never taken offense to your use ofo the word "Calvinist" even if I am of that persuasion, I see how you use it as a slur but never took it personally. I have agreed with most of your ideas on conservatism and Government, even some of your complaints to Im1 but I haven't lectured you at all Hoss. I just see you display having some issues that reminded me of how Children describe their parents. Perhaps that is where the knee jerk like response for "Lecturing you" comes from. I never liked being lectured by my Dad but as I get older, he gets more right all the time.
      - UF Gator
        
        The David that he forgave, who killed his lover's HUSBAND!!
      - UF Gator
        
        I should have recognized the symptoms of Calvin immediately. No my parents have never lectured me, but my favorite pastime was taking classes and listening to brilliant people lecture… so no I have very pleasant memories of good lectures and I thank heavens I did not have Calvinist parents … I had a colleague who was maximum Calvin. that was personal experience enough … although I have read about it… here a paper that might interest you : )
        from
        http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ on Calvin: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Kent, the number of things you do not "get" are beyond normal counting.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Relying on a book of fables as fact will alway be the downfall of theists.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        I will not even respond with an answer you would understand because you lack the faith to even believe. I shall pray for you though,
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Faith is a belief without evidence. Without evidence, there is nothing to believe in.
      - KentPerry
        
        Well then, I'm just so happy I am dumb enough to rely on that book of fables for my downfall because the alternate reality is the one you are on a beeline course and destination for an eternally excruciatingly painful punishment you so desperately disbelieve but one, unless you change your direction, are likely to end up just where you are headed. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you when that karmic train-wreck happens and the pilot light goes out in your eyes, for I have seen it before in atheist's who have died, one in my arms.
        
        It is the most POWERFUL argument that every knee will bend every king will bow, and every atheist, will have their request of the proof God's existence, PROVEN once and forever.
        
        Proven, while they beg for the salvation they just refused in this life because they were too intelligent to believe in an afterlife.
        
        but they see one seconds before they check out, I have seen the horror in their eyes and on their faces
        
        frozen in time as the last thoughts
        they will ever have before
        
        the flesh burns away
        on their carcass
        
        forever
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am sure dying causes fear. That hardly means they knew they were going to hell.
    - KentPerry
      
      It's the bad eye in a land of the blind is still an advantage argument
  - handgunnar
    
    "contrary to popular opinion, the unions don't control the schools, religiously biased school boards do."
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    - KentPerry
      
      Are you part of the SEIU? You been on a School Board ?
      - handgunnar
        
        No way in hell! And yes. Your point?
      - KentPerry
        
        My point is, if it were true school boards are controlled by religiously biased members, then explain to me why Johnny has two daddy's is more important to have added to the curriculum than say your standard old school civics class
      - handgunnar
        
        I think one of us has missed the other's point here. I was ridiculing the notion of religiously biased school boards, because they don't exist. My reply was addressed to the atheist apologist named Chris P.
  - John Munro
    
    so where did you come from a UFO?
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    It would make the teachers job alot easier if they taught creation. There would only be one answer to every question. That would be of course, god did it. Now, no one would actually be learning anything, but C'est la vie.
    - UF Gator
      
      Comic relief from Jeff Dixon : )
      - KentPerry
        
        Yeah it's what stopped Issac Newton from going any further in Science, and Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur and Galileo. You know what happens when you google "God did it"? You get a bazillion pages of websites having some smart aleck mouthy little atheist, SAYING, we say that. What you don't find is any Scientist like Newton, that has ever been quoted using that as an answer to any scientific question. It is merely an ad-hom attack and UF it ain't even funny anymore. In fact it is a tired and butt stupid remark I figured would have atheists too self conscious of dating themselves in the never ending debate between creationists and,, well,, JEFF DIXON.
        
        Nice to see you are so easily amused UF
      - UF Gator
        
        Maybe I should apologize, but I won't. Mr. Kent Perry. Because not only is our father (if he exists) NOT like satan, also, he will have a sense of humor. And if you don't think we need comic relief in this forum then stay awhile. I don't care what they say about him, he is probably splitting his side listening to you and Ash (you know Ash has kidney failure, he just told me, he is on his deathbed and he is yelling at me!!! absurd and ridiculous, so please go help him if you can, he won't want to hear from me : (
        
        I don't know what an adhom attack is… I am new to debate, but my favorite people are scientists of old and my mentor for my phd is 90 years old and he is the most delightful person, he is Irish and came to this country with stars in his eyes to play football for a great college team and ended up meeting a famous chemist whose name you would recognize and the rest is history… never played a football game at all. He has a great sense of humor and is famous himself. Point is: Humor is needed, Kent Perry.
      - KentPerry
        
        Quote:"Maybe I should apologize, but I won't. Mr. Kent Perry. "
        
        Never met an unsaved person who knew enough to say maybe they should apologize, that actually did.
        
        Ill say this much, I'll apologize to you for some of the terse words I said in my responding to your posts. I allowed a petition to be made against me because I got myself too involved in your arguments on a personal level emotionally without the benefit of intellect choosing ad-hom sarcasm a habit we Christians are plagued with when we are under attack, imagined or not, So I am sorry UF .
        
        Have a nice life and I hope you find that God you are looking for
        later guys
      - UF Gator
        
        empty apologies or wishes for a nice life, not needed. : ) try to get a sense of humor sour puss
      - KentPerry
        
        did you say something funny? or just funny to you
  - Michael g.
    
    I'm sorry. Your parents must have ignored you, didn't teach you anything. You could be hit in the head with the evidence and still choose to ignore it. But, then it becomes your problem.
  - KentPerry
    
    You public school educated zombies crack me up with your absolutism. Lot of fluoride in the water where you are? How does one compare such evidence assuming all matter is made by God then what tree rings NOT made by God are you going to compare as evidence what is or isn't evidence. You wouldn't know what a tree ring NOT made by God even looks like moron. How could you know? So assuming everything is made by some cosmic coincidence you are already believing it apriori to any discussion at all. But more than merely YOUR On BRAINWASHING, you intentionally insult the very ears of the very minds you are trying to persuade.
    
    Smart that is atheist, you are right up there with Dick Dawkins suggesting atheists should "Ridicule the believer into better behavior" as if his own behavior for being AN A-HOLE is going to influence anyone but his metrosexual liberals and socialist cult fans
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Because we teach what we have discovered through science. One of those discoveries was evolution.
UF Gator

I seek proof for the existence of god. Doesn't everyone?
- John Munro
  
  psalm 14
  - UF Gator
    
    John Munro: This is a great and entertaining tale. It is also intimidating, one is not so inclined to trust the story teller. I am not so inclined. I seek rational proof that god exists. This is not rational proof. It's like telling your child to believe something that he or she has no experience, no premise for doing so. Therefore, impossible to validate in the way our minds can validate reality. Also, have your noticed, if you intimidate a child too too often, you will lose the complete trust of that child, although they will continue to love you because you are their parent. Trust is earned by the parent, if I should trust in an all knowing all mighty god then let him show me love and respect, not intimidation, and let him show me that I can use my brain, i.e., rational thought to build the trust I would have in him. Trust is the highest compliment a parent can get from his/her child.
    
