Religious debate GOGOGO!

[The Noob Avenger]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/NEWS01/804170385



MOUNT VERNON -- A Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher says he has kept a Bible on his classroom desk his entire 20-year career.
The school district now wants John Freshwater to remove it, but he vowed not to do so without a fight.

The removal of it will be nothing short of the infringement on my deeply held religious beliefs," Freshwater said at a downtown rally Wednesday afternoon.

He was joined by Licking County resident Dave Daubenmire, founder of Pass The Salt Ministries and one of Freshwater's friends.

Daubenmire, head football coach at Heath High School from 1981 to 1988 and later head football coach at London High School, said he was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union 10 years ago for praying with the London High School football team. He said can relate to Freshwater's situation.

"That's why I'm helping him -- I've been through this," Daubenmire said.

He said Freshwater was approached by Mount Vernon Middle School's principal April 7 with a directive to remove what was classified as "religious material" in his classroom -- a collage on his window that included the Ten Commandments, as well as the Bible on his desk.
"John ended up complying with the request to remove the collage with the Ten Commandments but drew the line at the taking of the Bible off his desk," Daubenmire said.

Freshwater, who teaches eighth grade, said he is the victim of discrimination.

"Discrimination against religions and religious views is un-American," he said in a statement. "In a land where we treasure free speech rights, no force or forces have the right to expel from the public forum those who have views with which they disagree. It is what has made America free.
"Asking any citizen to remove from view any symbol or any book that has deep significance to his or her life borders on tyranny and flies in the face of the time-honored value of free speech rights."

Mount Vernon Superintendent Steve Short issued the following statement:
"The Mount Vernon Schools has not taken this action because it opposes religion but because it has an obligation under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to protect against the establishment of religion in the schools. As a public school system, the district cannot teach, promote or favor any religion or religious beliefs."

Daubenmire said that was an argument he questioned.
"The question that we would love to ask is: what religion is it that John Freshwater is establishing by having a Bible on his desk?" Daubenmire said.

Freshwater explained why he refused to remove his Bible.
"Would our government ask a follower of Islam to remove her burka in order to teach school? Would we ask a science teacher to remove 'The Origin of Species' from his desk merely because the origin of man has never been proven?" he asked. "I cannot with a clear conscience follow a directive that makes religion and the religious viewpoint any less credible by those who deem themselves more enlightened."
He asked the dozens of people who attended his rally to join him in his fight, which he pledges to take to court if necessary.









Okay, so what do you guys think? Where do you draw the line?

Mount Vernon is where I go to college, so this is happening right in my backyard.

Judge, I expect a response from you about this, since you live here.

[Jasonew6]

What in the world does a teacher having a bible on his desk have to do with congress making a law regarding establishment of religion?

This is simply a matter of a paranoid, scared, administrator who does not know the law.

[philhos]

I love this line:
Mount Vernon Superintendent Steve Short issued the following statement:
"The Mount Vernon Schools has not taken this action because it opposes religion but because it has an obligation under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to protect against the establishment of religion in the schools. As a public school system, the district cannot teach, promote or favor any religion or religious beliefs."

Has anyone gotten clarificaion from the Superintendent in how having a Bible on 1 teacher's desk in any way demonstrates that the district is teaching, promoting, or favoring any religion or religious beliefs?

Has someone else also told him that the 1st Amendment also says the government cannot restrict the free exercise of one's religion? So, by trying to uphold the 1st Amendment, he's violating the 1st Amendment.

The worse thing is, we have idiots like this trying to teach our children.

[Jasonew6]

I love this line:


Has anyone gotten clarificaion from the Superintendent in how having a Bible on 1 teacher's desk in any way demonstrates that the district is teaching, promoting, or favoring any religion or religious beliefs?

Has someone else also told him that the 1st Amendment also says the government cannot restrict the free exercise of one's religion? So, by trying to uphold the 1st Amendment, he's violating the 1st Amendment.

The worse thing is, we have idiots like this trying to teach our children.

Not to mention, I heard very little complaint when they wanted to teach kids about Islam in other school districts.

[The Noob Avenger]

Personally, I don't mind having the bible on the desk. HOWEVER, if he was using it to preach to the class, that is a whole different story. I'm waiting for more of the story to unfold.

[The Noob Avenger]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/VIDEO/80417002

Video

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/04/16/bibleteacher.html

Apparently he was teaching Intelligent design, and about the "holes" in the evolutionary theory.

I really liked this quote for some reason:

"Would our government ask a follower of Islam to remove her burqa in order to teach school?" Freshwater said in his written statement. "Would we ask a science teacher to remove The Origin of Species from his desk merely because the origin of man has never been proven?

[Danno]

I'm with the teacher on this one. I especially like his example of a muslim teacher.

Unless he is explicitly teaching the Bible to the class (or making many many references to it), I'd see it on par as having any personal item on a desk. He isn't infringing on anyone else's rights, or establishing the religious precedent for the entire school by having a personal religious item.

I know a counter-argument would be that: as a representative of the school, he is establishing that his religion is the schools religion. So not having out there makes him more an agent of the school, which should be non-denominational.

However, I would argue that only goes so far as him teaching the beliefs in class, which then imposes his beliefs in an educational setting. I think this is why it is key to note his example of a muslim teacher not being asked to remove a religious garment. Another would be asking teachers to remove crosses on neck chains. I don't see a book as much different a personal item. As a citizen, he is also entitled to his right, but even more importantly he is working for a public agency. As such, it would be odd for the public agency to deny its employees said rights.


EDIT:
I don't mind him teaching intelligent design, as long as its a survey of a concept.... not a truth based from his beliefs. Furthermore, I don't think he should push the "holes" in evolution just to sweeten the ID argument, unless he then plans to address the holes in ID.

[Jasonew6]

What I want to know is this.

