Evolution Schmevolution, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news90669206.html

http://www.physorg.com/news90669206.html

Perfect. So when"s the next chance to catch that series of Daily shows? Should be hilarious.

John Dominic Crossan, the author, when on book tour a few decades ago, was discussing his new work on the historical Jesus. When asked about how he resolved the discrepancies between what he'd learned historically and what liturgical tradition taught, he suggested (maybe even recommended) keeping the liturgical Jesus separate from the historical Jesus.

Conceivably, we could keep the liturgical Creation as a separate and traditional body of thought.

(Personally, my religion and science have no differences. Science simply helps us understand what the creative entity, assuming there is one, brought into being. When I learn of, say, error-detecting and correcting codes that were "invented" several billion years ago (DNA replication), and synovial fluid (skeletal joint lubricant) that increases its viscosity with pressure, something that, afaik, lubricant chemists have not yet learned to duplicate, I feel rather awe-struck, wondering whether there's a guiding "intelligence". Nevertheless, the "it just happened" school of thought (so to speak) seems to be prime.

On occasion, I say that modern computers would permit synthesis of arbitrarily-complex epicycles to satisfy the geocentric believers.

As soon as Bush's cone-headed buddies were kicked out, science was let in again. Being a poiltician merely requires a good speaking voice and a good knowledge of useful soundbites. Actual intelligence is not required.

Evolution theory has resulted from Science.
Creationist theory has resulted from Religion.

Regardless of whether evolution ends up being proven wrong or not. It should be accepted in the meanwhile, simply because it has resulted from science rather than from religion. I follow science for the truth, not religion, because science is capable of changing, whilst religion is not.

If anyone criticises evolution based upon their 'religious views' rather than based upon scientific research they have done or are referencing. Then their criticisms do not count, just like the views of a random guy down your local pub, do not count.

"The question of whether there exists a CREATOR and RULER of the universe has been answered in the affimative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed!" (Charles Darwin, "Origin Of The Species")!
E.L.Earnhardt

EL - And your point is?????

The point I thought to be self-evident. The "Evolutionists" are objecting to any study of "Creation" that includes intelligence and are citing "Darwin" as their authority. I thought they should know Darwin is on the other SIDE!
E.L.Earnhardt

E L Earnhardt. Possibly you are referring to the lie told by Darwin's christian housekeeper that he claimed to believe in god on his death bed? What a traitorous old witch she was.

Then again, Darwin knew less than 1% of what we now know about evolution. It is like asking the Wright Brothers about a Moon rocket.

Answered yes, but not proven.

I myself could provide an answer, that 'I' am the creator/ruler of the universe. There, that's an answer, but do I have any proof of my answer? - No.

So are either 'answers' validated? - No.

1) Scientists do not object to "any study of Creation". They only object to a SCIENTIFIC study of creation because, and very simply put, creation is NOT scientific. THAT IS THE POINT and should be self-evident.

2) "Darwin" is not the authority. The scientific EVIDENCE to support the Theory of Evolution is the authority. This is another basic concept that should be self-evident.

3) Well, Bryon Richards said it best.

4) How does that one quote 'prove' Darwin to be, how you say, "on the other side"? Do you have a page number so I can refernce it in the book? Sorry I'm lazy and it's a big book.

ChiChi

Atheist scientists unlike Einstein don't believe in a Creator. After all science is above all that. It is above God!
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --