quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul

And than I believe that rationality and the mind is just one part of a human being. You also have feeling and emotion which I believe are just as valuable and important as mental abilities. You also have the soul and the conscious. They say there are some people who don't have a conscious. But I believe the power of Christ can overcome even that.

[That's nice but you haven't presented any basis to show these belief are true]

St.Paul said you can have all the wisdom in the world but without love you have nothing. You can perform great miracles and make great prophesies but without love it is all worthless. I think I'm starting to understand what he means.

[Pleco stated the obvious]

Now would a God that we can prove rationally be much of a God. Would a God that our human mind could comprehend be much of a God. What a cold impersonal God He would be. Mother Theresa probably new more about God than hundreds of theologians, even though they knew the bible better.

[You should read a bit of Dawkin's meme hypothesis on how religion spreads itself around and the claim that no evidence is the actual evidence prevents people from recognizing religion as the myth it is.]

God is not the Bible. The Bible just gives us minute glimpses of the Omnipotent, Omniscient and most important, the Loving God. If I come back into this forum, it won't be in any kind of a confrontational way. I'm seeing that get's nowhere.

[Re the first part, you have ignored my question. How can you admit lots of the Bible isn't factual yet claim it is factual regarding evolution? 2nd part addressed by Kil]

I believe the God of Christianity is tremendously multifaceted. He even changed His mind once or twice when He was pleaded with by humans. The God of Christianity is mostly about Love. There isn't a lot of love in these forums which is partly my fault. I wish you all the best... If you have a non confrontational question I'll try to answer it in a non-confrontational manner if I get the time Good Luck and as Red Skelton used to say, may God Bless.

[Answered by Kil and a cop out. If you have no answer, you just need to say so. Instead you cry fowl and run away.]

I'll leave you with a quote that's is on Carl Jung's tombstone. It comes directly from the Bible (1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 47)
"The first man(Adam) was from the earth. The second man was from above."

[Is the quote supposed to mean something?]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

Hmmmm...too bad you can't handle vigorous debate and seem to think that the questions and direct approach we have is "not love." I also find it highly funny that you espouse all this "love" stuff but then call Coulter's book "powerful". You are a hypocrite. So long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
Even Christ couldn't convince everyone, that's why they tortured Him and nailed Him to the cross... But something happened after that that caused tens of thousands of buildings called chuches to be built and caused your calender to be changed.

---

Success = Truth? (There are thousands of Mosques, too.)

I appreciate your answers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul

And than I believe that rationality and the mind is just one part of a human being. You also have feeling and emotion which I believe are just as valuable and important as mental abilities. You also have the soul and the conscious. They say there are some people who don't have a conscious. But I believe the power of Christ can overcome even that.

[That's nice but you haven't presented any basis to show these belief are true]

St.Paul said you can have all the wisdom in the world but without love you have nothing. You can perform great miracles and make great prophesies but without love it is all worthless. I think I'm starting to understand what he means.

[Pleco stated the obvious]

Now would a God that we can prove rationally be much of a God. Would a God that our human mind could comprehend be much of a God. What a cold impersonal God He would be. Mother Theresa probably new more about God than hundreds of theologians, even though they knew the bible better.

[You should read a bit of Dawkin's meme hypothesis on how religion spreads itself around and the claim that no evidence is the actual evidence prevents people from recognizing religion as the myth it is.]

God is not the Bible. The Bible just gives us minute glimpses of the Omnipotent, Omniscient and most important, the Loving God. If I come back into this forum, it won't be in any kind of a confrontational way. I'm seeing that get's nowhere.

[Re the first part, you have ignored my question. How can you admit lots of the Bible isn't factual yet claim it is factual regarding evolution? 2nd part addressed by Kil]

I believe the God of Christianity is tremendously multifaceted. He even changed His mind once or twice when He was pleaded with by humans. The God of Christianity is mostly about Love. There isn't a lot of love in these forums which is partly my fault. I wish you all the best... If you have a non confrontational question I'll try to answer it in a non-confrontational manner if I get the time Good Luck and as Red Skelton used to say, may God Bless.

[Answered by Kil and a cop out. If you have no answer, you just need to say so. Instead you cry fowl and run away.]

