We move on to a more serious type of error committed by early UFO researchers, involving a quite incredible degree of carelessness and sloppiness on their part, verging in may instances on what can only be described as sleight of hand or outright deception. Let us take one example. In his chapter nine, Leslie recounts the destruction of the so-called Triple City by lord Shiva, one of the greatest gods in the Hindu pantheon: 'He (Shiva) flings a missile which contained the power of the universe at the Triple City --- the city began to burn --- smoke, looking like 10,000 suns, blazed up in the splendour.' Charles Berlitz, in Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds (chapter twelve), goes one better: 'an incandescent column of smoke and flame, as bright as 10,000 suns, rose in all its splendour.' The latter is pure invention, as can be clearly seen when compared with the actual source quotation, which runs: 'Then he called Nila Rohita - that terrible deity robed in skins, looking like 10,000 suns --- blazed up with splendour' (Karna Parva, section 34). Now a translator's insert explains that Nila Rohita means 'blue and red' or 'smoke', (which could be rendered in English as the 'Smokey One' or something similar) being nothing more than one of Lord Shiva's innumerable epithets. It is obvious that it is not the Triple City which is blazing in splendour, but Shiva himself. In fact, it is not until a full three pages after the above even that the city's destruction occurs: 'That lord of the universe --- sped that shaft which represented the might of the whole universe at the Triple City --- thus was the Triple City burnt.' By cleverly combining widely separated quotations and mistaking a manifestation of Lord Shiva for a nuclear explosion, Leslie has made a complete mess of this event, and Berlitz has only compounded the original error.

Answer: Both

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever at all that creationism can not co-exist with evolution.

Don't agree?

Then keep studying.

i'm tired answering your posts. if the courts deem it religious the school must cease, period. there will be no christian bible studies in schools, i'm pretty sure of that. see ya sweetheart. it's been fun.

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

Looking at it as second-generation Creation science, I'd agree. However, in the book, Michael Behe tries at length to point out that we don't need to have an idea of who the hypothetical designer might be. It suffices, according to his logic, that we can infer that design has occured.

NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- Nearly 450 Christian churches in the United States are celebrating the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin Sunday.

The churches say Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science, the Chicago Tribune reported.

'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both,' said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who organized the 'Evolution Sunday' event.

A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, are participating in the event, which grew out of Zimmerman`s The Clergy Letter Project, another effort to dispel the perception among many Christians that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive, the newspaper said.

I couldnt even begin to go through every post in this thread, its way too long. Anyhow, evolution is a THEORY. It's never been proven to be fact.

Creation...well there is more evidence of it if you just look around. Things of the earth did not just magically appear out of nowhere with such vast design without divine intervention. That is just not logical.

where did you get your wisdom? we are talkig about us ps?

Bingo

Some seem to think being a pest, is some kind of a rebuttal.

.......It's just, "being a pest"?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

the law simply will never allow religion to be taught in public school

are you really that ignorant! read the first message creating this thread. it talks about whether sciecne or religion can be taught in (public) schools.

I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?

(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)

Where is the beef?
Show me the money?

Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?

They could also change the definition of Science so that ID falls within it. Kind of like they did with Evolution.

Sort of like that age-old question.."Which came first the chicken or the egg?" isn't it?

Tsur, to me, feels that he's covered all scientific avenue's to argue down
the creationist without even providing us anything more than a dare. That's
not an arguement against creationists. That's a cop out. Some like to
float in and out of the guidelines of an arguement - it's easy to be
critical when the opportunity presents itself but it's hard to fight
or defend yourself under the context of rules laid out. It's cowardly to say the least.

We were never taught the various branches of science. Just a general outline
on how basic basic basic science means.

I've read many theories on the web that have very impressive arguments
for creationists from a cosmological point of view.

Evolution is a scientific fact, natural selection is the theory to explain it.

Reference/Source for this Please?

Regarding star formation, many Evolutionists lay claim to this phenomenon as evidence lending credence to their belief system, but the Opposite is true (Opposite of truth is a common theme in our day). In fact, the organizing force acting upon the elements that constititute stars is the same organizing force that is responsible for all of creation: The Creator, God, who remains active in this universe and who will continue to be until He destroys it and replaces it with an eternal, spiritual universe (which the mind of man will never be able to fully fathom until it is done).

Entropy began at the big bang. The universe ATB was in a low entropy configuration. Low entropy systems evolve to high entropy systems.

Wonderful example. We also hear a lot about the accuracy of Carbon-14 dating being questioned in regards to proto-human bones or dinosaur fossils.

I wonder if this is the reason that there is no issue with Creation in Britain, there are no acredited British scientists that accept creation as even a plausability!

"His posts like this, are tatamount to hate crime literature; Something, which, at last check, is punishable by Federal laws in both Canada and the USA."

The laws of Slander and Deflamation of character are only enforceable when the comments made against a person or particular group of people can be demonstrated to be false, and were made with the intent of causing injury to that person....