The bible was actually read in schools at the time of the founding fathers. If it were unconstitutional, you would think that the guys who actually wrote the constitution would have stopped it. But it stayed a legal event until June 25, 1962, when a packed, leftist court decided the Founding Fathers somehow missed this unconstitutional act that had gone on for nearly 200 years.

[Danno]

Jasonew6,

Thats actually a really good point. The only idea I have as to why is maybe there wasn't much religious diversity back then, so no one was really concerned about it. Fast forward; far more atheists, agnostics, jewish, buddhist, muslim, hindu, etc that don't want Christian views of the other being part of a regular public education. So now it is more in scope.

[The Noob Avenger]

Jasonew6,

Thats actually a really good point. The only idea I have as to why is maybe there wasn't much religious diversity back then, so no one was really concerned about it. Fast forward; far more atheists, agnostics, jewish, buddhist, muslim, hindu, etc that don't want Christian views of the other being part of a regular public education. So now it is more in scope.

Either that, or they want their respective religions to be at the same status Christianity was at.

[Jasonew6]

Jasonew6,

Thats actually a really good point. The only idea I have as to why is maybe there wasn't much religious diversity back then, so no one was really concerned about it. Fast forward; far more atheists, agnostics, jewish, buddhist, muslim, hindu, etc that don't want Christian views of the other being part of a regular public education. So now it is more in scope.

That still should not change the constitutionality of an act unless the constitution is ammended, which is not the right or responsibility of the courts.

[Jumbro]

What I want to know is this.

The bible was actually read in schools at the time of the founding fathers. If it were unconstitutional, you would think that the guys who actually wrote the constitution would have stopped it. But it stayed a legal event until June 25, 1962, when a packed, leftist court decided the Founding Fathers somehow missed this unconstitutional act that had gone on for nearly 200 years.


Public schools in that time also taught religion...they didn't teach about it, they instructed it. Students in public schools were required to recite the ten commandments and the our father. I've posted this information (and more in depth on it) in other forums and I'm sure some are tired of hearing it so if you want to PM me I'd love to giveyou the information I know on it.

[Danno]

That still should not change the constitutionality of an act unless the constitution is ammended, which is not the right or responsibility of the courts.

Well interpretation changes as people change :thumbsup:
If the original interpretation of the constitution was: teach Christianity(or another religion) in class and if others don't believe/like it too bad. deal with it, or go start your own school. Well, that just doesn't right...

[Jumbro]

Well interpretation changes as people change :thumbsup:
If the original interpretation of the constitution was: teach Christianity(or another religion) in class and if others don't believe/like it too bad. deal with it, or go start your own school. Well, that just doesn't right...

Actually it had nothing to do with interpretation (Though that is the spin that was created to hide up the truth). It had to do with Money. Catholics were upset their children were being force to learn the protestant version of prayers/scripture. They started supporting Catholic schools in their parish community and asked for the same money the other public (which were viewed as protestant because they did teach protestant religion) schools were getting from the government. The protestants didn't want to help support Catholicism (for those who don't know, look it...Catholics in America have gone through more discrimination than any other group over the last 200 years...yes, ANY other group). In turn they said that there had to be a seperation of church and state (first time the words were use publicly..they were origianlly in a private letter, I believe written by Jefferson).

This nation was founded as a protestant Christian nation....just isn't stated that way. Look at everything though---it all follows the protestant Christian beliefs of the time.

[Danno]

I guess what I am was trying to say is, yeah the bible in public schools way back when was fine. Mainly cuz most citizens were Christian of some sort. However, its not the same case now. So it doesn't mean back then what was done was constitutional or not, it just wasn't an issue. Thats why law is dynamic.

[Beaker]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/NEWS01/804170385



MOUNT VERNON -- A Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher says he has kept a Bible on his classroom desk his entire 20-year career.
The school district now wants John Freshwater to remove it, but he vowed not to do so without a fight.

The removal of it will be nothing short of the infringement on my deeply held religious beliefs," Freshwater said at a downtown rally Wednesday afternoon.

He was joined by Licking County resident Dave Daubenmire, founder of Pass The Salt Ministries and one of Freshwater's friends.

Daubenmire, head football coach at Heath High School from 1981 to 1988 and later head football coach at London High School, said he was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union 10 years ago for praying with the London High School football team. He said can relate to Freshwater's situation.

"That's why I'm helping him -- I've been through this," Daubenmire said.

He said Freshwater was approached by Mount Vernon Middle School's principal April 7 with a directive to remove what was classified as "religious material" in his classroom -- a collage on his window that included the Ten Commandments, as well as the Bible on his desk.
"John ended up complying with the request to remove the collage with the Ten Commandments but drew the line at the taking of the Bible off his desk," Daubenmire said.

Freshwater, who teaches eighth grade, said he is the victim of discrimination.

"Discrimination against religions and religious views is un-American," he said in a statement. "In a land where we treasure free speech rights, no force or forces have the right to expel from the public forum those who have views with which they disagree. It is what has made America free.
"Asking any citizen to remove from view any symbol or any book that has deep significance to his or her life borders on tyranny and flies in the face of the time-honored value of free speech rights."

Mount Vernon Superintendent Steve Short issued the following statement:
"The Mount Vernon Schools has not taken this action because it opposes religion but because it has an obligation under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to protect against the establishment of religion in the schools. As a public school system, the district cannot teach, promote or favor any religion or religious beliefs."

Daubenmire said that was an argument he questioned.
"The question that we would love to ask is: what religion is it that John Freshwater is establishing by having a Bible on his desk?" Daubenmire said.

