G.W. Bush's Creationist beliefs

[Rob B]

Ryu,

There's no need to apologise. It's funny, in school we were taught that it was the Greek Orthodox Church that was ex-communicated from the Catholic faith. We learned that the leadership rights of the Pope and the Vatican were passed down through the church since Peter the Apostle. I guess each side has it's own version. In all honesty, no one really knows what Jesus invisioned for his church. Heck we could all be wrong. I'm interested though does the Eastern Church really embrace evolution.


Tony10,

F u c k You

David a,

Well where do I start; Luke 23:3 and I quote from the King James Bible.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of He-li." son of Mat-that etc. etc. This coupled with the mentioning of Jacob, Isaac and Abraham in that order suggests a father son relationship between the men mentioned in the verses. Even if, as you stated, Luke skipped some generations and meant grandfather instead of father it still does not match the age of the earth given by Carbon 14 and other dating methods; in fact it is blown away. Oh yeah, where did you get this maternal lineage from? It begins with Joseph and his father.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to your beliefs, the Bible is rich in Historical facts. Its telling when skeptics have to alter their theories in light of daily archaeological finds which completely parallel the history of the Bible.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Don't get me wrong, I believe the bible does have some historical fact; however aren't you the pot calling the kettle black. Didn't you just have to alter Usher's theory, and give your opinion on what the authors "might have been saying", "might have been insinuating".

-----------------------------------------------------------

Are you open minded Rob? If you are, you need to pick up a book in any Christian book store called " The Case for Christ"(Lee Strobel) It will answer alot of your doubts. No one can convince you though... that is... if you have a closed mind.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, I really don't appreciate this condescending tone. I am open minded, I have studied both sides. If the bible is infallable and completely divine, than it really would be the only book I needed to convince me.

[Ryan The Bad]

To say that we evolved from a lower being totally denounces Christ and his teachings. That to me is totally brainless. Adam and Eve were human from the start. If you really want to know for yourself if God lives, ask Him with real intent and a sincere heart and you'll receive an answer.

[Mr. Miyagi]

ttt
Attention Martial Artist!

[Tony10]

Naughty naughty language Rob...

[Mr. Miyagi]

Martial Artist, I'm not going to let you get away without withdrawing that crap about a shrinking sun consuming the earth. All you have to do is come here and say so once, please.

[Robbie]

I know this topic gets a lot of heat but I do in fact believe in god and believe that a god created us.

[Martial Artist]

Alright you see I just quit checking this thread because I was saying the same thing and you werent listing.But I'll do it for the last time.First off,I'm not apologizing.Second,this is a reason that evolution is not real.Evolutionist say that the earth is 6.5 billion years old.There is PROOF that the sun is shrinking at 5-feet per hour.If the world was 6.5 Billion years old,then if you add in the fact that the sun is shrinking at 5 feet an hour,then the sun would have swallowed the earth a long time ago.Simply multiply 6.5 billion years times at 5 feet per hour.And you said that it was just moving farther away?Okay we can do that to.The sun didnt just start moving away for no reason did it?If it is moving away it's been doing it for 6.5 billion years.Let's go in re-wind.Think about it coming towards us for 6.5 Billion years.


I'm still not saying sorry.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Now that you have clarified things, what you meant to say is that at one time, the sun would simply have been where the earth is and would have swallowed it up. However, you leave so many doubts. Recent research (according to you) shows that the sun is shrinking at 5 ft/hr. How do we know that it always has been shrinking at 5 ft/hr? Maybe it recently started shrinking at this rate huh? Or here is a more plausible theory. If the sun is indeed shrinking at 5 ft/hr, then perhaps the earth was further away from center of the sun than it is now (but the same distance from the surface), and while the sun was shrinking, it pulled the earth closer into it's gravitational field. There are many more possibilities and this does not PROVE that the earth is younger than is believed by scientists.

[Atomic]

Ryan--

Bwahaahaha! Nice joke.

