Brazzil

Just when I start to think of Brazil of a nation of selfish, jealous people about to sell out to Fidel Castro, I see something right about them! Pro-creation, pro-life still. Conservativism is not yet dead in Brazil. Looks like an area where Rede Globo forgot to manipulate Brazilian society into the Communist mentality!

If such rubbish, senseless, absurd and irrational ideas ever take place in schools here in Brazil, I will certainly seek political asylum and defect to, say, France, for instance!!!! Only in the minds of puny politicians like Rio’s, could such a stupid idea find any grounds!!! I certainly don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but if those existed, those corrupt politicians would have their places well reserved in Hell!!!

I strongly believe that creationism is by far a more reasonable scientific concept than the absurid idea of evolution. Actually, all the most important scientists this world has ever had, including the greatest of all, Sir Isaac Newton, were Christians and strongly believe in the biblical account of the creation.

Montesquieu, the father of legal sociology, uttered these words in his very first comments on 'The Spirit of Laws':

“Laws, in their most general meaning, are the necessary relations derived from the nature of things… Therefore, those who assert that a blind fatality might have produced the various effects we behold in this world are guilty of a very great absurdity; for can anything be more absurd than to pretend that a blind fatality could be productive of intelligent beings?

“God is related to the universe as Creator and Preserver. The laws by which He has created all things are those by which He preserves them. He acts according to these rulers because He knows them; He knows them because He has made them; and He made them because they are relative to His wisdom and power

“Particular intelligent beings may have laws of their own making, but they also have some which they never made… To say that there is nothing just or unjust but what is commanded or forbidden by positive [human] laws is the same as saying that before the describing of a circle all the radii were not equal.

“We must therefore acknowledge the existence of relations of justice antecedent to positive law, and by which they are established… If there are intelligent beings that have received a benefit of another being, they ought to be grateful; if one intelligent being has created another intelligent being, the latter ought to continue in its original state of dependence.

“But the intelligent world is far from being so well governed as the physical one. For though the former has also its laws which of their own nature are invariable, yet it does not conform to them so exactly as the physical world. This is because on the one hand intelligent human beings are of finite nature and consequently liable to error; and, on the other, their nature requires them to be free agents. Hence they do not steadily conform to their primitive laws; and even those of their own instituting they frequently infringe.

“Man, as a physical being, is, like other bodies, governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly transgresses these laws established by God and changes even the ones in which he himself has established. Then, he is left to his own direction, though he is a limited being and subject like all finite intelligences to ignorance and error. And even the imperfect knowledge he has, he loses it as a sensible creature when is hurried away by a thousand of impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator. For this reason, God has reminded him of his obligations by the law of [the Judaeo-Christian] religion.”

When man is made controller of his own evolution by means of the state, the state is made into the new absolute. Hegel, in accepting social evolution, made the state the new god of being. The followers of Hegel in absolutizing the state are Marxists, Fabians, and other socialists… In brief, God and His transcendental law are dropped in favor of a new god, the state. Evolution thus leads not only to revolution but also to totalitarianism. Social evolutionary theory, as it came to focus in Hegel, has made the state the new god of being. Biological evolutionary thinking, as it has developed since Darwin, has made revolution the great instrument of this new god and the means to establishment of this new god, the scientific socialist state

Okay guys... I'm afraid we are completely missing the point here, and in part it's my fault, because I too have written a biased opinion, based of course, on what I believe to be right. The point is that such beliefs and religion should be completely set apart from formal teaching, which is the state's responsibility. As the article says, this will only confuse the student's understanding of things. How can such a deep questioning, as the source of life on Earth, be based on a single book like the bible???

Funny thing is….I graduated from high-school in Brasil before immigrating overseas long ago. As far as I remember, evolution is what is taught in publics schools where creation is reserved for catholic schools.

If you challenge science in contrast to any religion, I believe your logic is faulty. We can discuss this topic until we are all blue in the face. Let’s keep religion and state in their own place and mutually exclusive!

Being catholic, I “choose” to believe in Christ, however, I do not discard science and neither do I believe in the superiority of my faith over any other religion. So as long as religion is used to help the plea of men rather then demonize other people in light of war, then it is acceptable.

Science substantially explains our surroundings were religion is based on intangibles. On the other hand, one must keep an opened mind to phenomena that we yet do not understand. As such, I find this a good compromise even though it seems contradictory, but I can live with it.

Good day.