Freshwater explained why he refused to remove his Bible.
"Would our government ask a follower of Islam to remove her burka in order to teach school? Would we ask a science teacher to remove 'The Origin of Species' from his desk merely because the origin of man has never been proven?" he asked. "I cannot with a clear conscience follow a directive that makes religion and the religious viewpoint any less credible by those who deem themselves more enlightened."
He asked the dozens of people who attended his rally to join him in his fight, which he pledges to take to court if necessary.









Okay, so what do you guys think? Where do you draw the line?

Mount Vernon is where I go to college, so this is happening right in my backyard.

Judge, I expect a response from you about this, since you live here.

I see no problem with a bible on his desk...as long as he's not reading it aloud to them.

[Jumbro]

I guess what I am was trying to say is, yeah the bible in public schools way back when was fine. Mainly cuz most citizens were Christian of some sort. However, its not the same case now. So it doesn't mean back then what was done was constitutional or not, it just wasn't an issue. Thats why law is dynamic.

I agree partially, but I'm not good enough with law to go into too much details. BUT I am under the thought that when courts rule something constitutional or not, they are supposed to look at the constitution at the time it was written. In that case, I think religion is schools is constitution because that is what the constitution was based on. It is all a matter of opinion I guess though, which in some ways makes the situation great and in some ways makes it very difficult to enjoy.

[Judge]

To be honest with you guys, Mr. Freshwater is one of the nicest teachers.

He is a religious guy, but very well into sports 2 years ago (2005) we would talk it up about the Bengal's and getting into the playoff's, etc.

But I stand up for him, and do not feel he should remove the bible from his desk, because he wasn't teaching kids and what not.

I sure hope he doesn't loose his job over this, he is a great teacher, and a great guy.


-Judge

[Jasonew6]

Well interpretation changes as people change :thumbsup:
If the original interpretation of the constitution was: teach Christianity(or another religion) in class and if others don't believe/like it too bad. deal with it, or go start your own school. Well, that just doesn't right...

And there lies the Liberal method. Unless you have an agenda, how can you possibly interpret "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion, or the free expression thereof.." into meaning a teacher can't have a bile on his desk?

Or, even that the bible can't be taught in schools.

[busamboy]

To be honest with you guys, Mr. Freshwater is one of the nicest teachers.

He is a religious guy, but very well into sports 2 years ago (2005) we would talk it up about the Bengal's and getting into the playoff's, etc.

But I stand up for him, and do not feel he should remove the bible from his desk, because he wasn't teaching kids and what not.

I sure hope he doesn't loose his job over this, he is a great teacher, and a great guy.


-Judge


Are you going to stand up for him? I think I would.

I have no opinion over what anybody believes just because none of it can be proven exclusively. As long as he isn't trying to convert an entire class, then there shouldn't be a problem. We wouldn't ask any body to take off something if that is their religion. It shouldn't matter what or where the things are. He is not teaching anything about religion. Whether on not he has a bible on his desk is not going to change the way he teaches. But I guess, the same argument could be made for both sides. I say just let him keep the bible on his desk.

[Danno]

And there lies the Liberal method. Unless you have an agenda, how can you possibly interpret "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion, or the free expression thereof.." into meaning a teacher can't have a bile on his desk?

Or, even that the bible can't be taught in schools.


Woah woah woah. I never said he couldn't....:huh:
In fact I said I'm fine with it, I'm on his side. As long as he isn't teaching the Bible to the kids.... Ok now I think we are confused here..:wacko:

[Jasonew6]

Woah woah woah. I never said he couldn't....:huh:
In fact I said I'm fine with it, I'm on his side. As long as he isn't teaching the Bible to the kids.... Ok now I think we are confused here..:wacko:

I didn't say you did. I'm arguing the point of whether the constitution should be "interpreted" or "read". I argue for the latter.

[Danno]

Ah ok. Was scared there for a second, hahaha.

[jamiethelanky]

If the science teacher used the book to teach creationism, then he should either become a teacher of religion or struck off.

If he didn't, let him keep the book...

[The Noob Avenger]

If the science teacher used the book to teach creationism, then he should either become a teacher of religion or struck off.

If he didn't, let him keep the book...

This raises another good point. I had a biology teacher in high school who was a strict believer in Darwinian evolutionary theory. However, before our unit on evolution started, she told us that the view she was about to teach was not shared by everyone, and that if we were interested, we should research for ourselves the other views.

I feel that this allowed me to become as openminded about the issue as I am today. It made the option available to me, and I was not only being shown one point of view on the issue.

[The Noob Avenger]

More developments on the issue. It appears he may be found guilty of insubordination if he doesn't remove the bible, and a parent request sparked the whole thing:

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/UPDATES01/80417052



MOUNT VERNON — A Mount Vernon City Schools teacher could be found guilty of insubordination if a Bible is not removed from his desktop.
John Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher, called the recent request by the district an “infringement on my deeply held religious beliefs.”

Superintendent Steve Short said, to the best of his knowledge, the Bible still sits atop Freshwater’s desk.

“If he doesn’t remove the Bible from his desktop, at some point, and I don’t know that point yet because we haven’t progressed that far, but some claim of insubordination could be made,” school board President Ian Watson said. “There would be penalties involved, which would vary depending on level of insubordination.”

Watson would not comment on the possible punishments and said the superintendent would make that determination.

Freshwater could not be reached for comment.

“Mr. Freshwater has not yet been placed on leave at this time,” Short said. “I’m still hoping that we can get this resolved, but as far as trying to guess when that would be would be conjecture at this time.”

A release from the school board said, “The Mount Vernon Schools has not taken this action because it opposes religion but because it has an obligation under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to protect against the establishment of religion in the schools. As a public school system, the district cannot teach, promote or favor any religion or religious beliefs.”

Watson said the issue became apparent when one family brought it to the attention of the superintendent.

“The parents expressed concern on what allegedly occurred. Most recently I spoke to the family at the first of this month,” Watson said. “We would like to see the Bible removed so that we can be responsive to parents, and we would like to reach a common ground with Mr. Freshwater that everyone can be OK with, but I don’t know if that will happen.”