    By the way, isn't this the same David who killed the husband of his lover?
- Pastor Dwayne
  
  Apparently you have never experienced being Born Again!! You would know instantly God exists!!
  - UF Gator
    
    I have. That IS why I question. Et tu, Pastor Dwayne?
    - Pastor Dwayne
      
      UF, read what I said again, If you are truly Born Again, there would be no Question, you would know. You could however Question some Doctrines
    - KentPerry
      
      No you haven't. You have never come as a child girl and THAT is why you have no idea what proof for God's existence is anymore than WE would know what physical matter or evidence NOT made by God, even looks like and why such a request makes no sense at all to one already chosen by God to know and humble enough to accept his invitation whether you think he is a true God or not. This is why Jesus didn't say much when he was being prosecuted and asked to perform stupid pet tricks to prove who he is. No, Jesus already knew the type and the reason he didn't say much is Jesus, unlike me and many others I know here,
      
      Jesus never argued,
      
      with idiots
      - UF Gator
        
        did you just sign your post "with idiots"…just an observation. :)
http://www.facebook.com/williame.ramer William E Ramer

We see the results of teaching our children they are animals . I'll take the old time religion, and its benifits any day.
If I'm wrong I loose nothing, If the evolutionist is wrong ,he looses everything.
There are no dead athiests, " For it is apointed unto man , once to die, after that, the judgement "
One of Satin's names is [ Deciever ]," Take care the light in you is not darkness."
- http://twitter.com/BradNova Brad Nova
  
  These poor kids. Only things that can be proven should be taught in any public school.
  - Myrtle
    
    Are you referring to goats when you say "kids?" I have children, myself!
  - Truth Sayer
    
    Good idea! Since you can't prove evolution, don't teach it. Since you can prove creation and the existence of the almighty God, teach it.
    
    For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made – so that they are without excuse.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      You cannot "prove" any theory. But that does not mean they are not accurate.
      - aRareSaneOne
        
        What kind of nonsense you spout! Does accurate mean true? Or something different in your mind? A Theory means simply an IDEA- that is unproven. If you prove it, it becomes a Law, considered true, until it is DIS-proven by new knowledge (ie Newton's Law of Gravity is WRONG, it's an approximation, only true in certain areas of space). It was disproven by Einstein.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        How much science education do you have? Theries are never proven. Theories also never become laws. Theories and laws are describing different aspects of the universe.
      - aRareSaneOne
        
        A Masters from an Ivy League school, what about you?
        
        Many Laws that are discovered start from an hypothesis or theory, the equations don't just exist or jump out of observational data, a theory is applied to discover the relationship, which leads to the Law after rigorous testing.
        
        Like theories and hypotheses, Laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.
        
        No knowledge is ever proven (we do not absolute knowledge required to prove anything). And we never know the "correct" or "true" value of anything (re Mary). Scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how things will behave under certain conditions, often in mathematical terms. Scientific theories and hypotheses should always be empirically testable conjectures.
        
        A theory is "well-substantiated" explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Theories are inductive and do not make indisputable propositions but have predictive and explanatory value. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not useful. Predictions not specific enough to be tested are also not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
        
        Evolution is more like a hypothesis, as it does not fit the theory definition. Evolution lacks transitional forms in existing life and in the fossil record, is untestable to date, and has no predictive value. The empirical support (to "verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it is not "well-substantiated". The theory's severe problems as Darwin described them in his books 150 years ago remain. If anything, the "theory" has been proven false, in as much as it can be tested.
        
        It certainly cannot explain or predict how the first life formed or how any species will transition. Intelligent Design theory points out many of the failings that should have sent Evolution to the ash heap of wrong ideas 50 years ago. Someday we will look back and wonder how such a religion ever continued for so long on such wild conjectures.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You might want to consider asking for a refund then.
        
        Let us go back to science 101.
        http://web.missouri.edu/~hanuscind/8710/NSTA_Science101theorylaw.pdf
      - aRareSaneOne
        
        Typical liberal, when stuck in an arguement you call names. You never emotionally progress to a true adult and stick to facts.
        You show a grade school articale simplified and dumbed down for teachers. "Background boosters for elementary teachers." It's full of over-simplifications, and misleading statements to put it mildly.
        
        " Ask someone who currently is doing research in any field of science what his or her hypothesis is, and I’m betting he or she will say, “…………. Ummm … Huh?”
        What an unsubatantiated comment and outright falsehood, intended to mislead you into accepting his arguement.
        
        "Finally, do hypotheses become theories? Only in the sense that they contribute to a scientist’s understanding of a problem. They are part of the formation of theories"
        He just gave 2 examples where they do in 3 sentences, apparently the writer (Bill Robertson) doesn't even realize it. And he misses the fact that hypothesis guide experimental research in many cases.
        
        "One of the arguments from the intelligent design crowd is that evolution is “just a theory.” "
        Author reveals his evolutionary bias on that one, doesn't he? He's trying to slant science to keep ID 'crowd' out of schools.
        
        Bill Robertson is misleading or wrong on over a dozen statements in his article.
        Not that all he says in wrong. But I did a better job explaining than he did in 1/10th the space. NSTA didn't do a good job on that one. An example of why US pre-college schools fall farther behind in science every year.
        
        You stay at science 101, I finished at science 613.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Now that is amusing since I am not a liberal. I am a fiscal conservative Republican. I also did not call you a name. I made a suggestion. However, I have not come to expect you to grasp the nuances in these issues.
        
