littlebillie

"The fact the bible doesnt mention female offspring of Eve doesnt bother me as women were not as highly regarded as men in those times." So, if the Bible is the given Word of God, does that mean God also holds women in lower esteem? Or if it's the inspired Word, does this mean that the men who wrote got some of their personal feelings in there as well?

firstpusk - could that be a typo? Maybe it's supposed to read "God's days are not our days..."? ok, ok - it's a JOKE, folks!

NJCubScouter, Understood. Keeping strictly orthodox - what a challenge, I suppose for any faith! I gotta think that somewhere evolving pilpul will eventually lift the ban on pork (properly raised, butchered and cooked, I doubt that it's unclean as originally perceived) while maintaining the ban on shellfish as we further pollute the seas and various 'blooms' impact those species. Still, since pork was one of the tests during the Inquisition and in Nazi Germany, I think it has taken on a greater symbolism for some...

"Also keep in mind that most Jews in the U.S. do not keep Kosher" Is there a web site I could check that study out? I personally know many who don't keep kosher 100% (enjoying, say, lobster, etc) but who DO avoid pork at all costs. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown about non-Kosher, semi-Kosher, Kosher for Passover, etc. (The un-pork people get the shaft a lot when the Pack campout breakfast cook decides to serve 'omelets' and puts chopped ham into ALL the whipped up eggs - thereby making sure no one has a chance at plain scrambled. Even after folks have asked to have some 'unaltered' eggs set aside, specifically to try to avoid trayf!) Thanks!

kwc57, if you were an omniscient, omnipotent being WHO HAD GIVEN HIS CREATIONS FREE WILL, you would KNOW who would be doing the right stuff to save, and who wouldn't (um - the Santa Claus effect :-) So, where does pre-knowledge leave off, and predestination begin? arguably, if He does nothing to change the path He knows you to be on, He has destined you to a certain end - but is that truly predestination? Sticky isssue. Kinda like the whole Creation thing. If God made the world already old (um, like pre-aged jeans?), then it would be billions of years old, even if it only took Him a day to creat it... some difficult perspectives to try to view from, eh?

sometime in the last 2 decades, and probably the past 15 years, Science News had a blurb about some teenager (15? 16? somewhere in there, anyway) who had come up with an entirely brand new knot, unrelated "knotologically" to any other knot. I can remember NO follow-up invalidating the achievement, and you could possibly look it up at the website, or at a library that keeps WAY back issues...

"If you believe that man evolved, then you MUST believe that God did not create man." hmmm "this man can know the mind and purpose of God, and has decided what God can, would, and could do! Darwin has now defined God with his own finite mind!" seems like the same thing! DeMann has decided that - for whatever reason - God cannot have directed evolution to produce man. I believe that He can - and has - and fail to see ANY reason why this cannot be...

...now there's a belt loop all the kids could get!

"You know, this respecting diversity could be a real problem" I say to you, sir - TURKEY! The OTHER other white meat - and the dark! Turkey chili - the answer to nearly everything. Well, there IS that beans issue, but there too, we can find out how much we all have in common! Seriously, y'all, poultry is a great way around a lot of issues. Vegetarian requirements are something else, but most vegetarians I know take far less offense at all of this than the carnivores. Hmmm....

Genesis literalists - can you explain what your view of the origins of fossils are? why are they here, etc.? this is a sincere request - the only things I can figure out that would go along with what I've read here on folks's positions probably just wouldn't fly with those same folks, so I'm very open to finding out what their opinions actually are. Now, I know there's folks out there who say the fossil record is incomplete, and I'm not concerned with that - for now just with the stuff we've found to date? thanks.

DeMann, The 'ages' and 'aeons' to which I have reference are the 'days' in Genesis. Since you have advised others to learn Aramaic and read the original, I'm assuming you yourself have done so, and I was wondering what the original words actually were? As far as my own definition thereof, well - I'm not sure why it's important, but ages is the time between birthdays when you're a kid :-) and aeons is a lot more than a day! Thanks for any insights on the original translations!