Can creationism come up with something llike this??? I doubt...

The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilization escape via a "wormhole" into a parallel universe? The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology. Here's how to do it
Michio Kaku

The author is professor of theoretical physics at City University of New York. This article is adapted from his book "Parallel Worlds" (Allen Lane)
The universe is out of control, in a runaway acceleration. Eventually all intelligent life will face the final doom—the big freeze. An advanced civilization must embark on the ultimate journey: fleeing to a parallel universe.

Full Article:

http://prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php.6701.html

What's so funny to me is that the article just before this from january 31 is one about the valley of the dinosaurs! What's it going to be people!? You can't have your dinosaurs and creationism at the same time! That's not possible is it?

The bible is a book written by man... I don't believe in man. Man takes things and twists them to serve his purpose. Give me the valley of the dinosaurs anytime.... that is real proof of the evolution of our planet.

True: Evolution is a theory based on facts, and as such it is continuously being refined, tested and debated. It is no dogma.
Creationism, on the other hand, is a dogmatic myth based on some ancient literary works, themselves a rehashing of some older mythologies [Gilgamesh, for one]. It is unrefinable, untestable and undebatable. "The Book" is the fact.
And the fact is that "The Book" is not factual: it is a hodgepodge of inconsistancies, visions, delirious rants with a few cute narratives thrown in for good measure --hardly the stuff of sound minds .
Facts: Christians were able to seriously undermine and eventually destroy the Roman Civilization. After a thousand years of Dark Ages, they tried again, with the Inquisition, to stop the new life, the Re-Naissance of 16th century Humanism and then the Enlightenment. And they are at it again: they're fighting life anew.
Genesis, that's how far they've gotten. They're still trying to understand how their God symbollically killed his favorite "creatures", Adam and Eve. "The Book" is their "Book of the Dead."

So much of Brasil is divided already into the "Have's" and "Have Not's." In some sense the same as many countries. All over the world there is a struggle going on between fundamentalism and a more"enlightened" view of this life and the next. Unfortunately the same Fundamentalists who espouse Creationism are so often the same voices that promote intollerance of others and denial of human rights to those who do not fit into their Bible / Koran view of the world and how people should should live.

If scientific theories on the origins of man are not taught in the context of a world class education system in Brasil, then Evangelicals and some neo-conservative Roman Catholic churches will be allowed to form a society based on a a narrow, literal interprtation of scripture which keeps the "Have Not's" in a dangerously deprived mindset such as the Islamic fundamentalists have tried to impose on countries of the Middle East.

The issues facing Brasil such as these do not occur in a South American vacuum, but in the context of dynamics occuring all around the world. The resurgence of fundamentalism in religion, politics, and economics and all it brings with it is happening all around the world. I have not seen much good in any of it.

You substitute "fundamentalist" for "militant". One can be an automotive fundamentalist by collecting and driving Model T Fords. Fundamentalist means appreciating the origin of a given interest. Your religious bigotry is showing! Your "have not" tripe is straight from Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Castro.

Sincerely,
A proud Fundamentalist

Referring to the above poster "A Proud Fundamentalist." If being a fundmentlist is so great then maybe all the religious fundamentalist (arab, israeli, christian) should all go live somewhere together where the rest of the balanced people (moderate in religion and life) do not bother them with their moderate views. I would love to see what would happen there!!!! Peaceful harmony, hahaha.

There is nothing "balanced" nor "moderate" about your religious bigotry. There is a place where Arab, Jewish and Christian fundamentalists live in peace. It's called the United States of America!

This is what I have to offer. Take it or leave it...

