DeMann

"Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!"

So DeMann,

Just how old are you and where did you go to school. The claim of Nebraska man, although always dubious, was withdrawn in 1927. You must be in your 90's!

ok. dude. let me reiterate in a more clear context. NO we did not study that trash in particular (Nebraska man) as current theory. nor did we, for example, that baby humans, while in the womb, have tails. But those and other ideas (theories??) were indeed covered, and we did most certainly have to take tests over them. I hated every minute of it. I understand that you are looking for some however slight error, or its appearance, on which to pounce- it makes good sense if one wishes to win some form of debate or argument. I am sorry that you misunderstood what I said. I will try to be more clear in the future.

no, he needs not a psych.

Solomon said,"Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor".

this guy needs pity. there but for the grace of God go we also. I still pray for him everyday. several times each day, in fact. All he needs to do is ask God to make him new inside. God will do it if Zorn wants and allows it done. That, my friends (do I have any here?) is grace. God's grace. He is able to forgive and restore not only that girl in question, but Zorn. Now, please don't leave me out. I, too have my own set of faults. I have never been perfect. And this side of heaven I will continue to struggle with them.

Zorn, I wish you well. And I am still praying for you. God loves you.

shucks, guys. I'm still trying to figure out how Charles Manson got into this thing.

In Genesis 1, God created all of the animals then he created man and woman. In Genesis 2, God created man, then because man was lonely he started making animals. Finally he made woman.

Which part is true? Did the animals come first or second? Is woman just an improvement on the Irish Setter? Maybe, maybe not? Setters don't nag

Actually, Gen 1 is the general overview of the creation experience. Then, Chapter 2 gives the details. The part that gives you trouble is in verse 19 when it is reiterated that God made the animals from the dirt. Here, as is common for those looking to fabricate an error, you take the reiteration as a flaw in the timing. The verb is in the past tense, so that we see that the animals had already been made. Sorry. You really should take a couple of years of Aramaic if you want to check it out for yourself.

3) if God had nothing to do with it, why did any early organisms reproduce? did they live for 'eons' before they slowly and subtly changed into a reproducing form? did the first organism happen to come to life and also happen to have DNA so that it could reproduce?

3. Not clear the connection between God and reproduction.

well, he states that God has nothing to do with the diversity of life in general. He states that it takes eons for even small changes to occur. I contend that God made everything in 6 days, and set it all in motion in one fell swoop. If God had nothing to do with the beginning of life on earth, then my question is,Why did the first organism ever reproduce any way? And if it did, did it take it eons to do so? What are the odds? I mean, for an organism to pop into existence, and then begin reproducing on its own? And without errors?

Ok. Again; I am just a dumb lug. Call me FarmBoy. I cannot fathom this change in dna and chromosome stuff. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is becoming more and more common these days for human bodies to get some of these cells changing up their DNA and making those changes that then result. Dont they call that cancer? I mean, I havent seen an old man grow a third eye that works. Or pop out an extra arm that he can use to scratch his back with. Hey, how about retractable skin that is UV proof? You know, to cover our balding heads? But, then, maybe one of those guys (first pusk maybe?) has a link to a site with all that information. You know, one with pictures and stuff like that.

Here, I wish to copy what Packsaddle has said ((by the way, sir, you are good. Defending the wrong side, I think, but nevertheless good.)) The problem here is that there is absolutely no comparable scientific or experimental support for the alternative and "reductio ad absurdum" is today mostly used to reject arguments, not to support otherwise unsupportable arguments.

Here, Pack, you fall into your own words. These cannot be lent to defend the question of evolution, as no experimental, or for that matter scientific evidence, has ever been offered to support it. My questions are not reductio ad absurdum, they are VERY SIMPLE and to the point. For the theory to have any validity, they MUST be answered. Otherwise, the theory has some very large gaping holes in it; nothing to base the very concept(s) upon. Without a solid base, you can and must fall.

