Creationism vs. Evolution

well...he does have a hand for wood.

 

Since the 18th century the history of Europe has been the story of successive attempts to find alternatives to God as an object of focus and worship, among these the nation state, racial identity, and the Communist Manifesto. These failed attempts have cost humanity two world wars, a Cold War and a hundred million lives. So we've turned to more peaceful forms of idolatry; the market, the liberal democratic state, and the consumer society -- which are ways of saying that there is no morality beyond personal choice so long as you do no overt harm to others.

Even so, costs are mounting up. Trust has plummeted as one group after another -- bankers, CEOs, media personalities, parliamentarians, the press, state and federal governments -- has been rocked by scandal.

Marriage has all but collapsed. 40 per cent of all children are born outside of wedlock, and 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Rates of depressive illnesses and stress related health issues have sky rocketed, especially among the young. A recent survey found the average 18 to 35 year-old has 237 Facebook friends. When asked how many they could rely on in a crisis, the average answer was two. 25% said one. 12.5% said none.

This is what a society built on materialism, individualism and moral relativism looks like. It maximizes personal freedom but does so at great cost. This sort of freedom, exciting as it is, profoundly disintegrates the core social orders we depend on, making it difficult for individuals to find stable communal support, difficult for any community to count on the responsible participation of its individual members. It opens solitary men and women to the impact of the lowest common denominator, as embodied in commercial culture and the entertainment industry.

Interestingly enough, parents today are more likely than ever to send their children to faith based schools. They want their children exposed to the strong substantive ethic of responsibility and restraint that faith based education provides. Nevertheless religious people are more fearful of the future than ever, and the polarized culture of today is far less tolerant than it was in decades past.

The threat to freedom in the 21st century is no longer from fascism or communism. Instead it's from religious fundamentalism based on hatred of anyone other than themselves, the pursuit of power, and utter contempt for basic human rights. The idea that this can be defeated by individualism and relativism, the two most valued traits in western society today, is naive almost beyond belief. Humanity has been here before. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

The precursors of today’s power hungry barbarians were Epicurus in third-century BCE Greece, and Lucretius in first-century Rome. These two great civilizations were on the brink of decline. Having lost their faith, neither Greece nor Rome were a match for what Bertrand Russell called ‘nations less civilized than themselves but not so destitute of social cohesion’. The barbarians won. They always do. They will again.

The new barbarians are religious fundamentalists who seek to impose a single truth, their truth, on a plural world. Even though many of them claim to be religious, they are actually devotees of the will to grasp, hold on to and wield great power. Defeating them will take the strongest possible defense of freedom, and strong societies have always been moral societies. This does not mean that a strong society must be religious. It is just that, in the words of historian Will Durant, ‘There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.’

Unlike certain others I have no desire to convert anyone to anything. Nor do I believe you have to be religious to be moral. But Will Durant’s point is the challenge we face for our time. There does not appear to be a secular ethic that's capable of sustaining in the long run a society of strong communities and families displaying the characteristics of altruism, virtue, self-restraint, honor, obligation and trust -- virtues we'll need in order to survive.

Historically within a hundred years of a civilization losing its soul, its moral compass, it loses its freedom as well. That has to concern all of us, whatever 'side' of the current debate we identify with.

 

Rabbi Daniel Lapin speaks to this with excellent articulation. (post #3840)

 

Actually it looked nothing like the rocks around it. We do have this magical stuff called concrete...

 

actually, concrete is not magic...it's chemistry

 

You can't possibly really believe that stupid rock article can you? Really?

How do you explain granite? Do you realize that there are different types of rock?

 

I bet if pressed most people would let a strange banker/CEO/politician babysit their kid before a strange priest... You kind of forgot about that one minor scandal...

 

http://www.icr.org/article/1101/

Here's some more geologic evidence of a young earth. Now keep this in mind: You and I clearly have different world views. Which means you and I will intereperet data through our own 'lenses'. This is coming from scientists who share my 'lense'. It's the same information however. The data doesn't change. Facts are still facts. Simply how you look at them changes.

 

Can you read ?

I didn't suggest that " fact " , I was saying that even if it was true , what bearing did that have on the conversation

 

So we can assume you agree with Tooter

 

Ok...

So how was the earth uplifted over the course of a few hundred years? They failed to explain that one. Wouldn't that suggest that we should see mountains that have formed within the last few hundred years? Seems like there would be records of this happening all over the world.

Also, your article claims that the vertical sedimentary layers had to have been uplifted into that orientation wile still soft. How is it that we still have such defined layers after being carved out by the water?
Seems to me like the layers would have blended together still being soft at the time of carving via flood water.