When asked if Freshwater was preaching from the Bible during class, Watson would not comment.

“We are still in the fact-finding stage, so I don’t want to respond to that yet,” he said.
Watson said Freshwater does not have to remove the book from his classroom.
“He can keep the book inside his desk or have it out during his lunch or free periods,” Watson said. “There is a lot of misinformation out there, which is to be expected, but we only asked him to remove the book from his desktop when students are in the room.”

Short said talk concerning the issue has been prevalent throughout the community.

“We’re a good-sized town and fairly close-knit community, and I would assume this would be a very emotional topic for a lot of people and I understand that,” he said. “I have not had opportunity to talk with students and faculty though to gauge their opinions.”

Short and Watson both said they have not had recent conversations with Freshwater.

Short said the next school board meeting is May 12.

“But I would hope that we can come to resolution before that time,” he said.
Watson said he is concerned for the students.

“This is really unfortunate timing,” he said. “We have state testing coming up and I’m not sure how well the students will be focused at this time, and that’s really frustrating for us.”

[jamiethelanky]

This raises another good point. I had a biology teacher in high school who was a strict believer in Darwinian evolutionary theory. However, before our unit on evolution started, she told us that the view she was about to teach was not shared by everyone, and that if we were interested, we should research for ourselves the other views.

I feel that this allowed me to become as openminded about the issue as I am today. It made the option available to me, and I was not only being shown one point of view on the issue.
My biology teacher did that, He said that many people had an opinion on it but that evolution was how the vast majority of biologists saw how it happened.

[The Noob Avenger]

My biology teacher did that, He said that many people had an opinion on it but that evolution was how the vast majority of biologists saw how it happened.

I feel teachers have an obligation to do that, to teach the theory effectively.

[philhos]

More developments on the issue. It appears he may be found guilty of insubordination if he doesn't remove the bible, and a parent request sparked the whole thing:

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/UPDATES01/80417052



MOUNT VERNON — A Mount Vernon City Schools teacher could be found guilty of insubordination if a Bible is not removed from his desktop.
John Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher, called the recent request by the district an “infringement on my deeply held religious beliefs.”

Superintendent Steve Short said, to the best of his knowledge, the Bible still sits atop Freshwater’s desk.

“If he doesn’t remove the Bible from his desktop, at some point, and I don’t know that point yet because we haven’t progressed that far, but some claim of insubordination could be made,” school board President Ian Watson said. “There would be penalties involved, which would vary depending on level of insubordination.”

Watson would not comment on the possible punishments and said the superintendent would make that determination.

Freshwater could not be reached for comment.

“Mr. Freshwater has not yet been placed on leave at this time,” Short said. “I’m still hoping that we can get this resolved, but as far as trying to guess when that would be would be conjecture at this time.”

A release from the school board said, “The Mount Vernon Schools has not taken this action because it opposes religion but because it has an obligation under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to protect against the establishment of religion in the schools. As a public school system, the district cannot teach, promote or favor any religion or religious beliefs.”

Watson said the issue became apparent when one family brought it to the attention of the superintendent.

“The parents expressed concern on what allegedly occurred. Most recently I spoke to the family at the first of this month,” Watson said. “We would like to see the Bible removed so that we can be responsive to parents, and we would like to reach a common ground with Mr. Freshwater that everyone can be OK with, but I don’t know if that will happen.”

When asked if Freshwater was preaching from the Bible during class, Watson would not comment.

“We are still in the fact-finding stage, so I don’t want to respond to that yet,” he said.
Watson said Freshwater does not have to remove the book from his classroom.
“He can keep the book inside his desk or have it out during his lunch or free periods,” Watson said. “There is a lot of misinformation out there, which is to be expected, but we only asked him to remove the book from his desktop when students are in the room.”

Short said talk concerning the issue has been prevalent throughout the community.

“We’re a good-sized town and fairly close-knit community, and I would assume this would be a very emotional topic for a lot of people and I understand that,” he said. “I have not had opportunity to talk with students and faculty though to gauge their opinions.”

Short and Watson both said they have not had recent conversations with Freshwater.

Short said the next school board meeting is May 12.

“But I would hope that we can come to resolution before that time,” he said.
Watson said he is concerned for the students.

“This is really unfortunate timing,” he said. “We have state testing coming up and I’m not sure how well the students will be focused at this time, and that’s really frustrating for us.”

Ahhh, I figured as much. It's the old "I see it and it offends me therefore get rid of it" complaint.

How pathetic and weakminded is someone who gets offended at anything religious they see?

I hope Mr. Freshwater has a lawyer ready and if the school takes any action against him to remove the Bible he sues the school (and I say he sues the complaining parents/family) for infringing on his freedom of religious expression.

Of course, this is assuming he doesn't preach in the class or read out loud to the class from the Bible.

[The Noob Avenger]

Ahhh, I figured as much. It's the old "I see it and it offends me therefore get rid of it" complaint.

How pathetic and weakminded is someone who gets offended at anything religious they see?

I hope Mr. Freshwater has a lawyer ready and if the school takes any action against him to remove the Bible he sues the school (and I say he sues the complaining parents/family) for infringing on his freedom of religious expression.

Of course, this is assuming he doesn't preach in the class or read out loud to the class from the Bible.

I wonder if he had a Homer doll on his desk, and someone found The Simpsons offensive, if he would be asked to remove it from his desk?

This whole thing is stupid, and the basis is that the school district doesn't want to mess with the parents.

This whole thing is funny, because I go to a Christian University in Mt. Vernon. I'm sure this teacher would have this whole student body and faculty behind him.

