About 99% (just a guess) of all science is a theory. After a theory comes a law. Very little is considered a law in science (Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc). So virtually everything you do or know from science is from a theory. A theory is very close to a law (in most cases). So things that are considered a theory are usually true in virtually every test and can be "as good as" a law.

Certainly the Bible was referenced for law, as were other documents. But the Bible is not the basis for US law. For example, we don't have laws ordering the execution by stoning of disobedient children, adulterous women or homosexuals. Yet these are biblical laws, correct? We also do not have laws that demand the worship of God, forbidding the making of idols and keeping the Sabbath, right? And yet these are a part of the 10 commandments? I don't believe that we have laws against coveting, either. So what are we left with? Don't steel, don't bear false witness ... but are these really "biblical"laws? Aren't they laws that are "common sense" that are found in just about every country on the planet and have been in most civilizations throughout history? So what of our laws is "biblical"?

Again, the Bible was certainly referenced. Yes, many in the early stages of the USA were from a variety of Christian denominations (Quaker, Baptist, etc). But many of the Founding Fathers were deists and this is well substantiated.

well.. i give up. from the first time i posted here since now I had but one goal in my head. bring to light what "theory" means and what "law" means.. not change people's beliefs, no nothing.. that was my sole objective.. Apparently, I failed.

Cheers and enjoy your sciolism,
Aris

I have to agree with Hypergraph here, Smitty. The Constitution was influenced by many different sources. I'm sure it includes the Bible, but many, many other sources were referenced as well. The very idea of Democracy was Classical Greek in origin. Roman law worked its way into much of Europe as well, and the idea of a Representative Republic was pretty darn Roman. Then later, a lot of political ideas which came out of the Enlightenment, which was a clear move away from religious law, towards rational thinking and logic, worked there way into the Constitution. I realize that these are historical tidbits, but it's pretty well documented. I learned about it in High School, so I'm sure anyone could find out more with a simple Google search.

Yes, this thread was about whether creationism should be taught in schools. The reason I think we keep going into the argument about whether evolution is proven, or whether creationism is disproven etc... is because both sides are claiming that the other is not proven, in order to support their point i.e. that creationism should/shouldn't be taught in schools.

I have tried to explain that there is another option, one which is scientific, meaning it is arrived at through observation, logic and reason, and it is called Intelligent Design. Many scientists have concluded that it is not, as Darwinists have claimed, completely irrational to believe that an intelligent designer may have had a hand in the creation of life as we know it. Intelligent Design does not use the Bible as its source of scientific observaton, as do Creationists.

I have a question for each party, which I hope will help them understand that they are not infallible in their understanding.

First to the Creationists: If the Bible is the complete, unaltered, and perfect Word of God, as you claim, why does the geneology of Jesus as presented in Matthew 1:1-17 completely contradict the geneology of Jesus as presented in Luke 3:23-38? To be more specific, how can you claim that the whole Bible is true, when Luke says that Heli was Joseph's father, while Matthew maintains that Jacob was Joseph's father. Okay, Heli was Jacob's nickname... fine. Now go down the list, and explain why Matthew lists nine (9) fewer generations between Zerubbabel and Jesus than Luke? Keep going, it does not end there. Anyone who looks at these two geneologies can see the contradiction. It's obvious and no amount of explaining can make it go away. Just for the record, I actually believe in much of the Bible's teachings, but claiming that it is 100% God's Word, is making God look like a fool. Furthermore, the geneologies are presented as those of Jesus, whereas neither mention Mary, his biological mother, but somehow assume he came through Joseph, who was not supposed to be his biological father. Please explain this.

Now for the evolutionists: You often site Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 as having succesfully demonstrated that life could have emerged by chance from some sort of primordial soup. Whereas, what he did was to form a few amino acids, from chemicals which he know were required to form amino acids. He did not have any reason to believe that amonia would have existed in the alleged primordial soup, yet he used it in his experiment anyway. Moreover, an amino acid is not alive, or even close to being alive. An average protein consists of about 500 amino acids, which must be strung together in a very specific way in order to be useful for a living organism, i.e. inside a cell. Today we know that the cells themselves have mechanisms which assemble these proteins. The chances of such a protein being assembled by chance is about 1 in 10 to the 950th power, that's basically zero. Mind you, a protein is not alive either, it's just a type of molecule which occurs in living organisms. Probability states that it's more likely for a 747 to be formed by a tornado racing through a junk-yard. My question to you is that with the complexity of a single cell, isn't it more likely to assume that something intelligent put it together? If you found a wrist-watch, would you spend your life trying to prove that it assembled itself by chance? A cell is millions of times more complex that a watch, is there any logic in assuming that it formed randomly?

No Larry, your efforts were not in vain. I think you explained it pretty darn well, and you have enlightened me to the important distinction between the terms. Thanks.

I said Creationism is disproven. A fine difference

And another excellent example of quoting out of context, twisting and mixing facts.

No that's not true, but I'll accept your explanation. I was referring to Intelligent Design, not Creationism. Saying intelligent design is disproven is the same as saying God is disproven. As I've explained in previous posts, there's a huge difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism.

I did not intend to quote out of context or twist your meaning, and I apologize if it came off that way. I actually agree that Creationism (i.e. Biblical) is disproven, so I guess we agree on that bit.

Yup, consensus at that point

@Dooley:

Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory either. It just replaced the word "god" by "designer".

And the first cells surely weren't as complex as modern cells. They ENVOLVED and became so complex!
Of course first simple cells were able to be assembled by chance!

This is a knot, to be sure. From what little research I have done in the past, there seem to be several accepted views about why they are so different. The most commonly accepted seems to be that one genealogy is from the father's side (Joseph)and one from the mother's (Mary). The Luke passage is generally considered to be Mary's descent and I think this comes from where it says:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

In verse 23. The phrase "as we supposed" is taken to mean that people thought that Jesus as the son of Joseph, but he was not. Thus, the rest of the line would be Mary's

While this may be commonly held (if I remember correctly) it seems to be a real stretch to me .



This is not really a problem when you consider both the era in which this was recorded, ancient mindsets and all of that. It was very common to list only significant names in a genealogy and to skip names of less significance and who was considered significant would be up to the one compiling the list. Words that are translated "begat" and "son of" and all of that generally are used to show relation and not to be taken literally. So someone may be recorded as the "son of" a particular person and actually be the grandson or great-great grandson.

I am not saying these are acceptable excuses, but this is what little I remember and I really don't want to do the research. I have better things to do .