ScoutParent... "Kind of curious why believers of evolution like to quote atheist web sites and atheist scientists. How about the 100 scientists who signed a document indicating the problems with theories of evolution. " In turn, I'm curious as to why those who feel that evolution flies in the face of God ignore the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. NOT an atheist at all, and certainly a more eloquent spokeperson for the religous pro-evolutionists than many... The following noted at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm In 1996, Pope John Paul II spoke at the annual meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which has been called "the Church's 'scientific senate' ". 4,7 He said, in part: "Today, more than a half century after this ['Humani Generis'] encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory [of evolution]." Saul Korewa, a teacher at the Utah School of Jewish Studies commented: "You would certainly find many rabbinic authorities who teach that the biblical story of creation is a blueprint for what evolution describes in that it moves from less advanced organisms. I don't think that mainstream Judaism has a big problem reconciling science and religion." I guess all this proves is that everyone's got an opinion, and that on both sides of the argument you'll find members of 'the other' camp! I'm sure that if someone was still exploring the issue, they could find all sorts of info on BOTH sides, much as we've shown here. Now, I'm not aware that any of the scientists mentioned had/have ever declared that any and all of their utterances are infallible - and tho' a pro-evolution and pro-science person myself, that doesn't mean that I'm anti-God. So those quotes are just the quotes of other fallible human beings. They are probably as meaningful - no more, no less, I'd guess - than the writings of those of the cloth whose faith has failed them, and who write against the existence of God. What does it really prove? Well again - everyone's got an opinion!

ScoutParent "I can say, in good conscience that Evolution is an engine of evil because I see that God tells us anything taking the glory for his creations is evil." Evolution is not intended to take the 'glory for His creations.' It can't - it's a theory, it describes a process that God Himself put into place!!! From the perspective of those who find no unresolvable conflict between Religion and Science, it is no different than Erosion. Does the fact that we understand erosion diminish the grandeur of the Grand Canyon, for example? Or does it expand our appreciation for the magnificence of His Work? Why is Erosion different than Evolution? He let's us see and name and understand one tool - why not another? We can measure radioactive decay - does that mean that God is diminished in any way, or can it mean that He's thought of absolutely everything? Why choose to limit God, when He Himself has seen fit to set the glory of His Creation on many canvasses, great AND small? just a perspective...

Rooster7, Maybe this comment - "Hindu's believe that cows are sacred. I respect their right to believe that, but I'm still eating my cheeseburger for lunch. If I truly respected the beliefs of others, I would not eat that cheeseburger..." could use this change. "...If I truly respected the beliefs of others, I would make sure that any Scouting activity that served cheeseburgers [or porkchops, say] would also have an alternative dish for those whose dietary requirements kept them away from the cheeseburgers." Now THAT'S tolerance and respect. When a Jewish Cub Scout is confronted with a pepperoni pizza, let's face it - that's ignorant at the least, and really ugly at its worst! just a perspective

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday" 2 Peter 3:8 says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So can we at least say that the 6 days of Genesis may give us up to 6000 years? At least?

DeMann, Do YOU have any knowledge of Aramaic? Since you suggest that others study it, it would seem so. So here's the question - was the word really originally "eon" or "age"? This is a serious question, not a snipe. Thanks for any info!