[mallorian69]

this is what mr. freshwater should tell the school district. "you have already shown favotitism towards one religon by planning winter and spring breaks around the 2 biggest christian holidays. also if you look at any american or world history book in most public schools you will find whole sections on religous subjects like the crusades, the spanish inquisition, spanish missionaries converting native americans, the protestent reformation, the pilgrims, quakers, and mormons. aside from those pieces of christian history, you will find few if any other sections dedicated to the history of any other religon with the exception of the holocaust. when all religons have equal time off for their holidays and all religons are given equal time in classrooms and textbooks, don't speak to me about not favoring one religon over another."

[Who Dayton]

If you are offended by the words "Holy Bible", the problem lies within you. If the teacher was preaching in the class, then yes, the parents and school has a case. If not, then stfu.

Why is there more curse words allowed on daytime tv and nighttime tv than ever before, yet you can't mention the word God?

Why is society allowing more scantily clad girls and boys to attend schools, yet throw a hissy fit if a child wears a cross around their neck?

You can say "Praise Allah" but not "Praise God" or "Praise Jesus"?

It's ok to wear a Shayla (Muslim womans head dress), but you can't carry a Bible or have it sitting on a desk?

Everything in the world is getting more relaxed, yet they are tightening the noose around Christianity. We have grown to the point where we have researched other religions and beliefs. People know more about other religions now than ever before. We are more socially accepting others views and rights, but we can't express our love for the Christian God?

If a Muslim teacher had a copy of the Quran on his desk, there wouldn't have been a story about it because we might offend him and the Muslim people for oppressing him. Schools and politicians are so caught up on the diversity thing, that they are allowing everything else except what offends atheists and other "against Christianity" religions. They are trying to make everyone accepting of everyone else's views and beliefs, but since Christianity is offensive to a few beliefs, it is being removed everywhere. How is that diversity? How is that bringing people together to better understand each other?

Don't take this as I am against Muslims or any other religion. I am open minded about other religions and am not offended by any. But if you want to embrace diversity, you have to embrace the Christian religion too.

[jamiethelanky]

If you are offended by the words "Holy Bible", the problem lies within you. If the teacher was preaching in the class, then yes, the parents and school has a case. If not, then stfu.

Why is there more curse words allowed on daytime tv and nighttime tv than ever before, yet you can't mention the word God?

Why is society allowing more scantily clad girls and boys to attend schools, yet throw a hissy fit if a child wears a cross around their neck?

You can say "Praise Allah" but not "Praise God" or "Praise Jesus"?

It's ok to wear a Shayla (Muslim womans head dress), but you can't carry a Bible or have it sitting on a desk?

Everything in the world is getting more relaxed, yet they are tightening the noose around Christianity. We have grown to the point where we have researched other religions and beliefs. People know more about other religions now than ever before. We are more socially accepting others views and rights, but we can't express our love for the Christian God?

If a Muslim teacher had a copy of the Quran on his desk, there wouldn't have been a story about it because we might offend him and the Muslim people for oppressing him. Schools and politicians are so caught up on the diversity thing, that they are allowing everything else except what offends atheists and other "against Christianity" religions. They are trying to make everyone accepting of everyone else's views and beliefs, but since Christianity is offensive to a few beliefs, it is being removed everywhere. How is that diversity? How is that bringing people together to better understand each other?

Don't take this as I am against Muslims or any other religion. I am open minded about other religions and am not offended by any. But if you want to embrace diversity, you have to embrace the Christian religion too.
Believe it or not, you are not as persecuted as you think you are. I think you should be able to mention the word God, and curse - but the FCC won't allow it. I think that if it is the case that the teacher referred to the Bible during a science class, then it shouldn't be there and neither should he. CHristianity doesn't offend other religions, forcing Crhistianity does.

BTW, you cannot say praise Allah nor praise God in a US public school.

And that's a good thing...

[Who Dayton]

Believe it or not, you are not as persecuted as you think you are. I think you should be able to mention the word God, and curse - but the FCC won't allow it. I think that if it is the case that the teacher referred to the Bible during a science class, then it shouldn't be there and neither should he. CHristianity doesn't offend other religions, forcing Crhistianity does.

BTW, you cannot say praise Allah nor praise God in a US public school.

And that's a good thing...

I'm not saying we are being persecuted to some extreme level, just saying that to have diversity, you have to allow and embrace everything.

How is a closed Bible sitting on a desk forcing religion?

How is wearing a religious shirt or a cross around your neck forcing religion?

The ones that are complaining about Christianity are attacking our symbols of faith, yet allowing other religions to have their symbols. The last act of "forcing religion" was when there was mandatory morning prayer in school. Since that was done away with, the easily offended are going for the small stuff until there is nothing left to offended by.

And yes, a student can say "Praise Allah" in school, as well as a teacher, so long as they aren't preaching it. I have witnessed from back in my days as a student, people that said "Praise God" or "Praise Jesus", there was someone that got offended. Both students and parents alike.

Either we need to be more accepting of views and beliefs, or we need to go to a black and white dress code for the entire world. Black pants or skirt with a white shirt or blouse. No jewelry of any kind. The only books you are allowed to read in school are text books, and there is no mention of any religion in those text books. No more churches either. You can only practice your religion from the confines of your own home. Can't have people finding out what you believe, that might cause some chaos. No makeup. 1 hairstyle for the guys, and 1 hairstyle for the girls.

But which way is more likely to happen?

[34inXXIII]

If a Muslim teacher had a copy of the Quran on his desk, there wouldn't have been a story about it
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

[Judge]

They where signing a petition after school today, at the spirit rock, to show support for Mr. Freshwater. Plenty of people brought there bibles to school today, to show their support for Mr. Freshwater. He's a class act.

[The Noob Avenger]

They where signing a petition after school today, at the spirit rock, to show support for Mr. Freshwater. Plenty of people brought there bibles to school today, to show their support for Mr. Freshwater. He's a class act.