"Okay DeMann, so there's a book from 1954 that goes into Hebrew law. That still doesn't address my question. Are there records from a higher court stating that the verdict was null and void? "

ok. you seem to be a little clueless, although you state that you are well read on the subject matter.

the book shows that Hebrew law stated that a court session could only be held in the day time and that if it was not, it was automatically null and void. in fact, those holding it could be beaten for the "violation of the prisoner's rights" if you will. all the history books agree that it was indeed done at night. Jesus was then taken to Pilate in the morning, and he summarily declared him innocent. however, since Jesus did not claim to be a Roman, Pilate had him killed to pacify the crowd. in the process, he publically washed his hands to show that he thought Jesus innocent and that he wanted no part of it.

that, sir, proves my point. if you cannot see that, you might want to consider cleaning your reading glasses. or setting aside your penchant for discrediting Biblical history.

ok. I admit it. I am just a dumb country boy who used to run barefooted in the grassburs and chunked cowpies at his friends when he got bored. I surely am not as brilliant or learn-ed as you guys. so, here goes. answer me these questions:

1) if life came from the ooze, how long did the first one live, and how did it ever come to reproduce? by what method did it, mitosis or meosis?

2) did the first organism have dna, and if so, was it in chromosomal form. if not, why is there no other forms of life like that today?

3) if God had nothing to do with it, why did any early organisms reproduce? did they live for 'eons' before they slowly and subtly changed into a reproducing form? did the first organism happen to come to life and also happen to have DNA so that it could reproduce?

4) if man came from an ape or apelike creature, did he have a soul? did God care for him like man today? at what time did God view him as man and not animal? at what time should we consider him man and not animal?

5) again, and this one really bothers me, i need to know how to understand the Bible. you clearly can tell the verses/chapters/books which are to be taken as real, and the ones that are false. How can you tell? do we each get to make up the ones we like and ignore the ones we don't? How do YOU tell the right ones from the wrong ones?

Now for some observations:

This is simply false. It is one of the most well supported theories in science. It has been tested for nearly a century and a half and is stronger than ever. You need to read something other than creationism

You, sir, are full of some stinky stuff. There is not proof anywhere. Just theories based upon theories. Punctuated Equalibrium? That one came along when the proof was trashed by observation.

I pointed out to you that this was never in the scientific literature. The Nebraska man was based on over-zelous press reports. Have you responded? No you simply repeat the refuted claim. To persist without correcting your mistake is not honest.

Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!

In terms of adaption/evolution, individual living things do not adapt or evolve. However, the populations they belong to do. The evidence is there in the laboratory, in the fossils and in the genes the creatures carry.

so, if it does not happen in an individual, how does it happen in the whole population at one time? Remember, we are trying to get birds from fish in this one. Does a meteor hit south america and then all the catfish in afghanistan grow feathers?

Ok, little billie:

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?

He could have. But he did not. Read the Bible. A day is a day, silly. If you cannot take part of it as truth, then tell me how you determine the parts that are truth and the ones that are not??? Is it up to you to determine what you like and what you do not believe is true? If any of it is false, it all must be considered so.

This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases.

Now, doesnt this sound contradictory? Man, this site is full of it. You know, stated concepts without factual basis. No wonder you can take this stuff as truth. All he has to do is make a statement, and you will swallow it right up.

It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

Now, I have not seen any evidence (as you stated) of an organism with a different number of chromosomes from its parents and it being a viable, living organism. You know, a few thousand years ago some guys tried that very thing. They crossed a donkey and a horse. Yes, they have VERY similar chromosomes, and yet their progeny (mules) are almost always sterile. Now, I did see a picture of a pair of mules in Kansas in the late 40s and into 1961 who did indeed crank out a few live births. But, alas, none of their progeny ever produced offspring. Somehow, it seems to my finite mind, that if any of this changed-gene-thing could possibly work, it would have here. But then, I also think that if in the course of time it had ever actually worked, 1) there would be a huge amount of screwed-up-gene-stuff going on (so that we can g et the thousands of different creatures we now have), and 2) somehow ever now and then one of them would pan out. And, we all know that there is no evidence of that ever happening.