for Zorn, with an apology for everyone else... " Tsk, tsk, tsk. Name calling and rudeness. Aren't you one of those that's always talking about the Scout law (No, I'm not going to waste my time looking. that's your game)." So, then - your ploy is apparently to make baseless statements, accusations (if you will) with no known foundation, and no intent to provide foundation! is it indeed your preference to mock those who do their homework, and then hold up your own refusal to check the facts as a virtue..? An interesting style. "I find it interest that so many chide me for my rudeness but yet you stoop to my level. Shouldn't you rise above me, turn the other cheek, and all that? " I work with a lot of different kids in a lot of different environments, and typically, it's the single-child w/older parents and a slightly Asperger-ian take on things that recognizes one special set of rules for themselves, while expecting everyone else to play the game according to the standard rules. Don't know if any of that fits, but I'd be curious to know...? At least it's a sign of hope that you acknowledge that your own level requires stooping! You might have said "perceived level" - or the like - if you had a disagreement THERE, but it seems that you indeed accept that you take some pretty mean and pointless shots, so there's hope yet! :-) Regardless the foregoing, when you say "zorny? that's the epitome of rudeness...", using a diminuitive is not truly rude, or at least not nearly so rude as calling someone sincerely devout a "bible-thumper", for example. At least, in my opinion. Getting back to the playground, when I call a kid with a dim., it's gentle exasperation, not rudeness. And you gotta grant, you're an exasperating so-and-so, you ol' Zornster, you! And anyway, if someone pulls a knife, am I still to be bound by Marquis-of-Queensbury? Does Roberts Rules have any place in doin' the dozens? Please. that's pretty ridiculous and of course you know that, too! Once again, you seem to be avoiding the issues - your own rudeness and failure to participate meaningfully in dialog - by attacking another. MOVING RIGHT ALONG - here's for the rest of the forum. Anyone else who's read this far, I extend to you my apologies. I relatively new here, and for all I know, Zorn P is one of your old and cherished members. It's not entirely appropriate for me to chastise him whom I perceive as a boor and a twit, if you do not. Indeed, it's presumptuous of a new participant to do so, and so, to you I offer my apologies. By way of explanation, I can only say that when I see that kind of rudeness and disregard for form, well, my sense of fair play gets the better of me. But as a new kid, it's not my place to "ride into town and try to gun down the bad guy" - especially when you may see that bad guy as one of your own - and maybe even sheriff! :-) Please excuse...

"The theory of evolution is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to empirical testing or critical observation. The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to Darwin and the absense of God in the creation of the world and all within it." Now, with all due respect, let's do a little rewording... "The work of God is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to EMPRIRICAL TESTING or CRITICAL MODERN OBSERVATION. The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to holy texts and the absense of science in the creation of the world and all within it." The religious proclaim faith, the evolutionist fact. Then the religious say, well - I don't accept your fact, why can't you take it all on faith. There is nothing about Evolution that precludes God... save Biblical literalism. And of course, many faithful accept the story of Creation on an allegorical level. But rather than asking why couldn't God have created everything - snap! - all at once, answer this - why could not He have used evolution just as He used gravity and nuclear decay and all the rest of it? Why do any of us feel the need to limit God, especially when He has set forth so many signposts leading to Science? HE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US A WORLD THAT LIES! He has given us fossils and an ancient earth more to glory in His Handiwork, than to say, no, He CAN'T do that... .

Ahh, Zornyzornyzorny, once again sidestepping the real questions, and criticizing those who give to you what you give others. we only know you by what you say, as you say, and if you won't answer simple questions, why then the board histories are quick and easy sources. Oh, and then when you say "Tsk, tsk, tsk. Name calling and rudeness." maybe you do have a sense of humor - name calling and rudeness really have been your hallmark lately, haven't they!? if there's issues there you'd like to discuss on the side, I'm qualified. anyway and until then - since you don't want to do folks the courtesy of answers and plain responses to their questions and comments, and since you seem to think that insult and sidestep make up for your lack of substance, I gotta guess you're just trying to be the Don Rickles or Bobcat G. of the boards here. You may have a real mind in there somewhere, and if sometime you'd like to discuss the issues in a manner other than ad hominem, give it a try. it'd be interesting to see what you think about something if you could ever get around to addressing the issues instead of the insults! (Director's notes: TOV, paragraph 1 - lectorial, paragraph 2 - tentatively amused, ending in sincere invitation, paragraph 3 - soto voce assumption, paragraph 4 - giving in to a bit of pique, paragraph 5 - sincere again) Ta!

