I thought this was an interesting video. what do you guys think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffX9msPCwZk&eurl=http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/

yooo LM, sorry to be OOT (i cant seem to help it)

from your link i reached this: Crazy Preacher vs Atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOngVCtHRc0&NR=1

that's some style

is that where my link sent you?

Funny and makes several valid points.

Please keep science in the science classroom and religion in another classroom.

I don't think that's the best evolutionists can offer Living Martyr. There is way too much to tell about evolution so it will never fit into only a few minutes clip.

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › Funny and makes several valid points. Please keep science in the science classroom and religion in another classroom.

Oh No! Sounds like our atheist friend Nator is afraid to have religion and science in the same classroom! LOL It's a small world, but there is a lot of room in the class room.


Hey, it's not my fault you failed to open your eyes enough to see that true religion and true science are really not incompatible. In true religion God reveals truth. Science just takes a few thousand years to catch up. But don't worry, we have faith that you will get there!

Have a great day!

Quote: › Oh No! Sounds like our atheist friend Nator is afraid to have religion and science in the same classroom! LOL It's a small world, but there is a lot of room in the class room.

What is the purpose of the science classroom? To teach science. It is not there to teach religion. Period. If you want to teach children religion, then teach it to them in a religion classroom, the home, or the church. But do not teach them religion in the science classroom.

I don't hear your clamoring to introduce religion in the math class. Heck, I don't even hear you clamoring to introduce religion into the non-biological sciences classroom.

So, who is really afraid here? Are you afraid that if children are allowed to learn science without interference that they will no longer need religion? Is that it?

Quote: › Hey, it's not my fault you failed to open your eyes enough to see that true religion and true science are really not incompatible. In true religion God reveals truth. Science just takes a few thousand years to catch up. But don't worry, we have faith that you will get there!

So, is that why it took the church a few hundred years to clear Galileo's name? After all, if religion were really ahead of science, then wouldn't they have known that our solar system was heliocentric before him.

And wouldn't Christianity have known about the germ theory of disease prior to scientists? And wouldn't they have also known about genetics diseases before scientists?

If in true religion, God reveals truth, then how can you explain that in every one of those instances, science found the truth before it was revealed?

And how exactly can you explain the fact that geology completely invalidates the notion of a global flood?

Really, I had hoped you could come up with better than this pathetic little jab.

By the way, if you have had the truth revealed to you, then why not take a stab at a reasonable explanation for the formation of angular unconformities with a flood model? I'm sure that having had the truth revealed to you, that my arguments from modern geology should stand no chance.

For the sake of the argument: let's ignore the point if religion belongs in science class and look at it like this:

Suppose you would decide to teach religion in science class, shouldn't you teach all religions then? At least all the big religions like Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism?

I can't see how you would be able to defend one religion over another?

Back in high school, our Bio teacher had a very wise, and very evasive, way of avoiding the problem of the "religion/science" debacle.

He said this: "Some of you have, for whatever reason, beliefs that differ from what our textbook might say about how life began. This is entirely fine: it is your choice as people to believe what you want.'
"But as a representative of the scientific community I am bound to tell you that most members of the community support this theory..."

In reflection I think what he said was quite brilliant: giving people their own free space to practice religion while at the same time affirming the statement of a recognized social ivory tower: namely, the scientific community.

Quote: › In reflection I think what he said was quite brilliant: giving people their own free space to practice religion while at the same time affirming the statement of a recognized social ivory tower: namely, the scientific community.

I agree.

Speaking of this, something jumped out to me recently, while considering the impact of the scientific community.

The scientific community is constantly searching for answers, why things are the way they are, and as such, would be pre-inclined to give something with a humanistic explanation, as opposed to a deific one. In layman's terms, the scientific community may be slanted towards evolution, regardless of the facts, because it discredits them to say otherwise, as doing so says "you didn't need us for that answer after all."

At the same time, the religious community is constantly searching for God, why things are the way they are, and as such, would be pre-inclined to give something with a deific explanation, as opposed to a humanistic one. In layman's terms again, the religious community may be slanted towards creation, regardless of the facts, because it discredits them to say otherwise, as doing so says "maybe it's not so amazing after all."

Please, don't fight over this, although if you see a problem with this observation feel free to say so.