Nothing happening at MVNU yet. Its surprising. Usually our chapel speaker will say something about stuff.

[The Noob Avenger]

MOUNT VERNON (AP) — A public school district in Ohio says it has hired an independent investigator to look into allegations by parents that a teacher used an electrostatic device to burn crosses on to students’ arms.

The Mount Vernon City School District has assigned an administrator to monitor the classroom of eighth-grade science teacher John Freshwater until the investigation is over

It’s the district’s latest run-in with Freshwater, who last week refused to obey an order to remove a Bible on his desk from view of students.

Freshwater also is accused of handing out Bibles to students and teaching the meaning of Good Friday and Easter.

School district officials say they are required by the U.S. Constitution not to promote religious beliefs.

No one answered calls made to Freshwater’s home on Tuesday afternoon.


Well, shoot. Another development, and this one doesn't bode well for Mr. Freshwater.

[Judge]

I'll be honest with you guys.

When I had Mr. Freshwater, he didn't teach evelution, and I do remember him saying it wasn't true. I had no problem with that, me being a fellow Christian.

But some of the thing's he says, where not acceptable.

[warsteiner138]

Did he hand out bibles on school property or on the clock. Cause if he did; he just asking for trouble.

He knows he can not do that on the job.

[jamiethelanky]

I'll be honest with you guys.

When I had Mr. Freshwater, he didn't teach evelution, and I do remember him saying it wasn't true. I had no problem with that, me being a fellow Christian.

But some of the thing's he says, where not acceptable.
If he is a science or biology teacher then that is just plain unacceptable...

Is (was) he? If so, he should be fired. Creationism is a religious concept and should be taught in Religious studies or in church...

If he's handing out Bibles then he is effectively indoctrinating a generation - possibly against the will of a fair few parents...

[GomerPyle]

I strongly believe that if he wants to be professional, he must teach the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is almost, I repeat, ALMOST an acceptable theory of life, and him being a Biology teacher, he must teach what they tell him too. I never had him for a teacher, but from the lessons he's taught (Others told me, many confirmed) it seems unacceptable for a man of his profession.

The lesson I am talking about is that he dumped some lego's and said that in a hundred years, would they put themselves together and make themselves. That's not a logical lesson, for one; they're objects without life, and for two; it's called Survival of the Fittest, you adapt to your surroundings to survived.

Look, he took the posters down, and he took everything else, and the Bible was on his desk, he should put it in his desk, because you need to seperate the church from the state. He teaches Biology, the study of life, and not teaching the theory of Evolution is not the best to do.

[jamiethelanky]

I strongly believe that if he wants to be professional, he must teach the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is almost, I repeat, ALMOST an acceptable theory of life, and him being a Biology teacher, he must teach what they tell him too. I never had him for a teacher, but from the lessons he's taught (Others told me, many confirmed) it seems unacceptable for a man of his profession.

The lesson I am talking about is that he dumped some lego's and said that in a hundred years, would they put themselves together and make themselves. That's not a logical lesson, for one; they're objects without life, and for two; it's called Survival of the Fittest, you adapt to your surroundings to survived.

Look, he took the posters down, and he took everything else, and the Bible was on his desk, he should put it in his desk, because you need to seperate the church from the state. He teaches Biology, the study of life, and not teaching the theory of Evolution is not the best to do.
If that is the case, then it is thoroughly unacceptable for him to hold the position of a biology teacher, and he needs to be fired. Maybe then he can contemplate what he has done...

[GomerPyle]

If that is the case, then it is thoroughly unacceptable for him to hold the position of a biology teacher, and he needs to be fired. Maybe then he can contemplate what he has done...

That is what I was thinking. Let's put his Religious feelings aside, and focus on his job; a Middle School Biology teacher. Biology is the study of life, and Evolution is a theory of life, and how we were all created. I think the whole thing is being blown out of porportion. I think that if he puts the Bible in his desk, not ontop, then it'll all be good.

[jamiethelanky]

That is what I was thinking. Let's put his Religious feelings aside, and focus on his job; a Middle School Biology teacher. Biology is the study of life, and Evolution is a theory of life, and how we were all created. I think the whole thing is being blown out of porportion. I think that if he puts the Bible in his desk, not ontop, then it'll all be good.
And not only is evolution a theory of life but it is (vastly) the most commonly agreed-upon by Biologists (y'know, people who spend a good long time studying Biology).

[GomerPyle]

And not only is evolution a theory of life but it is (vastly) the most commonly agreed-upon by Biologists (y'know, people who spend a good long time studying Biology).

I know what you mean, although it has yet to be 100% proven, it's still the most common theory of life, due to the science envolved.

[philhos]

BTW, you cannot say praise Allah nor praise God in a US public school.

And that's a good thing...

You're wrong. You CAN say "Praise Allah" AND "Praise God" in a U.S. public school (both teachers and students alike). Now, if you follow that with "...because God gave us His Son Jesus to die ..." or "...because Allah is ...", then there could be issues, but it would still depend on the situation (a teacher saying it in class, for example).

We do have this thing in the country, Jamie, called Freedom of Speech.

And it is NOT a good thing to restrict freedom of speech (or religion) to the point where no one can say anything about it ever.

[jamiethelanky]

You're wrong. You CAN say "Praise Allah" AND "Praise God" in a U.S. public school (both teachers and students alike). Now, if you follow that with "...because God gave us His Son Jesus to die ..." or "...because Allah is ...", then there could be issues, but it would still depend on the situation (a teacher saying it in class, for example).

We do have this thing in the country, Jamie, called Freedom of Speech.

And it is NOT a good thing to restrict freedom of speech (or religion) to the point where no one can say anything about it ever.
I was meaning in a verbal directive sense, rather than in an exclamative sense...