        For example, let us go back to this gem you posted. "Newton's Law of Gravity is WRONG, it's an approximation, only true in certain areas of space. It was disproven by Einstein." Newtons theory of gravity is what Einstein displaced. The law of gravity is still with us. We need to go back to the basics again. Do theories that are very well supported eventually become laws? The answer is no – not because they aren’t well-supported, but because theories and laws are two very different things. Laws describe phenomena, often mathematically. Theories, however, explain phenomena. Isaac Newton proposed a Theory of Gravitation, describing gravity as a force of attraction between two objects. As part of this theory, Newton developed a Law of Universal Gravitation that explains how this force operates. This law states that the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those objects. Newton’s Law does not explain why this is true, but it describes how gravity functions. In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity to explain the mechanism by which gravity has its effect. Einstein’s work challenges Newton’s theory, and has been found after extensive testing and research to more accurately describe the phenomenon of gravity. While Einstein’s work has replaced Newton’s as the dominant explanation of gravity in modern science, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is still used as it reasonably (and more simply) describes the force of gravity under many conditions.
      - Mary Wood
        
        you said "A Theory means simply an IDEA- that is unproven." I think that is what Jeff said, aRareSaneOne. An individual to come up with a law is typically a rare individual with degrees of glory in academe. We are in an informal forum here. Jeff is stating exactly that we use known theories that are likely acccurate, in the finite sense. Accurate means agreement with the correct or true value, yes.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Actually that is not what I am saying at all.
        
        Let us review what these terms mean to a scientist:
        
        Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
        
        Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
        
        Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook's law of elasticity.
        
        Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
        
        Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
        
        In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
        
        In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
        
        The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
      - Mary Wood
        
        I stand corrected. I finally did read your post to Rare One. : ) Thanks, Mary
      - aRareSaneOne
        
        Excellent post. Your writeup here far exceeds Bill Robertson's article you linked to elsewhere, and is more accurate.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        They say the same thing.
    - daves
      
      But there are things you can prove, like humans have only existed for a tiny fraction of time since the beginning of the world. That there are sea fossils older than any land fossils.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Now Daves, you know that attempting to insert some common sense into the debate will only get you into trouble.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Jeff, the only one.
- Myrtle
  
  You are correct, but I have no doubts.. I accept the truth that I find in GOD'S WORD, the only place that it is available, untarnished!
- Truth Sayer
  
  Your argument of "If I'm wrong I lose nothing, if the evolutionist is wrong, he loses everything" is a simplification of Pascal's wager. In that wager, since you can't know which is right, choose the way that would create the least trouble.
  
  But we can know what is right. John wrote his gospel so that we could believe the truth of what God had been telling us for millennia through the prophets and finally gave us in His Son. And believing God, we could know that we, through Christ have eternal life.
  
  Don't ride the fence, nor pick the less dangerous of the unsure possibilities. Take God at His Word, and be saved.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    No, you can only hope for what you want to think should be right.
- John Munro
  
  And do not forget all the people they encourage to question God who will suffer for eturnity.
  I would like to mention the farse of the piltdown man in 1909. it was proven that a monkey skull and a human skull was interacatly put together and even stained. Yet years later they found out.once a fraud always a fraud.
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
John Munro

We have always know Evolution was a scam something from noting hell thats obamas economic plan!
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Since there is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that claims that something came from nothing, it is obvious you know nothing about the theory.
  - UF Gator
    
    Jeff, I agree completely, as far as our physical structure is concerned. Yet, it doesn't explain the brilliance of man's brain. At least I don't see the hard cold evidence of it. I seek rational proof for evolution especially of the human brain AND proof for the existence of god. I don't think we should teach either in the schools. I never heard about any of this when I went to grade, middle or high school and I wish we leave these kinds of questions to students as they mature in age to deal with it. These kinds of nebulous questions are steeped in possible abuse.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      US high school kids rank 26th in the developed world in understanding science. Not teaching them science is condemning them to ignorance.
      - UF Gator
        
        We rank low on the totem pole because:
        First:
        1. the students do not know reading, writing and math when they enter as freshman into college (even though they want to be doctors, lawyers, educators, business leaders, and
        2. their nutrition is atrocious
        
        Solution. Teach them to think and they will learn how to succeed. The best way to do it is to encourage the values that these other countries have that we don't! And that would be the obvious from the sum total of numbers one and two above. Check their nutrition. I wager it is heads and shoulders above our kids'.
        
        Second: After the first above, my next step would be to teach good rational science and literature and advanced math. Who cares at this point if the literature is the Holy Bible. Shakespear used it. It's all over in his famous plays! The kids can succeed by the analytical powers they have by then, having developed a good basis for understanding to discriminate between true and false, by studying the rudiments.
        
        First above, numbers one and two are rudimentary. If they don't learn those and the value of those they will not be able to grasp the secondary.
      - KentPerry
        
        Solution. "Teach them to think and they will learn how to succeed. The best way to do it is to encourage the values that these other countries have"
        
        Like what Values?
      - UF Gator
        
        KentPerry: Your homework today is to re-read my text to which you refer. After all, it is self-explanatory to a reasonable person. At least it was for me in the 8th grade. Listen to Sam Harris before you reread it.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=BpHcrcrXAbw&NR=1 He gives clues. :)
        
        UF Gator Girl
      - UF Gator
        
        Not Values, values KentPerry… The kids need to learn the rudiments and as they work through those, if they have caring parents and enough passion for learning, will be the fundamentals of their lives… good, rational thinking citizens. (That doesn't make you squirm inside, I hope, but it means they will learn to think for themselves)
        
        A quite from The Transom accessed 080112 http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c7c578f94365a99fb2dd164c1&id=ea99ced639&e=9c6a8cb100
        
        THE ECONOMY:
        I, Smartphone. http://vlt.tc/e8w Suitable watching on what would’ve been Milton Friedman’s 100th Birthday. http://vlt.tc/ea3 Steve Moore: http://vlt.tc/ea4 “I remember asking Milton, a year or so before his death, during one of our semiannual dinners in downtown San Francisco: What can we do to make America more prosperous? "Three things," he replied instantly. "Promote free trade, school choice for all children, and cut government spending." How much should we cut? "As much as possible.” end of quote
        
        Note the second thing Friedman would do!
        Who is Friedman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman accessed 080112
        
        : )
        UF Gator Girl
      - KentPerry
        
        Yep that's why we want atheist GONE from Science in our socialist indoctrination centers called Public Schools
      - Mary Wood
        
        I never learned evolution and I solved a problem no one could solve in 80 years. Granted I don't know everything but I passed all my exams for a doctorate when I was your age.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        There are always exceptions to the rule. I am glad for your success, but that does not change the fact that the students in the US are falling behind most other developed countries.
      - Mary Wood
        
        I agree the study of evolution is needed. My point is it is not necessary ( If so, why?), nor is creationism, but I do think Linnaean taxonomy is crucial. Are they related?
      - Mary Wood
        
        I was not an exception. It simply was not necessary, there are so many basics before one get down to these kinds of details, but I don't know all your arguments.
      - Mary Wood
        
        The country is falling behind because many lack the disciplines of reading, writing and arithmetic. It was true a hundred years ago that these were critical to the success of the student and it is true today.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Those are very important elements to success. So is teaching the most current information on a topic.
      - Mary Wood
        