1) The Geocentric Universe: This is a good starting point for the “paradigm shift” argument I want to make. The model of a geocentric universe (that is, one in which the Earth is at the center of the universe, and everything moves around it) is one that almost anyone can relate to. Forget for a moment all you have learned and know about gravitation, orbits, rockets, and so on. Imagine then the following experiment: you will stand outside for a few days, looking up to the sky, from a stationary point. What you will see is a repetitious succession of events, and you could most certainly propose a model for what you see: our village is stationary, and everything revolves around our village. You feel good, the world makes sense, and your model actually explains a lot of what you see (the succession of night and day, for example). However, as science (and scientists) change, someone starts collecting evidence that shines a different light on the issue – that is, all of the things you experiment on the “stationary village” model can be explained by moving the reference point to the sun and making our little world move!!! Of course, at this point all this new theory has to offer are evidences that, when interpreted a certain way, lead to concluding that, well, the village moves. But the scale of this change in paradigm is so huge, that you can barely comprehend it. So, you throw the heretic in jail, and make the bad guy swallow his words. But as technology evolves, and more evidence is collected, and people actually experience this novel idea (through space travel, for example), it looks absurd how someone could ever think otherwise. That’s a “paradigm shift”.
2) Evolution: That’s a tough one to crack. Although a lot of evidence exists that, when interpreted in a certain way, supports the theory, the sheer magnitude of the time scale that such events took place is simply mind boggling! Because our current understanding of physics and the available technology do not allow us to move either ahead or back in time, we cannot send something “out there” to probe it. Even the best example of environmental pressure leading to selection, which is the experimentally verified incidence of drug resistance in microorganisms, fails to yield a new “species” (the resistant strain is equal to the parent strain in all respects, but in the way it responds to the drug. More or less like two people, one being allergic to nuts, while the other isn’t). So, we find ourselves in a similar position as the hypothetical villager above. We cannot accept the things that we cannot comprehend, and, yet, in a contradictory way, we accept the concept of God, Whom we will never comprehend.
3) A New “Paradigm of Reconciliation”: Is it possible to reconcile these two very different kinds of faith, that is, the faith in Science and the faith in God? One interesting way is placing “creation” and “evolution” in two different levels – the former as a physical phenomenon, and the latter as a metaphysical one. “Creation” would then be the spark of self-awareness that completely distinguishes the human from the animal; “evolution” would be the physical phenomenon. Intelligence, as “the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience”, is a consequence of this self-awareness. Would this paradigm survive the discovery of self-awareness elsewhere in the Universe? Would we be ready to accept that other self-aware, intelligent beings might have been “created” elsewhere? I think so. It has Universal value, at least until the next big “Paradigm Shift”.


Have a great day everyone!

"There is a place where Arab, Jewish and Christian fundamentalists live in peace. It's called the United States of America!"

Not so fast....Arabs as we speak are being profiled all over the US. Don't forget the anti-semitic "white groups" either. Finally, ho soon are we going to forget the US concentration camps of WWII. The ingredients are in place, and it could happen all over again.

Don't forget, religion has always and always will be used to demonize other peoples!

First, public schools in Brasil do not teach anything. So I would not get too excited about the seperation of church and state. Brasil is still a deeply Catholic country, although this is rapidly changing, expecting a public school teacher to teach the science behind creation is almost laughable in a country where even succesful people will travel hundreds of miles to offer chicken legs and a candle to some forgotten Saint. Private schools on the other hand are pretty damn good, and there parents have a choice when they choose and pay for a school, and in the end, it should be the parents who get to make the ultimate decision on this difficult subject.

Just checked in and saw myself called a Leftist, Communist, Marxist, Red, Hypocrite Bigot Trixter All I did was write one posting. Amazing, considering this other stuff is coming from someone proclaiming that Fundamentalists "live in peace." Of course that is correct. Fundamentalists live in peace with EACH OTHER in any number of countries or govermental systems. Problem is they don't seem to be able to live in peace with anyone who does not march to their tune. Whether it be simply juvenile name calling or stoning and beheading - one extreme to another - they often make their point by trampling over the sciences and sadly in some cases human rights all the while claiming to be the true messengers of God.

The people of Brasil seem to have a great capacity to live together and serve as a model in some ways to less tolerant societies. The missionary activities of the Portugese Roman Catholic clergy failed over hundreds of years to supress the Brasilian capacity for joy, celebration, and a great curiousity about life. The aggressive tactics these days of Evangelical fundamentalists probably won't get much farther.

Brasilians, like most people, have the capacity, when given the opportunity for a decent education, to live peacefully with a Creator God and Charles Darwin. The only trixters are those who demand that it must be one or the other. Life is so much greater than that both here and most likely in the hereafter.