Come on, man. Why cant you just let God be big enough to speak into existence all that exists? If He can start life, why cant he make it varied? And lots of it?

"I will give you a hint. the first trial was illegal since it was held at night. by Hebrew law, it was null and void.

Do you have any evidence other than some self serving books written by the criminal's followers? Are there 2000 year old records from the court? How about some Roman records?"

OK. Read The Pharisee of the Old Testament, Oxford Press, 1954 printing, chapters 7-8. This book is based upon texts found in the Middle East in modern (1880-1950) archeological digs. It is both a history lesson of the Pharisee sect of the Jewish religion, as well as of the common law of the Jews under Roman rule. These texts are NOT found/used in either the New Testament or the Old. They are simply ancient texts dating to and before the time of Christ. This book is considered to be a simple historical book.

Ps. The I AM thing is another bit of evidence that man (if I may quote the Bible) teaches for doctrine the traditions of man. No where in the Bible does it say that if you call yourself God by his Hebrew name that he will strike you dead. That was a teaching from the Pharisees based upon the historical story of the Levite struck dead when he touched the Ark of the Covenant when he thought it was going to be dropped as the priests crossed the Jordan River and one of the priests slipped and fell. The OT did say that any one touching it inappropriately would be struck dead. And history shows us that He did exactly that. Go ahead, make fun of God. He is keeping score, and He will certainly win! I said what I said (was I verbose?) to point out that Jesus did indeed say that he was the Son of God as well as God Himself. I am so sorry that you guys could not get that from what I wrote.

Christ was a criminal who was tried and executed.

o.k. big boy. what was the crime, what was the verdict.

I will give you a hint. the first trial was illegal since it was held at night. by Hebrew law, it was null and void. the second was held by Pilate, and he found him innocent of all charges. yes, he was executed. but he was never found guilty in a legal court. also, by the way, the charge against him was that he said that he was the Son of God. HMMM..... was he guilty?

oh, and to those who chide the use of "I AM"...get real. you did not understand what was meant by the words you read. take it slowly.... you might catch it then.

And I am still wondering how Charles Manson got into this thread. Did anyone invite him here?

I suspected that you from an alternative universe. In mine we were able to break water into the constiuent components in my HS chem class.

Yes, you did. But you did it with the addition of more energy than was generated in the formation of the water molecule. Do you remember heat of fusion calculations in your chem.II class? Again, you need to find the real definition of the second law.

So you admit that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, glad you cleared that up. Oops, I guess you changed your mind...

Sir, it is a fact that the modern evolutionary theory includes the former as well as the latter. Grab a textbook from your local college and see for yourself.

I think there is a profound difference between our traditions. My tradition says man wrote but the word was inspired. I think your tradition would have more of a copyist view, i.e., the books were dictated or something like that. The

understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account. I will agree that such an understanding is frought with difficulty. This is especially true for Genesis because it appears there is much that comes to us through a long oral tradition that was not written down until much later. These concepts are avoided like the plague in your tradition, or so I suppose. And your approach meets with reproach in mine.

Mine is not tradition. It is my faith. understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account seems to infer that you cannot take any of the Bible as literal, or at least have no way of knowing what is and what is not. And in that case, you have now way of knowing what God intends to tell you. There is no difficulty with Genesis- an early habit of restating events in a text is used there, and thus it does not have contradictions in it. Sir, I do not avoid any part of the Bible like the plague. I am sorry you see this with reproach. Your ignoring my questions, though simple and yet so deep, makes me wonder what your faith is based upon.

"Now, how about a theory why the equilibrium WAS punctuated?"

We have modern and ancient evidence of large bodies striking the earth - BOOM! punctuation!

So let me see if I understand this one. All you have to have for evolution to start up again is a meteor striking the earth? So, why cant you reproduce that in the lab?

a TIME to every purpose under Heaven... even if beyond the grasp of man

well, this one is certainly taken out of context. You should read the chapter in full to understand it.