Martial Artist--

I have never seen this supposed "sun shrinking" theory that you claim is true. I want evidence, as in scientific, peer-reviewed literature that states this theory, otherwise, I can't believe this is anything more than second-hand drivel.

Atomic

[judo guy]

Atomic,

I believe a couple scientists wrote a book around 30 years ago stating the sun was shrinking 5 feet per hour. It was based on some date about eclipses that happened a long time ago that turned out to be false. That's all I remember about it. The statements by Martial Artist weren't taken out of thin air and used to be quoted by creationists about 20 years ago. I have no idea if guys like Gish still stand by those earlier statements.

[david a]

Rob B,

I/m not sure where you are going with the "Usher" debate,
but let me try to help clear up some misunderstandings.

First of all, I don't hold to a 6000 year earth. I did not say I did, the Bible does not claim this, nor is there any solid evidence to support this theory.

I was mearly trying to point out the problem with "Ushers"
biblical "proof", that the earth is 6000 years old from his geneology idea.

Luke 3:23 - Yes, this is a maternal geneology. If you compare with Matthews geneology to Luke's with KJV(since you referenced that particular version you will see a difference.
1. Matthew reads from verse 6 and on :Jesse-David-Solomon-Roboam-Abia-Asa-Josaphat,etc,etc. until you hit verse 16 which says: Jacob-Joseph- Jesus This is what is called the official line or paternal geneology. Also, Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph(his legal father) to David's son, Solomon(the king), which shows interestingly Christ's rightful heir to the throne of David (see 2 Sam. 7:12)

2. Luke reads(in reverse order)Jesus-Joseph-Heli-etc.,etc., up to verse 30 to Eliakim-Melea-Menan-Mattathah-Nathan-David This is what is called a maternal geneology because it traces Jesus to David's son, Nathan, through his actual mother,Mary. It is interesting also to note that Luke draws the geneology right through to Adam whereas Matthew stops at Abraham. This goes along with what I brought up previously about Greek thought, and Luke portraying Jesus as the perfect man, fully human, the redeemer of humanity.

Lastly, I was not implying that you are ignorant, or even at all,- to answer back rationally the way you did, proves that. I was mearly , maybe a little to passionately, trying to show you that there is reasonable thinking when it comes to the sufficiency of the Gospel. I agree we don't need other sources to solidify the fact of Divine authorship, however, I do think that reliable sources like the one I mentioned can point to details that we may have missed just reading the text alone. Different angles on things does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. The Bible does not give 100% detail to the events it discribes so sometimes we have to lean on other material to get a further grasp of what is going on.( for eg. the customs and traditions of that day.)
Obviously, you have stated that you have looked at both sides which shows you have an open mind, and that my friend, means the battle is half won.

[Rob B]

Tony

Don't worry about me, I'm going to confession this week


David,

"First of all, I don't hold to a 6000 year earth. I did not say I did, the Bible does not claim this, nor is there any solid evidence to support this theory."

Ok , fair enough, I was a little pressumptious on this point. I would like to know your opinion on this matter though, How old do you believe the universe to be.

"This is what is called a maternal geneology because it traces Jesus to David's son, Nathan, through his actual mother,Mary"

I am sorry, I still don't see it. I've read it again and it says Joseph not Mary; am I reading this incorrectly?

"Different angles on things does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. The Bible does not give 100% detail to the events it discribes so sometimes we have to lean on other material to get a further grasp of what is going on.( for eg. the customs and traditions of that day.)"

Well Well Well.... The bible is not 100% infallible after all, I glad to see that you've taken your first step.

[david a]

Rob,

I didn't say the Bible was not infallible. If the Bible put every little detail of everyone or event mentioned in the Bible we would have more than a room full of Bible to read. The Bible gives adequate information for what God's objective is- and that is His redemptive plan of salvation from Genisis through to Revelation.

I will go further on your geneology question later.
Got to go to work now.

[Newbie]

Ronin

"And yes, generally a prevailing theory has to be replaced by another, better theory, before we abandon it entirely."