It is false to say that the christin churches ( both catholic and protestant) were against the expansion of science. The truth is that since the middle ages the catholic church has suported science. Galileu is a typical example. He was suported by the catholic church and was punished when his findings were to far ahead for the church to accept. This though does not change the fact that he researched unde the patronage of the catholic church. The protestants were also big suporters and it is not suprising that isaac newton was a christian since the christian church ussualy viewed science as being something positive. What the chrstina churches did at times was chalange the scientists on their findings saying that it went against christian PHILOSOPHY. It probably would surprise many people that some of these chalenged findings after further research were found to be false and thanks to these chalenges were corrected whcih lead the way to new discoveries that helped mankind. Please listen to "origins of science in the age of faith" by Thomas Lessl that can be found at
http://www.mises.org/Media/Med...tion=Alpha

Do you really think science could have survived without the consent and support of the christians churches who held such resources and power during history? ( and i mean as far back as before the renaissance). Do take the time to listen to MR Lessl and discover how this debate of science versus state is stronger today than ever before. you may just conclude that our age contains more restraints than the middle ages for example regarding both religious and scientific freedom.

Florida Judge Orders Bibles to Carry Anti-Creationism Sticker!

Bible sticker Unconfirmed

Sources report that a State of Florida Appellate Court Judge is about to hand down a ruling that will require all Bibles in the state to carry a warning sticker. The proposed sticker reads: "Warning this book promotes the dogma of creationism. Because experts disagree about the scientific basis of creationism, it and the rest of the material in this book should not be taken on faith. One should approach this material with an open mind and study it critically." The Florida religious community has greeted the news of the expected ruling with pleasure and is anxious to comply.

"This is a real victory for the faithful of America." Exclaimed Dr. James Dobson of the Christian organization Focus on the Family. "We have been witness to the steady erosion of the separation between church and state and I am glad to see that something is being done about it. I have long been a fan of textbook labeling and it only makes sense that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I have received an advance copy of the sticker and we are printing then up for distribution across the country."

The White House refused to comment publicly on the matter as it is still before the judge, but the President is said to be pleased by the expected ruling. "The President, while himself a religious man, realizes that not everyone shares his beliefs." Explained White House spokesman Ben Lion, anonymously on deep background. "America is a secular country and we need to be careful not to try and impose our beliefs on the heathen savages that we are forced share our county with."

The final ruling is expected to come down in the next few days. Court watchers believe that the court will give Churches and Bible publishers plenty of time to comply with the new labeling requirements. There is no sign of an appeal to the Supreme Court on the matter, as both sides seem to be pleased with the expected compromise.