        So many lack those basics when they come to college. Believe it or not, many students do not know how to read, how will they understand the basic logic behind the complexity of evolution. Of course you are not in the least advanced nation in the U. S. in terms of education and poverty. The reality is very harsh here. Not new for this state.
  - KentPerry
    
    It claims in a nutshell, we came from a rock. yet when God says he made us from the dust of the ground, OH then it's absurd!
- UF Gator
  
  That's mixing apple and avocados! Evolution is a serious attempt at understanding the way things ARE. Obama's economic plan to reap the spoils of America after he destroys it .. did you see the news about GM today … Obama's plans are coming to pass … he is beginning to rake in his trophies
IM1Ashman

For almost 300 years the Bible was used in our classroom, until it was removed in 1963. I lived and taught at the high school level in Kansas. I kept a Bible on my desk and read it before school started every day. I never forced my beliefs on my students, but my principal, who was not the kindest person, told me that I could not have "that book of fables" on my desk. I refused to remove it and was fired. I eventually got my job back after 16 months of work through the legal system.
Why do we have this problem in our schools???Simple…for the past 50 years we have been raising students in our schools without a moral compass, ever since the Bible was removed, along with prayer. Now those students have become teachers, doctors, lawyers, parents, and yes, politicians. Abraham Lincoln stated it best. "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Until we return to unwavering and perfect morality, known as God's Holy Word, our society will be tossed to and fro just as is a rudderless ship…with no guidance and no permanent direction. GOD WILL HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS OR OUR INACTION. He loves us, but He also has given us a country that once had no equal on the face of the world He created and so graciously gave us. If we lose it because of political correctness, or because we are afraid we might hurt someone's feelings, how are we going to respond to Him when He asks us…WHY???
The only way we get our country back comes from scripture…You must remember why the left and media hate the BIBLE and GOD. It scares them because in their heart of hearts they know it is the truth and they no it defeats their selfish, self centered, self absorbed socialistic ideals. It takes away the power they crave and desire. Romans 1:20-23 states: "

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
(21) because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(22)Professing to be wise, they became fools",Read the rest of Romans 1:23-32. It tells us the results of ignoring God.II Chronicles 7:14 gives us the blueprint for saving our country….It states:

"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."Until we follow these instructions, I fear, as a country, we will slowly give up our freedoms guaranteed to us by our GOD and by our most National sacred document–The Constitution.May God richly bless you and may He give us the wisdom to strength to regain the lives and souls of the youth in our school rooms that He has so graciously allowed us to care for. I am and shall remain, Yours in Christ, IM1Ashman

"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."Until we follow these instructions, I fear, as a country, we will slowly give up our freedoms guaranteed to us by our GOD and by our most National sacred document–The Constitution.May God richly bless you and may He give us the wisdom to strength to regain the lives and souls of the youth in our school rooms that He has so graciously allowed us to care for. I am and shall remain, Yours in Christ, IM1Ashman
- Jeff Dixon
  
  This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It was taken
  from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and
  Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal. Please note the number of questions that could be answered by reading the bible. It is zero.
  
  8th GRADE
  FINAL EXAM
  Grammar (Time, one
  hour)
  1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
  2. Name the
  Parts of Speech and define those that have no Modifications.
  3. Define Verse,
  Stanza and Paragraph.
  4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb. Give
  Principal Parts of. lie, lay and run 5.
  Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
  6. What is Punctuation? Give
  rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
  7. Write a composition of about 150
  words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of
  grammar.
  Arithmetic (Time, 1.25
  hours)
  1.
  Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
  2. A wagon box is 2 ft
  deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it
  hold?
  3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth
  at
  50cts/bushel, deducting 1050lbs. for tare?
  4. District No. 33 has a
  valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven
  months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
  5. Find cost of 6720
  lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
  6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and
  18 days at 7 percent.
  7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16
  ft. long at $20 per meter?
  8 Find bank discount on $300 for! 90 days (no
  grace) at 10 percent.
  9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre,
  the distance
  around which is 640 rods?
  10. Write a Bank Check, a
  Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
  U. S. History (Time, 45
  minutes)
  1.
  Give the epochs into which U. S. History is divided.
  2. Give an account of
  the discovery of ?America by Columbus.
  3. Relate the causes and results of
  the Revolutionary War.
  4. Show the territorial growth of the United
  States.
  5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
  6. Describe three
  of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
  7. Who were the following:
  Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell , Lincoln, ?Penn, and
  Howe?
  8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800,
  ?1849, 1865.
  Orthography (Time, one
  hour)
  1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic,
  orthography, ?etymology, syllabication?
  2. What are elementary sounds? How
  classified?
  3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
  sub vocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
  4. Give four substitutes
  for caret 'u'.
  5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name
  two
  exceptions under each rule.
  6. Give two uses of silent letters in
  spelling. Illustrate each.
  7.
  Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: ?bi, dis, mis,
  pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup
  8. Mark diacritically and divide into
  syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball,
  mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
  9. Use the following
  correctly in sentences: cite, si te, sight, fane,
  fain, feign, vane, vain,
  vein, raze, raise, rays.
  10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and
  indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by
  syllabication.
  Geography (Time, one hour)
  1. What is climate? Upon
  what does climate depend?
  2. How do you account for the extremes of climate
  in Kansas?
  3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
  4.
  Describe the mountains of North America.
  5. Name and describe the following:
  Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
  Manitoba,
  Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall &Orinoco.
  6. Name and
  locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
  7. Name all the republic s of
  Europe and give the capital of each.
  8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than
  the Pacific in the same latitude?
  9. Describe the process by which the water
  of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
  10. Describe the movements of
  the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    The First
    Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" This
    gets broken down into two areas. The first is the Establishment Clause,
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". Thomas
    Jefferson made sure the intent of this clause was well understood with his
    letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In this letter he stated very
    clearly that there was a "wall of separation between church and state," which
    led to the expression "Separation of church and state." Thomas Jefferson didn't
    see himself as writing a minor, unimportant letter because he had it reviewed by
    Levi Lincoln, his attorney general, before he sent it. Jefferson even told
    Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths
    and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among
    their political tenets."
    
    The second part
    of the amendment, the Free Exercise Clause", is what the Christians try to hang
    their hat on in regards to be allowed to do anything in regards to their
    religion. However, the courts have generally ruled that while most individual
    religious exercise is allowed, this does not prohibit the government from
    passing laws that impact certain religious practices. The first case to examine
    this clause was Reynolds v. United States. This was a case dealing with the
    prosecution of a polygamist. He tried to argue protection under the Free
    Exercise Clause, but the court ruled against him.
    