I find an aspect kind of funny here.I have been a Sunday school teacher and one of the thing I do is use magic to grab the attention of the kids. - it has gotten some flack over the years but the adults that watch me do it always like it. they see how I do it and how I get the attention of the kids. and as a result get the Message out to the kids. Thing is , and this is I am sharing in this thread, a big chunk of what I do is science experiments without explaining the science but instead using the outcome to tell the story I want to tell. in doing this I have come to realize that science does this all the time. the need to have a concrete answer right now, has led to more then a few wrong answers more then once.

Helen:

Quote: › in doing this I have come to realize that science does this all the time. the need to have a concrete answer right now, has led to more then a few wrong answers more then once.

Indeed science made many mistakes and wrong assumptions at times, outright fabrication at times even, but the funny thing is: science corrects itself all the time, slowly getting closer to the truths of nature all the time. Science does often come up with some pretty ugly truths: we are a relatively young kind of animal on the third planet around an average star in a corner of an insanely huge universe: it is not about us at all, we just make a tiny part of it during a short moment in time. But I still love my existence anyway!
And I agree: heavens sounds, well, heavenly. But if it isn't so it isn't so.

Then again: are you not all picking the fruit of this insignificant science at this very moment? I would not only be able to communicate with you: I would be dead by now without science. My son would never been born. Mankind would not know medicine, math, agriculture, an endless list.

Is evolution true? Science will never be 100% sure, but we have two scenario's: in one an almighty Being created all in 6 days, us included, of which science finds no evidence whatsoever, and the God that did this is more complex than the universe He created while we assume that He has always existed and that the simpler universe can not.
The other tells us that the apes and us humans have ancestors in common and that we come from a long evolved line of life. The spark in the very beginning of life? We don't know.

And "don't know" does not mean "so God must have done it." It means: "we don't know, yet."

Greetings Harrie,

I find your last post most interesting. However you might also recall that the "private interpretation" of the creation being done or performed in 6, 24 hour days is found nowhere in the Bible. The term day in many places has reference to periods of time which may be seen as extended periods of time.

Therefore be it known that the six creative periods may represent six creative periods of unspecified time duration.

All plant and animal life were placed on earth in their respective orders. Man was not found upon the earth. The Lord created man "after his own image and in his own likeness". We are not told exactly where and when he was created nor when he was placed upon the earth. The creation of Eve is not given in detail. My understanding is that the account regarding the creation of the man and woman is simply figurative so far as the man and the woman are concerned. The point is that that we are wonderfully created in God's image.

P.S. If you find your DNA and the ape's DNA to be a perfect match, then you are allowed to go ape over that discovery!

Greetings Revelations Too,

Quote: › Therefore be it known that the six creative periods may represent six creative periods of unspecified time duration.

Why does the Bible not speak of 'period' instead of day? And why is the changing of light into dark mentioned during such a period if it isn't a day?
How long do you personally think such a period would have taken?

Quote: › The point is that that we are wonderfully created in God's image.

That would mean that God looks human? What race is God in that case?

Quote: › If you find your DNA and the ape's DNA to be a perfect match, then you are allowed to go ape over that discovery!

Haha, well, if I had a choice I rather be related to dolphins than to poop throwing chimps, but alas... we can't choose our relatives

Dear Harrie,

As I stated, the term "day" does not necessarily imply 24 hours in our time of rekoning. You asked how long might these creative periods have been? I do not know. this could easily have been thousands of years for each period.

You also Asked: "That would mean that God looks human? What race is God in that case? "

More correctly stated, my answer would be that "man looks like God", for the scripture so states that man was created in His own image.

Christ taught us to " Matt.:5-48 "Be ye therefore perfect, evan as your Father in heaven is perfect"

I think that perhaps the better question might possibly be stated "What race is man in that case?"

God is not created in mans image, but man is created in the image of God.

The scriptures also clearly teach us that we may be come joint heirs with Christ.

The scriptures also teach us in 2 Peter 1:4 that we may "become partakers of the divine nature". I hope the above gives some clarification to your questions.

Ahh, your right we cannot choose our relatives, but we can work to achieve the measure and stature and fullness of Christ and come unto our Father as He has shown.