I do not this Tsur meets these requirements.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred


(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Cite Please.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

His posts like this, are tatamount to hate crime literature; Something, which, at last check, is punishable by Federal laws in both Canada and the USA.

Still using a Ad Hominem Argument to try to negate the evidence.

So what does the evidence have to do with his reputation? Is there any Creationist that you consider to have a good reputation? Besides, any "proof" from Talk Origins is suspect. It is about on the same level as backing up a statement from the bible.

As long as the scientific field is condoning these textbooks for teaching in the schools it is blatant hypocrisy for evolutionists to be yipping about a few misquotes on a dating site....or anywhere else for that matter.
So Tsur, do you *intensly dislike* the lies, deceit and censorship that is running rampant in the evolutionary science classes or is it only reserved for Creationists?

Here is the link for the textbooks and their errors, in case you're wanting to correct that injustice. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

When Creationists start making general accusations against all people who advocate evolution based on what a MINORITY have done they are REALLY the pot calling the kettle black.

I read Bill Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" almost ten years ago before anyone else really knew what it was. What is interesting is that the description of ID in popular media is so watered down it does not really reveal the important questions that ID raises. The media says that ID is a theory that the Universe is so complex that it must have been created by some sentient form. That is true, but it was not the entire point of Dembski's work. Dembski simply pointed out that using a simple formula, One can determine Intelligent design in all areas, not just the origin of the universe. In short the formula is thus.
improbability + specification = Intelligent Design.

That is if an incident is found to be highly unlikely to occur by chance, and there is purpose and/or order found within that incident, then that incident is thus proven to have occurred by design.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsur wrote
Because misquoting is a *fetish* with Creationists. I've been on talk.origins since 1992 or so, and Creationists have been using the same misquotes (and new ones, I grant them that) since before that. It's so bad, and so repetitive, that some folk over at talk.origins have been putting up the Creationist Quote Mining Project to make it easier to figure out exactly WHAT misquote Joe Q. Creationist is using.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing said has convinced me that putting down a group of people( as apposed to putting down thier arguement) is scientific or logical.

Being logical and scientific seems to be something you both repeat often. So if you want to be scientific or logical you should explain the contridiction of these two things.(putting down groups of people and saying you value being scientific and logical)

If there was an intelligence involved in the creation or transformation of something it is logical that their would be a dicernable pattern throughout that whole thing that can not be explained logicly by looking at only the thing under question. So that is what would be looked for/tested for in all the data we have on biology. Is their a pattern in the rate of species creation that stretches across the entire 4.6billion? year history of life? In the number of deaths/births in that time? Is there a pattern in the different places different life forms were created at over the whole 4.6billion years. If there can be found one and only one or evidence of more than one pattern but that look like they all lead to one pattern and that pattern can not be logically explained using what has been found out about and acepted as common knowledge about nature, than that would be prove in support of the theory of I.D.

If by UFO's you simply mean 'unidentified flying objects' then yes, I am sure that Tsur will agree. However if you mean 'Aliens' and such, then WHOA....where is the scientific proof for that, because the world is waiting.

From the small part of the 120+ page post I've seen I agree with your opinion that it is creationist more than Evolutionist posting misinformation and so can see your frustration

that being said I don't see why you need to single out creationist rather than simply stating how lazy and dishonest etc you think people who post misinformation are.

Is evolution by natural selection a random process?

I contend intelligent design is a testable theory while creationism is not.
they are not the same
Intelligent design simply says that there must have been an intelligent involved in the creation and transformation of life

The view of evolution by natural selection as a machine that created all life is consistent with I.D. as long as the machine is held to contain intelligence

To the argument that I.D. logicly requires the explanation of where the intelligence came from this is no more logical than saying Evolutionalist need to expain where "natural" came from in the theory of evolution by natural selection If nature always existed I can say for I.D. that the intelligence always existed.

I know it's been said many times but it just happened again twice. Both the above lines taken from Tsur's and Flyguy's posts attack creationist themselves rather than any argument of theirs.

On the Evolution argument one of my questions is how nature/environment or whatever an evolutionist would say is determining how creatures evolve could cause a creature to involve into something that has the ability to creat controlled widespread change(many would say destruction) in that thing that controlled how they evolved.

I would also wonder why only humans evolved the ability to do the above.

Creationism fits within the definition of "theory". It has been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted, and can be used to make predictions.

Evolution is a theroy,
Creation is a fact
To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Statement made by Charles Darwin

Lovtrup is not anti-evolutionist, and Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents will get no succor from reading this book. The book is excellent as a critique of evolutionary theory generated from within modern biology. His history is well documented and I think worth the time of anyone serious about understanding modern evolutionary thought. I am hopeful that one day, the evo/devo wars and complexity theory can finally trump naive micromutationism. This book isn't so helpful on that score, but it predates both movements.