firstpusk - rotflmao... try them them with horseradish (white not red). it's as helpful with crickets as gefilte fish, for which I have never known which is the gefilte fork. DeMann - yes, it is out of context, but perfect words should be context-free, and maybe a new context can break down the wall between knowledge and faith. why can't punctuation be created in a lab? well, time for one, and diversity for another. when you're talking eons, it is sheer hubris to think that humankind can yet match the works of God on that canvas... I wouldn't think the faithful would suggest such a thing. as far as diversity goes, when God sees fit to flood or otherwise flummox the current list of species, He's doing it to EVERYTHING in His Creation, not just one or two or even dozens in an artificially contrived lab. Remeber, evolution and all its components are tools of GOD, not of man, and the theory is something that helps us understand His workings. Your objections are in fact what one would expect for a tool of the Divine Clockmaker that man can at this time only appreciate, and not wield...

Here's one Zorn quote.... "Oh littlebillie, you seem to have nothing to do with your time if you spend it looking for what I've said." and here's another.... "Reading old threads can be interesting." So Zorn, while it's interesting for you, it's a waste of time for someone else? here's another pair interestingly juxtaposed excerpts: "More psychobabble from the pseudo-psychologists" vs. "I answered your original comments. You must be insecure to feel that you need to post them again," in response to an offer of clarification and assistance. mercurial, indeed. or inconsistent. or hypocritical? or just stirring the pot? granted, this time I DID go looking thru what you've posted - I was wondering if there is as much vitriol and mean-spiritedness in ALL of your postings - and imagine my amusement when I found the "reading old threads" line! Perhaps I was wrong when I cautiously asked you about your seeming white supremacism - maybe you suffer from Zorn supremacism. In which case, I gotta tell you, it doesn't wear well, or amuse. Of course, I doubt that's really your issue. (In all fairness folks, let me say that when he's allowed to simply pontificate, without ontradiction, he doesn't really get nasty, just pompous.) I'm guessing you just want to rile things up, for no good reason than your own amusement, or possibly because it's a good way to distract from an argument when you paint yourself info a corner. I know it's easy to snipe from behind the keyboard, over the lines and across the country, but there's more strength of spirit to be found, I think, in civility, especially with all that buffer in place - I recommend it to you. Of course, at this stage, I'm extending you very little courtesy, if any, but that's because you've been such an unrecalcitrant jerk lately - learn to play nice, and we can get back to real discussion! :-) and if ya can't play nice, play by the same rules ya set for others! Of course, maybe - for some reason - you're just trying to get folks to waste their time replying to you, rather than discussing issues. I'd have to wonder why that would be - doesn't seem like something the BSA Execs would do, put in a plant to rile things up, not here. So maybe it's the diversity camp, trying to get some evil quotes out of folks you get all hot and stuffy? Well, that doesn't reing true either. MY question is, see, I'm wondering if you're truly evil, or just mean and small-spirited. And while I suspect it's just that little thing you do, God help me, PLEASE, don't tell me you're just bored and doing it for no other reason...

"Now, how about a theory why the equilibrium WAS punctuated?" We have modern and ancient evidence of large bodies striking the earth - BOOM! punctuation! Don't like that? Biblical and folk stories involving a deluge find agreement with each other and in science. Once original populations were wiped out, it became a race for the 2x2's to repopulate and maybe take over this niche or even wipe out that species! Those hungry birds, once they flew off the ark, may very well have eaten those missing 4-legged crickets! :-) Boom, one species gone, and a chance for evolution. There's been plenty of punctuation, even by the human hand. I think this is one of the smaller hurdles you've set the evolutionist. a TIME to every purpose under Heaven... even if beyond the grasp of man

OGE, thanks for the clarification - I was 90% sure that was your direction, but there was that 10% that mighta/coulda been altered by tone of voice or body language, so I like to check. I appreciate your words.

OGE, I'm taking that as a snipe at society, and not personally - correct me if I'm wrong there, tho! Still, a lot of folks on Death Row have been cleared by DNA - I can't fault that...

"a convicted and executed criminal." so many of these, aren't there? Patrick Henry, and William Wallace Joan D'Arc, and the innocents of Salem Countless clandestine operatives over the years, and some not so clandestine, in Nam all criminals, all executed... Context counts for so much I think.