You can say it in an exclamative sense.

[The Noob Avenger]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/VIDEO/80423020/1002

More video goodness.

It also has some nice MILF in it.

[philhos]

I was meaning in a verbal directive sense, rather than in an exclamative sense...

You can say it in an exclamative sense.

In that case, we are in agreement ...
































... Praise God. :smirk:

[philhos]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/VIDEO/80423020/1002

More video goodness.

It also has some nice MILF in it.

Why would I care about the Moro Islamic Liberation Front ([url]http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/milf.htm[/url)?

:smirk:

[Corrupt3d]

I dunno, but if having a Bible on the desk makes a teacher feel like he's teaching better, than let him.


Last thing we need is for people to grow up to become stupid and paranoid into thinking that a book on someone's desk is going to turn their children into hardcore Christians...

...and for the record, I'm Muslim and have a Bible on my desk too.

[Corrupt3d]

If you are offended by the words "Holy Bible", the problem lies within you. If the teacher was preaching in the class, then yes, the parents and school has a case. If not, then stfu.

Why is there more curse words allowed on daytime tv and nighttime tv than ever before, yet you can't mention the word God?

Why is society allowing more scantily clad girls and boys to attend schools, yet throw a hissy fit if a child wears a cross around their neck?

You can say "Praise Allah" but not "Praise God" or "Praise Jesus"?

It's ok to wear a Shayla (Muslim womans head dress), but you can't carry a Bible or have it sitting on a desk?

Everything in the world is getting more relaxed, yet they are tightening the noose around Christianity. We have grown to the point where we have researched other religions and beliefs. People know more about other religions now than ever before. We are more socially accepting others views and rights, but we can't express our love for the Christian God?

If a Muslim teacher had a copy of the Quran on his desk, there wouldn't have been a story about it because we might offend him and the Muslim people for oppressing him. Schools and politicians are so caught up on the diversity thing, that they are allowing everything else except what offends atheists and other "against Christianity" religions. They are trying to make everyone accepting of everyone else's views and beliefs, but since Christianity is offensive to a few beliefs, it is being removed everywhere. How is that diversity? How is that bringing people together to better understand each other?

Don't take this as I am against Muslims or any other religion. I am open minded about other religions and am not offended by any. But if you want to embrace diversity, you have to embrace the Christian religion too.




I agree with all of the above.


I swear though, you all should help petition for Muslim holidays to be recognized by the government to get the day off...you'll get an entire FREAKING MONTH off.

[philhos]

I agree with all of the above.


I swear though, you all should help petition for Muslim holidays to be recognized by the government to get the day off...you'll get an entire FREAKING MONTH off.

If we throw the Jewish ones in there, too, I don't think we'd ever have to go to school or work again! :lol:

[Who Dayton]

MOUNT VERNON (AP) — A public school district in Ohio says it has hired an independent investigator to look into allegations by parents that a teacher used an electrostatic device to burn crosses on to students’ arms.

The Mount Vernon City School District has assigned an administrator to monitor the classroom of eighth-grade science teacher John Freshwater until the investigation is over

It’s the district’s latest run-in with Freshwater, who last week refused to obey an order to remove a Bible on his desk from view of students.

Freshwater also is accused of handing out Bibles to students and teaching the meaning of Good Friday and Easter.

School district officials say they are required by the U.S. Constitution not to promote religious beliefs.

No one answered calls made to Freshwater’s home on Tuesday afternoon.

Ok yeah, if hes burning Cross's into students arms, then there is a problem. But that seems a little radical to be true.

And here is where I feel a little bit of Church and State is ok. He is being condemned for telling the kids what the meaning of their 1, and in some cases 2 week vacation from school is about? Why have Easter Break if you cant tell them why they have it?

Christmas, from a religious standpoint, has been blown so far out of its origin that you can tell the kids now that its winter break, or, it's a time of giving and sharing. Have 2 weeks off without the religious background. Ok, fine. Whatever. But what is the meaning of Easter? The public school system cant honestly expect kids above 10 to believe that a rabbit ****s out colored eggs and goes to everyones home and gives them a basket full of candy and you get out of school for a while because of it.

I see no wrong with telling the students why they are getting out of school, even if it is a religious holiday. There is no other reason for Easter other than the death and resurrection of Christ. That is why the holiday is there, that is why schools honor that holiday and work spring break around it.

[jamiethelanky]

Ok yeah, if hes burning Cross's into students arms, then there is a problem. But that seems a little radical to be true.

And here is where I feel a little bit of Church and State is ok. He is being condemned for telling the kids what the meaning of their 1, and in some cases 2 week vacation from school is about? Why have Easter Break if you cant tell them why they have it?

Christmas, from a religious standpoint, has been blown so far out of its origin that you can tell the kids now that its winter break, or, it's a time of giving and sharing. Have 2 weeks off without the religious background. Ok, fine. Whatever. But what is the meaning of Easter? The public school system cant honestly expect kids above 10 to believe that a rabbit ****s out colored eggs and goes to everyones home and gives them a basket full of candy and you get out of school for a while because of it.

I see no wrong with telling the students why they are getting out of school, even if it is a religious holiday. There is no other reason for Easter other than the death and resurrection of Christ. That is why the holiday is there, that is why schools honor that holiday and work spring break around it.
Christmas and Easter are both timed around pagan festivals...

[philhos]

Christmas and Easter are both timed around pagan festivals...

While that may be true, the holidays themselves ARE Christian. The time off from school IS due to those holidays.

And even if they weren't, those pagan festivals are celebrations from other religions (they're called "pagan" 'cause they are not "Christian").