    Jefferson's
    Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its
    1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may
    be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of
    the [First] Amendment."
    - Myrtle
      
      Thanks for trying to explain! At least we know what you think it is!!
      - UF Gator
        
        Some context for ya of Jeff's proposition, Ms Myrtle! : )
        Accessed through http://rationalresponses.blogs… 080112
        http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/98…
        
        UF Gator Girl
    - Truth Sayer
      
      Jeff, I see you never actually studied constitutional law.
      But thanks for letting the air out of your head.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Since the Supreme Court, who is in charge of interpreting the Constitution, agrees with me, it would seem you are the one who cannot understand what it says.
        The founders also agreed. I already showed Jefferson's comments on the topic. Here is Madison's:
        "The purpose of
        separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the
        ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for
        centuries." -James Madison
        
        "Who does not see that the same
        authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions
        may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in
        exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen
        to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one
        establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases
        whatsoever?" (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the
        General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785; from George Seldes, ed.,
        The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, pp. 459-460.
        According to Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New
        Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 39 ff., Madison's
        "Remonstrance" was instrumental in blocking the multiple establishment of all
        denominations of Christianity in Virginia.)
      - IM1Ashman
        
        When you quote Jefferson…please note he was not even in America when the Constitution was written and had no influence it what was written. He was in Europe. When you speak of the first part of the 1st Amendment…the Founders were afraid of the Government endorsing a government religion, such as was found in England. Madison was speaking of the tyranny the English Church was placing on it subjects…and he did not want the same for the Colonies. This is what liberal progressives do…they find one statement and take it out of context. Did you know that the first Bible that was printed in the United States of America was commissioned to be printed by: THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!!!! SO MUCH FOR YOUR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE….THE GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONED ITS PRINTING….WOW…THINK OF THAT MR. DIXON…HOW AND why would THEY DO THAT IF THEY WANTED CHURCH AND STATE TO BE SEPARATE??? THE ANSWER….THEY DID NOT. SORRY …YOU LOSE~~~ Third….Spelling, Vocabulary, parts of speech, were used from the New England Primer, which used Bible verses as examples for how to write, and for learning one's ABC's…so the basic foundations learned were from the Bible verses when they began to actually learn to read. How sad it is that you forgot to include that in your diatribe against religion and the Bible. Let us not forget also, that the Bible was read, and prayer was utilized in the public school system until 1963. In 1959 the three main problems in school were: talking, chewing gum, and falling asleep. Now the main problems are rape, murder, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy. MY oh my, how wonderful public education has become since we have taken the Bible and prayer out of school. Morality is a thing of the past and we are indoctrinating students with songs about Obama, instead of teaching them about the 10 Commandments and REading, Writing, and Arithmatic. Is it no wonder we produce more illiterate students from our educational system, but they know exactly where to go to get an abortion or a condom. Your arguement has so many holes, that if it were a boat it would sink faster than the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Let also remember–it is just the :"THEORY" OF EVOLUTION…NOT FACT…A THEORY.
        SO SAD…YOU TAKE HALF BAKED TRUTHS AND TRY TO PRESENT A FALSE DOCTRINE TO FIT YOUR PROGRESSIVE BELIEFS…NO WONDER YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE BIG IN NOVEMBER. I FEEL VERY SAD FOR YOU AND WILL KEEP YOU IN MY PRAYERS TO GOD…A GOD THAT DOES NOT WANT RELIGION TO BE PUT OFF IN THIS NICE LITTLE SMALL CORNER OF OUR LIVES, BUT FOR IT TO BE INTERTWINED IN EVERY PART BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELIGION, IT IS A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM(GOD) AND IT EFFECTS EVERY PART OF OUR LIVES…PRIVATE, EDUCATIONAL, AND POLITICAL. WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF THAT??? I TAKE MY DIRECTION FROM GOD, NOT FROM MAN…GOD IS A BIT MORE SMARTER THAN YOU AND YES, ME AS WELL, AND HE KNOWS BEST FOR US, IF WE WOULD JUST HUMBLES OURSELVES AND LISTEN TO HIM AND FOLLOW HIS DIRECTION. TOO BAD YOU WILL NEVER DO THAT…HOWEVER, I PRAY THAT YOU WILL SOME DAY. MAY GOD OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE REAL TRUTH…THAT TRUTH IS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE REAL ANSWER…NOT MEN OR THEIR MADE UP EVOLUTION THEORY, BUT GOD.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        Please forgive the grammatical/spelling errors in my above statement. It would not let me go back and edit them out.
      - UF Gator
        
        also forgive the yelling
      - Michael g.
        
        You mean that Jeff isn't on the Supreme Court. I thought he was…too bad…
      - UF Gator
        
        Jeff is sharper than some in SCOTUS
      - KentPerry
        
        OMG, I guess ignorance is bliss to some
      - UF Gator
        
        He is not talking about the lemon law, he is taking about issues involving church and state… what's that got to do with the lemon law?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It certainly seems to work for you.
      - UF Gator
        
        You just commited what my parents call "blasphemy" meaning
        
        blas·phe·my (blsf-m)n. pl. blas·phe·mies
        1.a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
        b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
        
        2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
        
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blasphemy accessed 080112
        
        :)
        UF Gator Girl
      - Annie
        
        Jeff is just a naughty little boy trying to act grown up and is making a fool out of himself with his goofy comments.
      - UF Gator
        
        Myrtle I don't believe you really think that, now do you?
      - KentPerry
        
        Where I come from, there are people like Jeff too and they call themselves twinks or Pigs, I just call him a punk
      - UF Gator
        
        You have the mouth of a Calvinist. defined: one who is not accountable
      - KentPerry
        
        Not the definition of a Calvinist hot shot. What is your point anyway? You think your calling me a calvinist in the context you have been throwing that lable around all evening is going to increase conflict or decrease conflict? Because Ill tell you what I think and I think you whine and cry too much about things Jeff Dixon is given carte blanche to commit without a single reprisal by you Mr. Wholesome hypocrite
      - UF Gator
        
        Just to inform you that I know what you are up to! I also know you don't read my posts because I told you and Ash I am a girl, so insults don't mean anything , you are just lasing out because I care about what you say to people, especially Jeff, for what reason I cannot fathom. I think it is because of his "religious" persuasion. Just stop it.
      - UF Gator
        
        I don't know what you just said, can you decipher it for me? Please. Thanks, UF Gator Girl
      - UF Gator
        
        You always ask such ridiculous questions. I don't have time for dissertations. I have other important things to do. Don't you? Let me make a long story short, that in my experience with ONE Calvinist, which now I see is ONE too many, I learned that you all have one outstanding characteristic: you are elitest (at least y'all act that way! ) Thank goodness for copy/paste… here is what I mean:
        
        e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)n.1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.2.a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
        