3) The OT speaks to the creation of world. It's not logical, and a little less than sincere, to invoke Jesus' name on a topic for which he did not address. Nevertheless, Jesus' teachings did not negate or deny the OT.

I don't mean to criticize you (PLEASE don't take this as criticism!),but you need to read a little more. Jesus said ,"I and my father are one". the words mean exactly that. it indirectly infers that Jesus made the world. He said that if you see him(Jesus), you also are seeing his Father. At the temple one day, Jesus answers the question of who he is when he says in Hebrew (the ancient language, not the common one of the day which was Koine Greek) with the words interpreted in English which mean 'I AM'. those are the exact words quoted by Moses when discussing what transpired on the mountain with God Himself. the scholars there at the time jumped away from Jesus, because they feared that God would strike him dead. When He did not, they were even more scared because only God could utter those words and not die. the OT has instances of people instantly dying for some of those no-no's.

the apostle Paul wrote Colossians, and said in 1:15 and 16 that Jesus "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him."

yup, Jesus is credited for making this world.

by the way.....

who came up with Science, and who came up with the Bible? If God wrote one and man the other, who do you think is right? if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say?

"Drug resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects being a couple of examples observed in nature."

A scientist, sir, you are not. When left alone (without the drug they are resistant to) the bacteria in question revert back to their weaker state. the insects do also. albiet they do have a better resistance to them, they do indeed weaken again. this is a fact.

punctuated equalibrium? sir, that one was thought up when the creationists called the hand of the evolutionists because it was noted that various species were found in different strata, showing that the species did not change over large amounts of time. that theory was cooked up when the original thought of constant but gradual change was shown to be false by the fossil record. Now, how about a theory why the equilibrium WAS punctuated? what caused the time lapses, and what caused them to begin again?

Here is one I like. show me ONE example of any specie changing the number of Chromosomes contained in it. you must again rely on theory. and, by the way, my definition of theory is indeed the one used in major universities today. where did you get your degree and what is it in?

ok. where does the power of life itself come from? what is death? if the human body is capable of repair, upward growth, and self improvement (look at an 18 year old male, for example), then why does it wear out for no appearant reason? what is aging anyway? by the way, here you can use the second law of thermodynamics to your advantage-oops, no, it will catch you here, too.

the second law covers all energy in all of the universe, not just what is outside in my yard. take hydrogen and oxygen. once they meet and give off energy, they are difficult to break apart. it takes more energy to break them apart than they gave up when they combined. thus, water is water in our universe, and it does not go back to the previous state. all elements are in this boat, and will-without outside intervention- one day come to a state of uselessness. that, sir is what the second law tells us. where is the infinite supply of energy? there is none.

and Louis Pasteur did indeed show us that if you have the building blocks of organisms, they will not come together on their own. and Man cannot make it happen, either. Darwin did not say that life came from mud, it was his followers some time later. Darwin just tried to explain the various complexities of created beings and the fossil record that amazed him. Sir, it is indeed the modern evolutionary theory that says that life came from the primordal ooze. and, contrary to your belief, the textbooks speak of only the THEORY since they cannot prove it in an experiment. Call the Dudes at A&M, Harvard, Rice, MIT, or any other place whom you choose. they will define a theory for you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahhh, quoting the Bible can be such a fun game. What about this counter:

Ah, the wonders of the bible. It says whatever you want it to say.

--------------------

How I wish!!! see, if it did, it would say that I don't have to stay in the bounds of marraige. it would also say that I can steal and get away with it. and that lying is ok. but it does not. in fact, it just goes against the way I FEEL like living my life. However, since God wrote it, I follow it. Is it my crutch? heck, man, it is my WHEELCHAIR!! I couldn't get out of bed in the morning if I did not have it to lean on and crawl into.

and by the way, you are right about one thing. If Jesus came to earth today as a man, he would be put to death. Know why? 'cause the Old Testament foretold that when he comes, He will be put to death. However, the OT also says that the second time he comes, he will ride a horse and carry a sword. and the ending is quite different for this trip. don't expect to see Him in what appears to be the losing column any more.