Once again, the creationists are threatening the science standards of our public schools. For 2 ½ years, Cobb County, Ga., has had a disclaimer inserted in their biology textbooks stating that evolution is just a theory and should be treated as such. In Dover, Penn., the school board wants science teachers to talk about an “alternative” theory of creation called Intelligent Design.
The argument made in Dover and Cobb County is that Intelligent Design is a theory on the origin of life just as evolution is, and therefore should be given equal time in any public classroom addressing this topic. However, this argument is based on the misuse of the term “theory” as it applies to scientific understanding. In layman’s term, a theory is an idea or thought that might or might not be true. There is usually little or no basis for coming to this “theory,” only a conjecture or feeling that it may be true. Individuals may use this definition in such situations as “I have a theory on that.” However, in the scientific community, a theory is a broad generalization that explains a group of facts or observations. A theory has explanative powers that take the scientific evidence and gives us a broader understanding of the phenomenon under study. In this sense, it is not a hunch or idea but a well thought out explanation based on observations and results from multiple and independent experimentation. Some of the most well-known concepts in science, accepted with very little controversy by both scientists and laymen, are theories; such as gravity, quantum physics, existence of atoms, germ theory, etc.
In the biological sciences community, evolutionary theory is not under controversy as well. It has been accepted as a valid explanation of many organismal relationships, similarities and behaviors. Evolutionary theory is a binding force in biology that can explain major events, relationships and biological phenomena that could not be explained by any other means. As Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary biologist of the 20th century, once said “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
In its simplest terms, evolution means changes in gene frequencies within a population. This is an easily observable phenomenon. Those traits (controlled by genes) that increases an organism’s reproductive output will increase in frequency within a population, while those traits not increasing an organism’s reproductive output will decrease in frequency. This concept within evolution is easily testable using a wide variety of organisms, and has been practiced through the centuries in improving crop yields and livestock. Evolutionary theory also states that all species are descendants of a common ancestor. Evolutionary theory does not state that man evolved from apes, but instead that man and the chimpanzee have a recent, common ancestor. We can also test this by examining the fossil record, and looking at the similarities in species structure, embryology and biochemistry. So far, all evidence supports this concept.
Once again, the creationists are threatening the science standards of our public schools. For 2 ½ years, Cobb County, Ga., has had a disclaimer inserted in their biology textbooks stating that evolution is just a theory and should be treated as such. In Dover, Penn., the school board wants science teachers to talk about an “alternative” theory of creation called Intelligent Design.
The argument made in Dover and Cobb County is that Intelligent Design is a theory on the origin of life just as evolution is, and therefore should be given equal time in any public classroom addressing this topic. However, this argument is based on the misuse of the term “theory” as it applies to scientific understanding. In layman’s term, a theory is an idea or thought that might or might not be true. There is usually little or no basis for coming to this “theory,” only a conjecture or feeling that it may be true. Individuals may use this definition in such situations as “I have a theory on that.” However, in the scientific community, a theory is a broad generalization that explains a group of facts or observations. A theory has explanative powers that take the scientific evidence and gives us a broader understanding of the phenomenon under study. In this sense, it is not a hunch or idea but a well thought out explanation based on observations and results from multiple and independent experimentation. Some of the most well-known concepts in science, accepted with very little controversy by both scientists and laymen, are theories; such as gravity, quantum physics, existence of atoms, germ theory, etc.
In the biological sciences community, evolutionary theory is not under controversy as well. It has been accepted as a valid explanation of many organismal relationships, similarities and behaviors. Evolutionary theory is a binding force in biology that can explain major events, relationships and biological phenomena that could not be explained by any other means. As Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary biologist of the 20th century, once said “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
In its simplest terms, evolution means changes in gene frequencies within a population. This is an easily observable phenomenon. Those traits (controlled by genes) that increases an organism’s reproductive output will increase in frequency within a population, while those traits not increasing an organism’s reproductive output will decrease in frequency. This concept within evolution is easily testable using a wide variety of organisms, and has been practiced through the centuries in improving crop yields and livestock. Evolutionary theory also states that all species are descendants of a common ancestor. Evolutionary theory does not state that man evolved from apes, but instead that man and the chimpanzee have a recent, common ancestor. We can also test this by examining the fossil record, and looking at the similarities in species structure, embryology and biochemistry. So far, all evidence supports this concept.
Evolutionary theory meets the criteria of a scientific theory: that is, it can be rigorously tested through scientific experimentation. All hypotheses making predictions about evolution can be tested and evidence collected will either support or refute those hypotheses. Therefore, evolutionary theory is appropriate for a science classroom. Alternative explanations to the origin of life, such as Intelligent Design, cannot be tested experimentally. We cannot test for the presence of a superior being or intelligent creator that had complete or partial control over the existence of life. Simply saying organisms are so complex that evolution could not possibly explain it, is not a valid test of Intelligent Design just as disproving evolution (which has yet to be done) cannot be reason to scientifically support Intelligent Design. Therefore, any non-scientific explanation of our origin does not belong in a science classroom.
In summary, it is the misuse of the term theory, and the masquerading of Intelligent Design as a science when in actuality it is a religious point of view, that has given support for the “equal time compromise.” But we can have no compromise if we allow our science to be eroded away by the influx of pseudoscientific thinking and thereby hinder our children’s understanding of science and their ability to compete in a global society.
Evolutionary theory meets the criteria of a scientific theory: that is, it can be rigorously tested through scientific experimentation. All hypotheses making predictions about evolution can be tested and evidence collected will either support or refute those hypotheses. Therefore, evolutionary theory is appropriate for a science classroom. Alternative explanations to the origin of life, such as Intelligent Design, cannot be tested experimentally. We cannot test for the presence of a superior being or intelligent creator that had complete or partial control over the existence of life. Simply saying organisms are so complex that evolution could not possibly explain it, is not a valid test of Intelligent Design just as disproving evolution (which has yet to be done) cannot be reason to scientifically support Intelligent Design. Therefore, any non-scientific explanation of our origin does not belong in a science classroom.
In summary, it is the misuse of the term theory, and the masquerading of Intelligent Design as a science when in actuality it is a religious point of view, that has given support for the “equal time compromise.” But we can have no compromise if we allow our science to be eroded away by the influx of pseudoscientific thinking and thereby hinder our children’s understanding of science and their ability to compete in a global society.
.

Typical Leftist Hypocrisy
Written by Guest on 2005-02-01 18:25:02There is nothing "balanced" nor "moderate" about your religious bigotry. There is a place where Arab, Jewish and Christian fundamentalists live in peace. It's called the United States of America!