        That's you bud, you fit right in.
        
        http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shutupimtalking.com%2Fthere-thats-better%2F&h=DAQGdj6u_AQFZ5lJPhfJylYA4vWkN8cZ3y4sFO_qAUVHzOQ&enc=AZNSbYyn3AfUZiTBYnYg_DWyd6zaqsMZQ-p5-FfddI_iEWXA6r7AaIlhc7KvQ7IY1ehZX33KM8tm1gPbK2JtYtFp
        
        UF Gator Girl
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You call many people names. Big deal.
      - UF Gator
        
        you need a lesson from Sam … how many times do I have to tell you : )
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=BpHcrcrXAbw&NR=1
        
        UF Gator Girl
      - UF Gator
        
        Annie… let's put Jeff's "goofy comments" in context, shall we? I introduce you to Sam Harris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=BpHcrcrXAbw&NR=1
      - UF Gator
        
        Quote from the top of this column from LibertyAlliance.com
        
        We have a zero-tolerance policy for comments containing violence (threats, suggestions or direct statements permitting violent or threatening acts or sentiments), racism (suggestion that one “race” is superior to others), crassness or profanity (any word or phrase considered by courteous society to be profane), all caps (a violation of internet etiquette), discourteous behavior (calling names, rude or insulting statements directed at another user/post) or violations similar in nature to any of these offenses. Posts violating our policies of posting are subject to removal and the user may face banning.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        apply this to your own posts
      - UF Gator
        
        Will do Pastor Ashman : )
        I will try to keep it civil in an uncivil environment.
        I hope you read the contexts of my arguments, you can get them on Disqus.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        How does his location have any bearing on his influence or opinion?
        
        Actually, Congress never did any such thing. You should learn to actually study a topic.
        
        The story of the US Congress printing its own bible for use in schools during the early years of this countries formation has been circulating for years. The basis for the story seems to have done in this case to use a genuine resolution recommending a Bible published by a Philadelphia printer, Robert Aitkin, for its care and accuracy in printing (colonial printers were notoriously careless and inaccurate) as the basis for this lie:
        Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied of the care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
        
        The phrase “for use in all schools” may have been suggested by these words in Robert Aitkin’s petition: “your Memorialist begs leave to inform your Honours that he hath begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”
        However, it was never stated by Congress that it intended for the bible to be used in schools.
        
        Robert Aitken, did petition the US Congress to review his bible. Here is his request (The words in {brackets} are difficult to read.): “Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to inform your Honours that he {hath} begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools. [And] being cautious of {suffering} his copy of the Bible to {be set forth} without the Sanction of Congress Humbly prays that your Honors would take this important Matter into serious consideration & would be [illegible] to a [illegible] one Member or Members of your Honorable [illegible] to inspect his work to that the same may be published under the authority of Congress. And memorialist prays that he may be Commissioned or otherwise appointed & authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same being in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.”
        
        So it looks as if Robert Aitken, a printer, had visions of being the authorized bible publisher for the new nation, “appointed … to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures”; the possibility of getting the contract for supplying school bibles must have seemed especially attractive.
        
        So, how did Congress respond to these requests? Did it recommend that Aitken’s bible be used in schools? Well, no. Did it commission Robert Aitken, printer, to print and vend editions of the Holy Scriptures? Again, no. Did it have the work published under its authority? Once again, no. What Congress did was have the chaplains check the book for accuracy, and allow Aitken to publish a statement that Congress found it to be carefully and accurately done. And that’s all Congress did. They pointedly did not authorize its use in schools, for example. In the end Congress did not even buy copies for distribution to the troops, as Aitken hoped. The edition lost money, and its poor sales are the reason it is so rare today.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        Not the Bible Iam speaking of…The first Bible printed was authorized by Congress and is located at the Library of Congress….You are definitely wrong and are misinformed…As usual, you do not want our founding fathers to be Christians or for our government to be associated with Christianity. Our form of government is founded on Scripture…The 3 branches…Isaiah 33:22 states"For the Lord is our Judge-(Judicial Branch)–the Lord is our lawgiver (Legislative branch), the Lord is our King>" executive branch. Tax exempt status for churches comes from Ezra 7:24-"You are also to know that you have no authority to impose taxes, tribut, or duty on any of the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants or other workers at this House of God." Our form of government–a Republic–is found in scripture…We are a Republic, not a democracy..electing leaders at the local, county, state, and Federal level. We find this in Exodus 18:21–"But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God; trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain, and appoint them as officials over thousands (federal level) hundreds(state) fifties(county) and tens(local level). I have also the many prayers of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and many more…all founding fathers who believed you could not even call yourself an American if you subvert the Word of God. Why then do you find it so hard to believe that they would authorize the printing of a Bible…the first Bible to be printed in America? Because you do not want it to be so….that does not mean you are correct. Thomas Jefferson, as president even spent government money to send people to preach the Word of God to the Native Americans. So much for separation of church and state. 80% of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were either preachers, had religious training, or declared Christ as their personal Savior….Do you think they would just give up their beliefs?? The answer is no and their writings and life prove it. They were in no way Deists or agnostics as the far left has protrayed them, but men of Christ, living their life for His glory….living their lives privately and publicly….for them, there was no difference.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You are wrong. There are no bibles authorized by the founders.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        believe in your lies and false hoods…The majority of people know that I speak the truth and that is what upsets you…I have seen the actual Bible and read the page,"Authorized by the United States Congress." So please do not say I am wrong or call me a liar when I know and have seen the actual Bible. Go to the Library of Congress, Archive Section, and you will see it…However, you will probably still not believe your own eyes and declare it a misprint.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You state you have seen it, but do not show anything that confirms it. What a shock. (eyes roll)
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Is it the bible by Robert Atikin? If it is then there is nothing new to discuss.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If you have seen it, you should be able to locate it. It is not my job to try and find it for you.
      - KentPerry
        