Zorn, if you really feel the way you write, I hurt for you. You cannot be a happy man. I want you to know this and I give you my word: I am going to pray for you every day for one week. I cannot promise you anything you can see or feel will come of it. But I will put it into God's hands, and ask Him to touch you. You need His peace in your heart and life. He will do something if you let him. If you want to talk to me personally, please email me. I encourage others to pray as well. I will always talk to you no matter what you call me or say to me.

gee whiz, folks, we just got too many rabbits running right now. I am truly sorry I am on call like I am..... getting back to this is just too difficult to stay up with the many great ideas being tossed around here.

so with that, let me get out the .270 and shoot a few of these rabbits and get them out of the way.

1) this debate will not change the mind of the major actors. it will sway the minds of the casual readers. therin lies the true value of it all.

2) please don't spout off about needing scientific evidence and then try to ignore the second law of thermodynamics. that law comes into virtually every scientific fact we teach in school today. in a nutshell, it states that everything is 'winding down' or losing energy. yes the sun gives its energy to the earth, but then, the sun is losing energy as it does, and will some day die out. by definition, all things goe from higher order to lesser, and lose speed, force, power, or whatever you want to call it. thus, things are proven to be going from greater to smaller (take that as a metaphor). in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for evolution to occur, since it is a matter of lessor things becoming greater. trust me on this one, the college proffessors cannot argue this point in favor of evolution. that, sir, is a fact.

3) Firstpusk talks of needing another alternative of science. well.....Louis Pasteur did that. he proved that the idea of spontaneous generation was false. he took all the elements of life, put them in a closed container, and (with them dead) showed that they could not come to life on their own. thus, today, we have 'pasteurized' food. if you think about it, millions of experiments are made each day in America. they wind up on your grocers shelves in the form of canned peaches, tomatoes, peas, and all those great Texas foods. Oh, yeh, and salmon too! yet, not once in the last 300 years have they ever produced one case of spontaneous generation- life coming from that which is dead.

4) science purports only theory- by definition just an idea- and it is not considered fact until an experiment can be performed to prove a hypothesis. and (best of all for us Bible Thumpers ((hey, why didn't I think of that for a name??)))it MUST be repeatable! evolution as you speak of it is just a theory. not once has an experiment been done that proves it. and, it certainly has never been repeated. by definition in the scientific community, evolution cannot be considered a fact, it MUST be considered theory only, and on that basis cannot outweigh any other theory.

5) for one to view the Bible as just the works of man, one must then agree that it is not the written word from God. there is no given, provable message from Him (so many people with so many ideas, right?). in which case, it is up to man to decide for himself. for any man to decide what is right about God (what he commands, asks, etc.) is to assume that 1)God does not care and any thing goes 2) that you can construct the truth for yourself. that then means that God is not all powerful (and all that stuff we Bible Thumpers think of here). In which case, He has no real power, or else will choose to exercise it without us, and to our detriment.

we need to remember that God is indeed God, and no matter what we think, he is the same and unchanging. we cannot make Him what we want Him to be, but must accept Him for Who and What He is.

How can you truly know the mind and will of God if you get to make the rules as you go along? What makes you think that you have the ability to figure Him out? He made everything (EVERYONE here agrees to that in one form or another) and we cannot control even that which is in our very hand. we cannot make ourselves grow one inch taller, or live one day longer. How can we really expect to figure Him out with our finite minds??