The only reason they live in peace is becasue they are not alone and have sensible moderate people keeping them in check. My last statement stands. Put them all together, alone somewhere and watch them kill each other.

Has anyone else listend to Mr Lessl lecture posted by "history"? I found it fascinating.

When schools teach that “… modern humans are the result of an evolutionary process that involves random mutations in our genetic material …”, they are teaching religion. Only, they are not teaching a religion based on reason and faith. They are teaching a religion based on contradictions. The religion the scientific community teaches is that “randomness” is a cause of mutations. But this religion is false. “Randomness” is not a cause of anything. “Randomness” is a word used to describe lack of knowledge of the actual specific causes.

It seems Brazilians know enough to reject scientific religious dogma when it is unreasonable, and based on contradictions.

The traditional religious (i.e Christianity) explanations are at a minimum, reasonable, and not based on contradictions.

OMG. Religious faith is just that, a belief, not a "reasonable explantion." When you die, the truth of our existence may be revealed to you or maybe nothing happens at all and we are just worm food. Faith is just the chance you take. It may or may not pay off. If you could die and come back and let us all know the meaning and the origin our existence that would be great! Then again, if you did come back and we'd all just think you were a crazy freak. That's the chance we take.

“randomness” is NOT a cause of mutations; Mutations are random. To a certain extent, I can accept your argument that evolutionary science is some how religious, however, I disagree that it teaches "randomness." When fossils are found and DNA is decoded that is not random or false. Science is not based on this "randomness." Mother Nature is the one that is random. Random in choosing whose turn it is to die, if today is a good day for a storm, an earthquake or a good day to to change a gene in a monkey's DNA. Science is the best tool we have to understand why those seemingly random events occur.

When pseudo-scientists act as educators of the public (writing in news papers, or the public schools) they nearly always expose their bias against traditional religion. And they expose their ignorence of both science and traditional religion. A distribution of events (mutations) is often described of as “random”. However, such a description does not provide any scientific insight to the general public. In the popular press, as in the public schools, “randomness” is synonymous with “causeless”. Yet all clear thinking scientists know that each event (or mutation) occurred at a specific time and had a specific cause. To say that nothing caused an event or mutation is scientific nihilism and ludicrous. To say that God caused the event is scientifically plausible at a minimum.

What purpose or function did partially developed sexual organs serve?

Is the universe ordered and unified, thereby allowing for the declaration and proclamation of general natural laws? Or is the universe the result of a Big Bang, and so in flux, making it impossible to find any pattern or unity in nature, let alone any natural laws on which to base the basic assumptions upon which the scientific endeavour rests?

How could science exist were the universe what evolutionists say it is? Can one make generalisations from particulars in a universe where facts have no relation to each other, merely being the random bumping of atoms into each other without any rhyme or reason?

If all there is is matter in motion, then what are we to make, for example, of the random chemical reactions that are occurring in the grey matter in our heads and resulting in our thoughts? One person's matter in motion in the issue under discussion results in his being designated a "fundamentalist", while another's equally random and meaningless matter in motion results in his being placed in the "moderate" camp. Both positions are merely the results of matter in motion -- and nothing more. And of course the distinctions made between these two cases of matter in motion are themselves the result of the random, chance chemical reactions that have occurred in our grey matter. And this grey matter is nothing more than meaningless matter in meaningless motion itself. Hmmm. We seem to be a man made out of water in a bottomless, shoreless ocean trying to use a ladder made out of water to climb out of this water.

Science has to make one huge, gigantic, enormous assumption before it begins its endeavour. And that assumption is that tomorrow will be like today. But on what basis does science hold this assumption. Is it on an assumption that is based on the Christian view of reality, with a natural order that is providentially sustained by God? Or is it on an assumption that is based on the belief that there is no meaning, order or unity in this so-called universe of ours, each fact having no relation to any other?

Hmmm. Knowing the truth they suppress it in unrighteousness...

Talking about partially developed genitals... let me ask a more superficial question, and that is why would it be that nature or deity for that matter would keep producing human beings who essentially are homosexuals (male and female) or transsexuals, this throughout all lands, cultures, times and histories of the world if they (these queer persons) apparently do not serve in any way to fulfill the main key purpose of humanity which is to disseminate and propagate its own kind? How would this relate to the fact that most the mistics, the shamans or priests, etc. and very often were single and gay in societies throughout the world? -PB

Can someone give me 5 arguments pro creationism? I lose my train of thought after reading through all the scientific terms I don't understand.