        Yes there is, Hoss so quit thinking you know so damn much because you DON'T
        http://www.loc.gov/loc/legacy/loc.html
        Thomas Jefferson approved the first law defining the role and functions of the new Law Library when it was located in the Capital. the sale and distribution of Library of Congress printed catalog cards began. One of three perfect copies of the Gutenberg Bible Johann Gutenberg's Bible was the first substantial book printed with movable type in collection of incunabula in the United States, after the Library of Congress. “authorized version,”
        http://www.huntington.org/huntingtonlibrary.aspx?id=560
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        There is a difference between placing a book in a library and Congress authorizing it for use in the county. Your every post shows of your complete inability to think logically about a topic.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        Dr Benjamin Rush, the founder of the American School system and Original signer of the Declaration of Independence stated: "The Bible should be read in our schools in preference to ALL OTHER BOOKS. For it contains the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public happiness."
        Noah Webster wrrote: "The Bible is the Chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society–the best Book for Regulating the Temporal( that is the secular) concerns of men."
        Patrick Henry stated: "The Bible is a Book wroth more than all the other books that were ever printed."
        Daniel Webster—The Great Protector of the Constitution–"To the free and universal reading of the Bible, men are much indebted for right views of civil liberty. The Bible is a book which teaches men his own responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow man. It has no equal and must be taught in our schools for our nation to survive and exist."
        I have hundreds more….would you like to hear them??? Why then, would you think that our Founding Fathers would then not want a Bible printed by our government when they held it so dear and so essential to the very existence of the country they fought and died for? The answer…they wouldn't prohibit it or deny it from being printed by our government and they promoted it every chance they had.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Sure, why not? If it makes you happy to post them. You post views of people who DID NOT WIN the argument of whether to create the USA as a Christian nation. The Constitution does not refer to Jesus.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        what? did not win…It is not a contest to be won or lost…It is not a game….These men gave up all they had to secure our nation. They won…that is why the Bible was used in classrooms for over 300 years. The children lost when morality was taken out of our classrooms. Our Founding Fathers won…and they gave us a country that the world had never seen before…one that people from all over the world came to for a new start…and so they could practice their faith without restriction from an overbearing, intrusive government. WE WON…Those who hate America and hate Christ want no religion in school. YOu are way out in left field and most of America wants God back in School. Atleast then, they would know that right and wrong would be taught to their kids. Jeff, why dont you go to an Athiest website…I am sure you would be happier. Please do not respond to me anymore. It is obvious you will not listen to another point of view that is different from your own.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The Constitution was certainly a contest as there were many competing views on how to write it. The founders who wanted no religious influence won.
        
        Whether you want me to reply or not is of no concern to me.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        the whole constitution is based on scripture…read belowThe 3 branches…Isaiah 33:22 states"For the Lord is our Judge-(Judicial Branch)–the Lord is our lawgiver (Legislative branch), the Lord is our King>" executive branch. Tax exempt status for churches comes from Ezra 7:24-"You are also to know that you have no authority to impose taxes, tribute, or duty on any of the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants or other workers at this House of God." Our form of government–a Republic–is found in scripture…We are a Republic, not a democracy..electing leaders at the local, county, state, and Federal level. We find this in Exodus 18:21–"But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God; trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain, and appoint them as officials over thousands (federal level) hundreds(state) fifties(county) and tens(local level). I can go through almost every portion of the Constitution and place a Biblical principle behind it…How? Because they followed the writings of John Locke when they wrote the Constitution, and th Declaration of Independence. In Locke's "Treatise of Government" which is a little over 400 pages long and the Founding Fathers used as a guide when writing the Constitution, he referenced the Bible over 1500 times as the Foundation of solid civil government. I have also the many prayers of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and many more…
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I hear this comment often, scripture is the basis for the Constitution.
        
        Is that right? Lets take a look at the first Ten Amendments.
        
        I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition – Freedom of Religion is actually the opposite of what the Ten Commandments requires. The other aspects of the First Amendment have nothing to do with the Commandments.
        2. Right to keep and bear arms – Has nothing to do with the Commandments
        3. Conditions for quarters of soldiers – Nothing to do with the Commandments
        4. Right of search and seizure regulated – Nothing to do with the Commandments
        5. Provisions concerning prosecution – Nothing to do with the Commandments
        6. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. – A slight connection with bearing false witness, otherwide, nothing to do with the Commandments.
        7. Right to a trial by jury – Nothing to do with the Commandments
        8. Excessive bail, cruel punishment – Nothing to do with the Commandments
        9. Rule of construction of Constitution – Absolutely nothing to do with the Commandments
        10. Rights of the States under Constitution – Nothing to do with the Commandments.
        
        Other than the coincidence that there were initially Ten Amendments and there are Ten Commandments, there is only one slight resemblance between the two documents, which has to do with bearing false witness. The Freedom of Religion is actually the exact opposite of what the Commandments require. Are the Ten Commandments’ the structure of our Constitution? Complete nonsense.
      - IM1Ashman
        
        The Bible is more than the 10 Commandments.
        Article 2 Section 1–President must be a Natural Born Citizen–Deuteronomy 17:15–"Be sure to appt over you the King the Lord you God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you."
        Article 3 Section 3–no person shall be convicted of Treason(a capital offense that results in death) unless on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.–Deuteronomy 17:6–"On the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of 1 witness."
        Also in Art.3 sect 3–The entire family shall not be punished for the act of 1 family member–Ezekiel 18:20–"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the sin of the father, nor will the father share the sin of the son."
        I have already written about the 3 branches of gov't–Isaiah 33:22
        Tax exemption for churches–Ezra 7:24
        Republicanism–government as a Republic, not a democracy–Exodus 18:21
        Separation of Powers–Jeremiah 17:9
        Uniform Immigration Laws: Leviticus 19:34–Article 1 Section 8: "The congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
        There are so many more…Please forgive me for being short with you earlier. I am dying from kidney failure and I get tired easlily. Let us say we will agree to disagree Jeff and I promise to pray for you. God Bless you.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am sorry to hear of your kidney failure. We can certainly just leave the debate alone.
      - UF Gator
        
        Right on Jeff!
      - Myrtle
        
        The Supreme Court at least 5 of the Supreme Court are as liberal as the Muslims in Kenya.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The make-up of the current Supreme Court is irrelevant. The court has ruled that there is a separation between church and state for over 100 years. You may disagree with them, but that will not change the fact that the Supreme Court always rules in favor of the separation.
      - KentPerry
        
        No they don't Jeff, the lemon law is ALWAYS decided on a case by case basis many times deciding in favor of theism. The supreme court also decided in favor of slavery long ago but that doesn't mean they were right
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Why is slavery wrong, Kent? The bible gives rules for owning slaves and you say you believe the bible is the word of god.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Kent, why do you consider slavery to be wrong? The bible gives rules for owning slaves. Since you consider the bible to be the word of god and without mistake, on what basis can you consider slavery to be wrong?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Kent, why is slavery wrong? There are rules for owning slaves in the bible. You believe that the bible is gods word. So, what makes slavery wrong?
      - Michael g.
        