P.S. the interpretation of both the OT and NT come from linguist experts. they use the secular languages to give definitions to the words. You know, the same way they got those ideas from the ancient Greeks, Babylonians, and the like. there ain't no "makin' it up as we go" stuff when it comes to definitions in the original texts. and, if you really want to know what the Bible says, you need to read it in the original text and get away from paraphrases. Now, I know, most you folks ain't got time to go to school again, but then, you don't have to. Jesus told folks to try something a long time ago- take it all on faith.

ok, Zorn. You seemed to have missed my previous post. here it is again:

"Face it, God doesn't change people, people change themselves. The girl was bad news from day one, nearly destroyed her family and you think that she deserves another chance. Maybe you think that Charles Manson deserves parole as well? "

Now where did I give the impression that we are not to suffer consequences for our actions? Where in the Sam Hill did you draw that conclusion? Charles Manson needed help long before the murder spree. Heck, Scouting might have been the ticket for him for all you or I know. For you to say that some children should have been drowned at birth scares me. It also tells me that you do not value your own childhood. And, sorry to say, but I doubt that your troop is of any consequential size. I have run into a few guys over the years with similar cinical views, and they never get results that are bragged about by others. I am willing to bet that you are not a part of your District Committee, nor are you asked very often to put together district or council events. I bet your troop is an 'exclusive' group for those with no faults.

Pray tell, how are we supposed to tell the ones that need to be drowned? Or answer this: If God is so weak that he cannot change people, then what difference should he make to me or you? Why do I need him? Why should we even have any kind of religion or religeous principle? If he can't help change me, then what do I need him for?

by the way, the girl probably should have learned from her mistakes but according to what you said, was not allowed but enabled by her parents to continue her destructive behavior. she also does not sound like the Charles Manson type either. I could be wrong. if she had been allowed to suffer her consequences, she most likely would have changed. Yes, I believe that she still needs help, and that there is hope for her. I would hate to know that my momma would give up on me just because I screwed up a few times.

Could you answer a few of these for me? Especially about how you got Charles Manson into this!

now, dang it! (can I say that here?) you guys jumped all over this and stretched it all out. I was looking to really get my hooks into somebody here and now I have too many rabbits to chase. I hoped to see a different idea and notion that has not been brought into this debate (if you can call it that) as of yet. I am gone too much to stay on top of all this.

But that is ok. I like others having their say. I really like expressing my views on certain topics (can you tell?). anyway, let me see if I can throw out a little food for thought.

OK. God can make all that we see and know to exist. If he can make it from nothing, then what is time to him? if time is nothing, then why can't he do it in 6 days? is that too hard for the one who made it all up in the first place? One of you guys talks like a Biblical scholar, but you seem to have missed the fact that in Gen. 1:5, the writer states that the evening and the morning were called the first day. Now, in my way of thinking, the singular evening and singular morning don't add up to 100,000,000 years in modern time. by the way, that same time period is mentioned in verses 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. and in verses 14-19, he states that the two great lights (most people think this refers to the sun and moon) were made in a day, and in 16 refers to the sun being the little jewel(my pun here) that marks days for us. Yes, the same word is used here as elsewhere in Gen. actually, it is used around 2300 times in the Old Testament. I could give it to you in Hebrew, but it probably wouldn't mean much to you. any way, it sure seems to me to mean that in six days, you know, just like we have in modern times, God spoke the earth and everything else into existance.

If the Bible is not God's literal word, then where is His literal word found? If it cannot be found, then how can any one ever know what he really has to say? If you cannot ever really know what he has to say, how can anyone ever hope to please Him? or really follow Him?

Just food for thought.

"Face it, God doesn't change people, people change themselves. The girl was bad news from day one, nearly destroyed her family and you think that she deserves another chance. Maybe you think that Charles Manson deserves parole as well? "

Now where did I give the impression that we are not to suffer consequences for our actions? Where in the Sam Hill did you draw that conclusion? Charles Manson needed help long before the murder spree. Heck, Scouting might have been the ticket for him for all you or I know. For you to say that some children should have been drowned at birth scares me. It also tells me that you do not value your own childhood. And, sorry to say, but I doubt that your troop is of any consequential size. I have run into a few guys over the years with similar cinical views, and they never get results that are bragged about by others. I am willing to bet that you are not a part of your District Committee, nor are you asked very often to put together district or council events. I bet your troop is an 'exclusive' group for those with no faults.