I'll leave you with a quote that's is on Carl Jung's tombstone. It comes directly from the Bible (1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 47)
"The first man(Adam) was from the earth. The second man was from above."

[Is the quote supposed to mean something?]

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

Hmmmm...too bad you can't handle vigorous debate and seem to think that the questions and direct approach we have is "not love." I also find it highly funny that you espouse all this "love" stuff but then call Coulter's book "powerful". You are a hypocrite. So long.

---

I said it in the Coulter forum and now I will say it here, I'm probably not going to respond to rude, impolite, or derogatory statements. So I won't respond.

---

quote:

---

One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of
winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming;
one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false
pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or
piety

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

Hmmmm...too bad you can't handle vigorous debate and seem to think that the questions and direct approach we have is "not love." I also find it highly funny that you espouse all this "love" stuff but then call Coulter's book "powerful". You are a hypocrite. So long.

---

I said it in the Coulter forum and now I will say it here, I'm probably not going to respond to rude, impolite, or derogatory statements. So I won't respond.

---

If you look up the word hypocrite

quote:

---

One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of
winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming;
one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false
pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or
piety

---

This is neither rude, impolite, or deragotory. It is merely a statement of fact. That you find it other is likely a defense mechanism in order to no longer try to cover up the contradictory statements you have made.

And if you find this post "rude", well, so be it.

edit to fix url

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
The term "can't handle it" is the term that I believe is not to be expected from any one past the teen years. Believe me sir I've been in much tougher debates than anything you've put my way, and in far more difficult mediums than the internet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
Well thank you for bringing that in, but nowhere does it say that the theory is true or correct (that's why its still refered to as a theory). And it bsically goes on to say that the creation of the soul can "not" be observed by science... Christ said in one verse (paraphrasing) Fear not those that can kill the body, fear the One that can kill the soul... Darwin deals with the body, not the soul. And Christ was more concerned with the soul than the body.

---

Yeah, no one ever said anything about evolution and spirituality except for you in another thread about Coulter which you never addressed.

While it doesn't say "evolution is 100% true" in so many words (and no one would say that since some evidence could come along and totally disprove it. Only certain types of people talk in terms of absolutes), the obvious (at least to me) implication was that evolution has much evidence in favor of it and it is not contradictory to the catholic interpretation of the bible as long as the "body" (or the physical) is dealt with and not the spirtual. And since no one tries to use evolution to say anything about spirtuality, this to me implies a tacit approval.

---

quote:

---

GK Paul:
I have to disagree on the last [sentence]. Atheists use the theory evolution to support their beliefs. As Coulter points out, atheists need evolution to be true, but as we see above, Christianity is not affected whether its true or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

GK Paul:
I have to disagree on the last [sentence]. Atheists use the theory evolution to support their beliefs. As Coulter points out, atheists need evolution to be true, but as we see above, Christianity is not affected whether its true or not.

---

Well, I have been agnostic and an atheist for a very long time and I have never heard an atheist trot out evolution as support for the non-existence of God. More often they cite a lack of evidence for the existence of God as the reason they are atheists. It is unnecessary to turn to any scientific theory for that since science says absolutely nothing about Gods existence because it can't. This would be an example of one of Coulters strawman arguments, built on a false dichotomy of her own making. If evolution were overturned tomorrow by a better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, it would still have to reside in the realm of the falsifiable in order to be a theory. The God question and the reason some people choose to believe or not wouldn't be affected by that. ID cannot be a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified and it makes no predictions.

Atheists do not need evolution to be true since God is not the default position if evolution were to fail as a theory.

The only thing evolution does along those lines is cast doubt on a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not a problem for most Christians…

---

quote:

---

Pas ' Ex 1 . Evolution is the only theory mentioned 1n the Sticker, and there is no sticker placed in textbooks related to any other theory, topic, or subject covered in the Cobb County School District's curriculum (Plenge Dep ., p.12,11 14-21; Tippuls Dep , p. $1,11 14-17, Johnston Dep., p 18,11 8-14; Plenge Trial Test ) However, there are other scientific topics taught that have religious implications, such as the theories of gravity=, relativity, and GaliIean heliocentrism (Miller Trial Test. ; McCoy Trial Test, Stickel Trial Test.)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it appears that the Sticker 1s impacting science instruction on evolution Some students have pointed to the language an the Sticker to support arguments that evolution does not exist (McCoy Triad Test) In addition, Dr McCoy testified that the Board's misuse of the word "theory" in the Sticker causes "confusion" in his science class and consequently requires him to spend significantly more time trying to distinguish "fact" and "theory" for his students (Id ) Dr. McCoy stated that some of his students translate the Sticker to skate that evolution is "lust" a theory, which he believes has the effect of diminishing the status of evolution among all other theories (Id )