        The study of "evolution" has nothing to do with the Constitution. I used to touch on it as "Micro vs. Macro" Evolution, and showed the difference. I never taught Macro as fact (it isn't). Micro is little different (changes within a species group). The students saw the difference and agreed with where I was coming from.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Who said it did?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Macro and micro are the same thing. They are both small changes over time. Macro is merely a longer timeframe with more accumulated changes.
      - UF Gator
        
        I see you need a definition "Truth" Sayer
        What is a Bible Scholar? A Bible scholar, so far as I can see, with very rare exceptions, is just a very bad literary critic." The scholar is really doing what the literary critic does, giving his considered opinion, which is passed off as scientific fact on the helpless public awed by the the mysteries of "scholarly methodology." ~ Harold Bloom
        
        : )
        UF Gator Girl
    - UF Gator
      
      Jeff, thanks once again for your thorough treatment on this important issue of the distinction made by Thomas Jefferson, 3, his quote a "wall of separation between church and state"
      
      Accessed through http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ 080112
      http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
  - rickybaker
    
    How many of us now could pass this test, I couldn't and I consider myself a cogent and intelligent person. God help me!
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      It is amazing what they were required to learn.
      - UF Gator
        
        Truly amazing! I could do only the arithmetic, except for the definitions of a couple of parameters in the problems. Essentially all the other problems are rote memory, probably right out of lecture. This type of testing & knowledge in the math alone, is still the basis of chemistry and physics and all its consequent science disciplines. Pure logic. : )
- mallen11
  
  Iam1ashman: You have it exactly right.
Evermyrtle

I do not understand the conflict that evolution brings. If you know the truth, that we are created let them think whatever they want to, If they will leave us alone with our Christian beliefs there should be no trouble. We are not going to change and they are not going to change so we should go about our own business and forget about the difference!
- Pastor Dwayne
  
  Evermyrtle, They can't leave us alone because it is Satan's job to "TRY" to destroy our Faith!!!
MontieR

Evermyrtle that attitude is exacty why we have come to the point that people believe that there is a seperation of church and state (there in no such thing) The bill of rights states freedom OF religion NOT from religion.
Reid

I never had a problem with whatever crap they taught in schools because by the time my kids got there they had been thoroughly taught that their teachers would all probably be liars and to listen shake your head appropriately then come home and forget about it. .
Truth Sayer

Teaching our children that they are the product of millennia of accumulated mistakes; telling them that they need not concern themselves with an absolute measure of right and wrong, but whatever feels good to them is good; taking the emphasis off of personal responsibility and placing the blame on genetics – this has not produced one iota of true freedom or improved the life of any. Instead it takes away any possibility of hope. After all, how can one person combat in themselves the effects of a millennia of mindless and purposeless mutations? How can you fight your own genetics? How can you move forward in life confidently when there's no standard of what's right (so you can know what to do) and of what's wrong (so you can steer clear of it)?

In total contrast, everyone who has placed their total trust and faith in the God of the Bible, the veracity of His Word, and the work of His Son, Jesus who died to pay the price for our true genetics – a sinful nature, has complete hope. This isn't the "wishing" kind of hope like "I hope I get a bicycle for Christmas". This is the hope of the sure promises of God, specifically "Jesus has promised He will return to set up His kingdom. I hope it's today".

The evidence for God is all around us. Let's stop ignoring Him before we sink any lower.
John

The debate should not be on whether or not to include "alternative theories" to evolution in the science curriculum. In fact, there shouldn't even be a debate. God's infallible enscriptured Word declares that He created the earth and all that therein is in six days–including man. There is absoultely no room for forcing millions and billions of years onto the text, as some within the church are wont to do. God tells us He created us, man tells us we chanced into existence and evolved from animals. Choose today whose word you will believe: man's fallible and errant word, or God's infallible and innerrant WORD.
For those of us who, like Abraham, believe God, there is one answer and one alone: evolution must go and Biblical Creation must form the basis of the curriculum. I fully expect many will object to this statement, but that's how it is.
- KentPerry
  
  Yep that's JUST how it is
  
  never a truer statement than that regarding this subject
http://www.facebook.com/people/David-B-Severy/557985964 David B Severy

What magnitude of the order of complexity of the things that are will persuade the atheist that God is proven by the things He has created? If the moon was as rebellious as man, and just left it's orbit, the balance of planetary orbits would likely be so upset that earth would catapult into space and never be heard from again. There are 1.67 × 1021 molecules in every half milliliter of water. No one ever counted that high, can you? No one knows the end of infinity, and even atheists cannot deny infinity.
- KentPerry
  
  We have no concept of infinity yet you make an interesting point for something man has no concept of existing other than its a really big number lol yet they believe in it. They will believe in the idea the Universe "always was" but have a problem when ever we say the same for God.
Marilyn K. Smith

My coworker this week told me that a priest told her that the Bible is just an old book that some old men wrote a long time ago. I gasped. What nonsense and coming from a well-educated and smart woman! She is my friend and I care about her knowing God, which the Bible says is the definition of wisdom. There are many people who have been taught this way throughout their lives by false prophets or those who were ignorant of the Truth. God help us to witness to these people by being their friends and loving them into the Kingdom. Amen!
Vladimir

Here's the situation as I see it. The atheist says before I'll believe in God, prove to me He exists. The Christian pulls out all the evidence that points to God. Meanwhile God is running this earthly test for His children and part of the test is for them to develop faith in Him in the absence of a proof that He exists. So the atheist continues on, confident that he won't be proven wrong and feeling superior because he hasn't been fooled like the Christian. While the Christian gets frustrated trying to convince someone who just looks down on him. We've generated a lot of heat on this site, but no conversions, yet.
- UF Gator
  
  Vlad, I am exploring all the time. I have been highly critical of doing so, too. But I absolutely hate malaise. What am I missing? You obviously have some ideas about this. I have to be careful here, because I am so easily misunderstood. I am a Christian that has stopped and looked at logic and said. Wait a minute. What is wrong with this picture?
  
  Thanks for some reality here.
  Mary Wood
Evermyrtle

Evolution is a ploy of Satan and his disciples. Christians know the truth.
- Xman3
  
  Creationism (intelligent design) and evolution both have created the diversity of life on earth (plants, insects, animals and human (the many races/gene-pools in different areas and continents) should be the answer. It is simply not just 'one or the other'. In agriculture we see the cross-breeding of plants and animals to create more productive/desirable strains, which is an evolution that we can see today.
  I have not seen a biblical explaination of dinosaurs and the many lifeforms before the appearance of man. Was that evolution or did God create these lifeforms and for what purpose? Who knows, we don't know, what we don't know. The simple answer is God created everything as these pre-human lifeforms. What if evolution was part of 'God's plan'?
aRareSaneOne

Worth a read on how science is done and the politics of science, and on the rise
of what has been called consensus science.

http://s8int.com/crichton.html