> >> Creationists have done just the opposite: prepared ahead of time, known their material, and shown scientific evidence that supports, suggests, or can go along with their beliefs.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you approach it differently from the non-zealot, non-"everyone's going straight to hell" of the upper midwest, but even the most intelligently formed creationist arguments have had one major flaw, that being reliance on the bible.
>
> No. What I meant was that when Creationists I know get into debates, most of the time they don't even MENTION the Bible, because the people they debate with don't believe in the Bible and make the same points you make and it ends up a bilbical accuracy debate.
>
> > Now, I'm not saying that that makes the bible stupid, but I'm saying that the entire bible relies on its readers to take what it says on faith. While this is fine for theologists who have faith, this is not fine for scientific validity.
> >
> > The end result is that science can never prove that there is a god (after all, the only true way for god to prove his existance is to come down and say hi, and we've all seen what happens to people claiming to be god --- nuthouse).
> >
> >
> > That being said, evolution happened. We watch it happen within the space of a few years in the case of a species of moth in England -- - The species are born either white or black. Before industrialization, the white moths blended into trees better, thus survived to pass their genes on. Once industrialization hit, things turned black from the soot, and the black moths quickly began to outnumber the white ones. That's evolution right there- - survival of the fittest. Anyone who can look at the hard data in the form of firsthand observation, and in the form of fossil evidence, and not acknowledge that evolution has and is occurring, is not much different from someone belonging to the Flat Earth Society.
> >
> > That said, evolution does NOT preclude the existance of god or gods.
>
> I know. What I was talking about was the kind of debate that basically tries to answer the question "How was the world and everything on it formed?" By "Evolution", I didn't mean the whole theory that creatures adapt to fit their environments. I know that happens. I meant a debate between God-created-Earth-and-people-and-He-did-it-all-on-purpose-with-a-plan vs. the-Big-Bang-created-Earth-and-we-all-evolved-from-one-celled-organisms-and-it-was-all-purely-by-chance. That's one of the problems of this: people interpret "Evolution" in different ways.
>
> SOMETHING had to create all this, whether that something simply blew up a ball of matter in the big bang and watched from there, or that something has been dipping its hand into the workings of the universe since.



Why couldn't the Big Bang be caused by forces of gravity or the explosion of extremely dense matter? Why does something have to have started it? couldn't it have just been the reaction of the forces of nature?

But God created nature!: I don't think so, these forces are causing all the reactions that make the universe continue.


> >
> > The idea that the two are mutually exclusive is absurd.
>
> Well, again it seems you were talking about the evolution of various species to adapt, while I was talking about we-evolved-from-the-Australopithecus-Affezehennagel or whatever that species is called. Most of this aspect of the Evolutionary Theory disagrees with Creationism, and it's THIS part that is mutually exclusive. If the world was created from the Big Bang and some cell perchanced to evolve into a multi-celled organism, and further and further on until it reached our current stage, then God did not create the Earth because it was all by accident. If God created the Earth, then it was done with a purpose, and we're not some highly evolved "Lucy". So, yeah, I'd say these two ideas are mutuall exclusive.
>
> > Creationism should NOT, repeat NOT be taught as truth in public school. Why? Creationism is religious, plain and simple.
>
> Yes, I agree with you. I think it should be taught in public schools, but not as absolute fact, as should many other beliefs.
>
> >Religion has no place in public schools whatsoever. That's one of the basic principles of the constitution.
>
> Actually, this is one of the biggest mistakes about the Constitution. It never says anything about keeping religion out of public schools. That concept first came from a Supreme Court ruling in the mid-sixties. Show me where it says in the Constitution that there is to be a wall of separation between church and state, or that we can't teach about God in school. "Well, the First Amendment" is one claimed often. Let's take a look:
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> It doesn't say keep religion out of school, it just says there is to be no official religion of the government or disallowment of religion. You can teach about religion in schools, you just can't teach it as fact. Religion has its place in public schools, just not forced religion.
>
> -Dr. Morris Cecil "Genesis 1:1, if you happen to accept the Bible" Glalet, Th.D.
> Tue 7 Dec A.D. 1999


Creation shouldn't be taught in school because there are so many religions out there, and you would be going against lots of peoples faith by teaching only one religions theory.

Jimmy O"I'm half Jewish, half Christian, but personnaly I don't believe in either"f York