Some parents who save= the Sticker were alarmed by its contents Plaintiff Kathy Chapman's "alarm bells went off" when she saw the Sticker in her child's textbook, and she immediately felt that the Sticker "came from a religious source" because, in her opinion, religious people are the only people who ever challenge evolution . (Chapman Trial Test ) She viewed the Sticker as promoting the religious view of origin and questioning the science in the textbooks (Id ) Plaintiff Jeff Silver perceived the effect of the Sticker to "open[ ] the door to introducing schools of thought based in faith and religion into science classes ." (Silver Trial Test ) He also believed that the Sticker disparaged evolution and implicitly asked students to think about alternative theories (Id ) Not surprisingly, the Sticker also raised a red flag for Plaintiff Jeffrey Selman because the Sticker singled out evolution and was, in his -17- opinion, obviously religious (Selman Trial Test) Thus, the Sucker is now before this Court for consideration of its constitutionality.

With respect to the teaching of theories of origin in public schools, both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have struck down anti-evolution statutes, policies, and disclaimers as well as balanced treatment legislation See Edwards v . A illard 482 U.S 578,107 S . Ct 2573,96 L Ed 2d 510 (1987) (striking down state statute that forbid the teaching of evolution in public schools unless "creation science" was also taught); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L, Ed 2d 228 (striking down state statute that made it unlawful for teachers to instruct on the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools); Freiler v Tangil2ahoa Parish Bd of Educ ., 1$5 F 3d 337 (5th Cir 1999) (invalidating disclaimer required to be read
to students prior to teaching of evolution because the disclaimer had the primary effect of endorsing a particular religious viewpoint) Daniel v Waters, 515 F 2d 485 (6th Cir 1975) (declaring unconstitutional a statute that required a disclaimer to accompany all theories of origin except the Biblical theory of creation and that precluded the teaching of occult or satanical beliefs of human origin), McLean v Arkansas Bd of Educ . 529 F Supp 1255 (E.D. Ark 1982) (striking down statute that required balanced treatment of creation science and evolution in public schools).

In sum, the Sticker in dispute violates the effects prang of the Lemon test and justice O'Connor's endorsement test, which the Court has incorporated into its Lemon analysis Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the Sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others that they are political insiders. Regardless of whether teachers comply with the Cobb County School District's regulation on theories of origin and regardless of the discussions that actually take place m the Cobb County science classrooms, the Sticker has already sent a message that the School Board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and crest ionrsts. The School Board has effectively improperly entangled itself whiz religion by appearing to take a position Therefore, the Sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Cobb County School Board used the money of taxpayers to produce and place the Sticker in dispute in certain of the Cobb County School District science textbooks This Sticker aids the beliefs of Christran fundamentalists and creationists. In light of the prior interpretation of the Georgia Constitution provision challenged by the Plaintiffs and given the Court's conclusion above that the Sticker violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Court likewise concludes that the Sticker runs afoul of the Georgia Constitution

---

quote:

---

I have to disagree on the last semtence. Atheists use the theory evolution to support their beliefs. As Coulter points out, atheists need evolution to be true, but as we see above, Christianity is not affected whether its true or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
Please read page 200 of "Godless".

---

quote:

---

GK Paul:
Please read page 200 of "Godless". Coulter says William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. She also quotes a zoologist who says Darwinism allows atheists to be intellectually fullfilled.

---

quote:

---

From Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom:
Evolutionary biology (and science in general) does not take credit for what God does. Science does not consider God because it can't. That, my friend, is up to you. Science can only go where it can go. There are limits to what science can do. Some people see the hand of God in the design of man, the world, and the universe. But since there is no way to test for that it must remain outside of the realm of what science can tell us. Simply put, you falsely assign to science a claim to an ability that science itself does not claim. And in doing so, you have set up a false dichotomy.

---