That is where I must disagree with you. I do not believe that any scientific theory should be shielded from criticism on the basis of a lack of legitimate alternative theories. I believe that the prospect of admitting that we almighty humans could possibly be incapable of deciphering the details of our origins, or any other scientific mystery for that matter, for ourselves is so threatening that we often feel the neccesity to convince ourselves we have an answer and that it is only a matter of time before we solve the mystery. We reassure ourselves by stressing the significance of the evidence supporting that proposed solution, and are often all too eager to disregard contradictory evidence.
Imagine this scenario. There is an occurence in nature. You have no explanation for the occurence. A thoery is eventually proposed by others which gains considerable acceptance in scientific circles. While you personally have no idea how to explain the occurence, you feel that you have vaild criticisms which discredit the thoery. Should your inability to provide a "better" theory to replace the proposed theory be construed as a rebuttal of your criticisms? Would you personally swear adherance to the theory stricly on these grounds?

Pit Dog

"To compare the TANGIBLE fossil remains of an infinity of extinct animals; the consistency of carbon dating; our knowlege of the galaxy, space and time; our understanding of chemistry, DNA, etc., etc. ... to"

Although this was directed at David A., I would like to respond:

It is you that insists on COMPARING Evolution to Creationism. No comparison needs to be drawn as long as Creationism is not being represented as a scientific theory to be taught in public educational facilities. I have repeatedly stated that I believe in Creationism as a matter of religious faith and have never represented it as a scientific theory. My opinion is that man, from a scientific standpoint, has so far failed to ascertain the specific details of his origins. Some, such as myself, choose to believe in the Biblical account of creation as a matter of religious faith for reasons that I lack the words to express. This religious faith is not the same as scientific proof, nor have I presented it as such.
If you choose to disagree with me on the issue of Creationism, I take no issue with that other than the fact that you seem to be repeatedly expressing the opinion that your objections to Creationism somehow constitute validation of evolutionary theory. Additionally, if you choose to believe that I am mentally deficient because of the manner in which I expressed my religious beliefs, feel free to do so. All that I ask is that you not attempt to misconsture this criticism of my intelligence and beliefs as validation of evolutionary theory.

I also would like to ask you a few questions, considering the fact that I at least attempted to answer your questions.

The questions involve the process of how a species evolves from a wingless population into a winged population capable of flight and what the driving force could be?
I was wondering if either of the theories I am about to propose are accurate. If not, could you (or anyone else reading this post) explain why and possibly provide a more accurate scenario?

Theory #1
Did members of a wingless species of creature that walks on land suddenly, inexplicably give birth to creatures with wings on mass scale?

Theory #2
Did members of that species instead give birth to fertile offspring with USELESS appendages that showed signs of potentially developing into wings in the evolutionary sense as a result of some unlikely genetic mutation, and those offspring happen to locate fertile individuals of the same species that were born in the same location, at the same time, with the same unlikely genetic mutation and select THEM as mates in order to produce hopefully fertile offspring, thereby intesifying the effects of the mutation?
Additionally, did members of successive generations continue to give birth to young with progressively more mutated offspring with progressively more winglike (albeit useless) appendages generation after generation over a period of millions of years in some bizarre example of selective breeding until the actual wings were formed?
In the meantime, what use (let alone evolutionary advantage) is this mutation, this non-functional fragment of a wing, during the constant battle for survival which takes place generation after generation and why does it's absence result in the inability to survive long enough to reproduce, thereby preventing the majority of the members of the species from nullify the effects of the mutation in the genetic makeup of the population?
If you could please answer any of these questions regarding the transitionary stages of evolution or even possibly provide entirely different explanations in place of the theories I proposed, I would be very interested in reading your response.


[Edited by Newbie on 12-02-2000 at 07:15 AM]

[Atomic]

Thanks Judilicous

Man, you got me there. I was even around back then, but thanks for your input. I'm sure he is either dead or doesn't stand by it because I have never heard of it, nor has anyone I've talked to (not that we are the all-knowing data-base or anything).

And WTF are you doing reading this thread? I believe it was you that told me you didn't get involved in debates like this?

Hehehe.

Atomic