Pray tell, how are we supposed to tell the ones that need to be drowned? Or answer this: If God is so weak that he cannot change people, then what difference should he make to me or you? Why do I need him? Why should we even have any kind of religion or religeous principle? If he can't help change me, then what do I need him for?

by the way, the girl probably should have learned from her mistakes but according to what you said, was not allowed but enabled by her parents to continue her destructive behavior. she also does not sound like the Charles Manson type either. I could be wrong. if she had been allowed to suffer her consequences, she most likely would have changed. Yes, I believe that she still needs help, and that there is hope for her. I would hate to know that my momma would give up on me just because I screwed up a few times.

'Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.'

still no hard, factual survey of the people. no numbers. Interesting about the Southern Baptist Convention. the convention speaks for no individual church. and the group for whom you speak here, well, they are not very large. rather small, actually. Pretty DARN small. I still want to see where a survey was done that shows the Methodist Church has a large percentage that disagree with the BSA policy.

Am I out of line to ask for some kind of evidence?

ps. I will have to check out the United Church of Christ. I have a hard time believing this one as well.

Zorn,

I once ate a t-bone that was tough as leather. but they all are not so. in fact, if that one had been handled correctly, it would have been well worth the eating. I personally think that all t-bones are great, and that they all have great potential.

it is not the fault of that girl because of her birth. she did make some poor decisions, but God still loves her. and, should she ask for him to change her, he is more than capable of doing so. I am taken aback by your stance. I have a feeling that you don't have that many boys trying to get into your troop. In fact, I bet you are quite happy with the same small bunch you have had for some time. I also think that you might be struggling with feelings of insecurity. something from your childhood. could it be that someone threw you into a cowpie while a small child?

I feel for you. You seem to be a most unhappy man. Remember this; God still loves you, and he wants to help you in this life as well. and as long as you (or that girl, or any boy for that matter) has a breath and life within, there is hope. "it is not the will of the Father that any should perish, but that all should come to salvation"

This statement seems, at least to me, to show that a study was done, and that either actual numbers of respondents or percentages thereof are available to support the statement that a 'large portion' of the membership of the United Methodist Church publicly disagree with the stance of the BSA. Where can I obtain a copy of this finding?

You can find that the UMC had different factions filing opposing briefs before the Supreme Court and that this church, which is the second largest sponsor of Scouting units, has internal division of the BSA's stance.

I am sorry. I must be dense. I asked where I could find a copy of some form of a survey or study that proved the statement that the majority of Methodists disagree with the BSA stance. Can I find that there are/were different factions filing briefs? I don't know that I can. But, I want to know where the proof is that the majority of Methodists disagree with the BSA policy.

Excuse me if I sound rude. I do admit to being dense and slow.

"Oddly enough, if a town has a troop sponsored by the United Methodist Church (a large portion of which publicly disagreed with the BSA before the Supreme Court), that troop, that chartering org, those parents and that town has no option for allowing a gay Scout to be a member"

This statement seems, at least to me, to show that a study was done, and that either actual numbers of respondents or percentages thereof are available to support the statement that a 'large portion' of the membership of the United Methodist Church publicly disagree with the stance of the BSA. Where can I obtain a copy of this finding? Can I find the actual number who make that statement?

I am curious. What denomination (or 'religion') believes in the origin of man as purported in the theory of evolution? How can one claim

Christianity and believe this theory? my most pressing question is, "Do those who believe in evolution believe that the Bible is God's revelation to man?"

My!

Such a lovely discussion! While I have not read every posting, I have read enough to wish I had been in on this one from the start. Who believes that evolution is a fact? Who discounts 7-day creation of the universe? I would love to know which denomination suports this one.

Science? What is it and where did it come from? What constitutes a fact? Gee.....this could get interesting, provided of course that this thread has not died. I find the creation/evolutionist quite difficult to take. two seemingly distant and diverse ideas announcing that they can exist in harmony.....