EDIT: what I mean here is that the layers should have blended near the edge of the canyon.

The layers must have been "hard" at the time of carving by my logic.

 

BAHAHA.... So your facts are from and obviously biased source (its in the name) and are that the Grand Canyon was formed in months and not millions of years. So one 5 paragraph article on an obviously biased website are your so called definitive facts. BAHAHA get real. How about something peer reviewed and not just blown out of someones ass and posted up on the ole interweb and called a "fact". Then is peer reviewed and tested by others. Your so called facts might then have a slight bit more validity (not much but a wee bit more). Scientist at least have a process which is called ......drum roll... the scientific method. This article was some guy looking at rocks, scratching his nutz and saying well hell that book says these cant be millions of years so I will make some crap up that suites that narrative and call it a .... fact. From the article ----> "The young-earth creationist interprets these Grand Canyon rocks as having been laid down by the Flood, the Tapeats early in the Flood, and the KaIbab within the next few months. The area was uplifted late in the Flood year, with trapped flood waters carving out the canyon itself while draining off the uplifted continents." <--- So if this happened then when was the last time you saw something like this .... Bueller....Bueller.... What a load of crap lol

Your so called "lense" is called perception. Your perception of the world is your reality, it is .... how you perceive it. It can be anything you wish it to be or that you believe. If you believed the sky was green then it would be green to you. The rest of us might not perceive it the same way yet to you it would be so. You perceive that everything was put here by a divinity. No matter what we say you will not change your perception until you decide to. The mind is a very powerful instrument.


This thread makes me want to poke my eyes out but I just cant stop reading.

 

I think Keith needs to get in on this....


Since he knows rocks

 

The only reason you can discount it so easily is that you don't believe in a biblical flood if I had to guess. The information I have....the bible (done of the oldest proven documents known to us)...says otherwise.

Find me a creationist proving evolution, because from what you classify as 'science' that's what you're asking me to do.

Doesn't make any sense.

 

That'd be helpful. The only way to know without a shadow of a doubt how the Grand Canyon was formed would be to stand there while it happened. EVERYTHING else is best guess.

 

Oh hai...

Actual gay guy here that lives a mere 35 minutes from San Francisco...

Out of all the gay guys and straight guys I know, I see more drug use from the straight people. But the gay's do use drugs (not all) but are less secretive about it... What the problem is that we are a hated minority and often times get "outsiders" intruding our domain with ill intent. I have seen it a few times where some drunk bro's will try picking on some homo just for the fact the perception of every gay guy is a girly dainty floating fairy thing while that's not exactly the case... Also some straight guys will be unfamiliar to the area (there are idiots out there) and start flirting with a very convincing transexual and after some lip locking and groping finds the tucked away stash... I have seen guys go ballistic when he discovers the chick he was about to bang is a dude. Most of the murders of homosexuals are done by straight people who have made a horrifying discovery or who just hate gay people.

I don't find it morally wrong to sleep with the same sex as long as they are of legal age and give consent... Actually pretty offensive to be told I'm morally wrong and because I don't find women sexually attractive that I am going to burn in hell. But I don't intend on trying to be something I'm not.

About gay couples. I'd say 8 out of 10 of the married ones I know (I think I know about 13 married couples and will be attending a lesbian wedding this august) do like to invite a 3rd party to spice things up a bit, Although I have been invited to many. I always decline for I am a huge fan of monogamy and in my relationships it was just the 2 of us...

None of the married couples I know live in squalor. They are all above the average pay grade, home owners and the ones that have kids have a very loving and appropriate household. None of the kids are "bad", None are gay (2 couples have kids that are now 18+) and most are straight "A" students.

See with gay couples, There are no mistakes, there is no unprepared parent... The few that are gay single parents (i already spoke of them earlier about trying to live a straight life) have great normal kids.

BTW, Here's another article about gay marriage statistics.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/sam-sex-divorce-stats-lag-1238/
The verdict that all of them have danced around that this one states... It is too new and there are not yet enough gay marriages to make a valid percentage.

 

Now the biblical flood is proven ?

 

As I said this is your perception and no about of reason, evidence or justification will ever get you to deviate from your beliefs. There is a name for this but I will be nice.

Good Luck with all that but I do not for too long

 

I think the same could be said for you, if I find anything that supports my hypothesis it's discredited because you don't agree with it. Regardless of the credentials of the scientists who wrote it.

 

No idea why we haven't seen uplift of mountains within the last few hundred years?