[kdubdj]

to me, as long as he is not preaching/reading from it then it is no more harmful than someone wearing a cross. people need to mind their own business and respect others rights to religious beliefs. i am not any particular religion but i defend peoples rights to believe and practice how they want (or not to practice at all, like myself)

[Skeeter McGee]

If that teacher had a Qu'ran sitting on his desk then it wouldn't be a problem. :angry:

[jamiethelanky]

If that teacher had a Qu'ran sitting on his desk then it wouldn't be a problem. :angry:
False.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter because he was actively teaching against evolution, the most accepted theory by biologists as a biology teacher. He shouldn't have a desk to put a Bible on...

[Skeeter McGee]

False.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter because he was actively teaching against evolution, the most accepted theory by biologists as a biology teacher. He shouldn't have a desk to put a Bible on...

No, actually i'm right because if that was a Qu'ran on that desk and the teacher was Muslim, that teacher would sue the school and win, because that's how America is nowadays, this country always buckles under trying to be politically correct when it comes to any religious group except for Christians. :angry: And that teacher has a right to his opinion, and i can think of alot worse things a teacher could do other than debunking evolution, which is a completely idiotic theory to begin with. :wacko:

[jamiethelanky]

No, actually i'm right because if that was a Qu'ran on that desk and the teacher was Muslim, that teacher would sue the school and win, because that's how America is nowadays, this country always buckles under trying to be politically correct when it comes to any religious group except for Christians. :angry: And that teacher has a right to his opinion, and i can think of alot worse things a teacher could do other than debunking evolution, which is a completely idiotic theory to begin with. :wacko:
HE'S A BIOLOGY TEACHER! HE IS MEANT TO TEACH BIOLOGY! EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGY, CREATION IS RELIGION! RELIGION AND BIOLOGY ARE NOT THE SAME!.

For heavens sake, Skeet, sometimes you are trying...

And as for being politically correct, there is meant to be no religion in schools. He can have the Bible or Qu'ran on his desk, that's fine, but please do not teach religion in a biology class.

The teacher should be fired and not allowed to teach biology again...

[philhos]

The teacher should be fired and not allowed to teach biology again...

That's a bit harsh. If this is the first time he's gotten caught, a fine and a warning or something equivalent should suffice. If he continues and it happens 2 or 3 more times, then I believe a firing is warranted.

[Skeeter McGee]

HE'S A BIOLOGY TEACHER! HE IS MEANT TO TEACH BIOLOGY! EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGY, CREATION IS RELIGION! RELIGION AND BIOLOGY ARE NOT THE SAME!.

For heavens sake, Skeet, sometimes you are trying...

And as for being politically correct, there is meant to be no religion in schools. He can have the Bible or Qu'ran on his desk, that's fine, but please do not teach religion in a biology class.

The teacher should be fired and not allowed to teach biology again...

He can teach biology to the students but he can still give his own opinions to his students, i see nothing wrong with that.

[jamiethelanky]

That's a bit harsh. If this is the first time he's gotten caught, a fine and a warning or something equivalent should suffice. If he continues and it happens 2 or 3 more times, then I believe a firing is warranted.
He didn't teach biology in a biology class. That's professional misconduct. He didn't do his job.

Let's put this another way. I work at a shop. it is my job to sell goods. However, I do not believe in the capitalist system and let people walk away with goods. My supervisor confronts me over this, and I say that it's to do with my beliefs. Should I be cut any slack?

If the above scenario happened, I wouldn't be doing my job. I would probably be sacked. That teacher teached religion instead of teaching the biology that some of those kids could have taken onto college level. He didn't do his job.

Seems like a fair enough grounds for redundancy to me...

[jamiethelanky]

He can teach biology to the students but he can still give his own opinions to his students, i see nothing wrong with that.
That's truie. But you don't say that the method you are teaching as a biologist teacher is wrong if it is the one accepted most by biologists. You can say religion says otherwise but biology says this, then teach evolution and evolution ONLY, as it is the biological argument...

[Who Dayton]

Skeeter..I already made that argument about the Qu'ran.

Having a Bible or a Qu'ran or a Wicca cult book or any other book of a religion, does not force religion on a student. Opening and preaching from the book does. Giving the reason for Easter does not. Burning crosses in students arms does.

Granted he shouldn't be a biology teacher if he himself doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but thats not the debate.

[jamiethelanky]

Skeeter..I already made that argument about the Qu'ran.

Having a Bible or a Qu'ran or a Wicca cult book or any other book of a religion, does not force religion on a student. Opening and preaching from the book does. Giving the reason for Easter does not. Burning crosses in students arms does.

Granted he shouldn't be a biology teacher if he himself doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but thats not the debate.
But, it has been admitted by a student that he has denied evolution. In this thread. That is enough reason to have him fired...

[Judge]

But, it has been admitted by a student that he has denied evolution. In this thread. That is enough reason to have him fired...

Yes, when he taught my class 2 years ago, he didn't mention the evolution at all.

Simply skipped it, he should at least teach it, and make it our choice to pick what we want.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I could care less if he had a bible on the desk....as long as he's teaching the curiculum, period. And as most have stated...As long as he's not preaching to them, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Judge]

But, it has been admitted by a student that he has denied evolution. In this thread. That is enough reason to have him fired...

No, I never asked about evolution, I really didn't know much about it in 8th grade.

[philhos]

He didn't teach biology in a biology class. That's professional misconduct. He didn't do his job.

Let's put this another way. I work at a shop. it is my job to sell goods. However, I do not believe in the capitalist system and let people walk away with goods. My supervisor confronts me over this, and I say that it's to do with my beliefs. Should I be cut any slack?

If the above scenario happened, I wouldn't be doing my job. I would probably be sacked. That teacher teached religion instead of teaching the biology that some of those kids could have taken onto college level. He didn't do his job.

Seems like a fair enough grounds for redundancy to me...

The difference is in your analogy you encouraged theft which is a crime. At worse, the teacher used his position of authority to proseltyze. For a first time offense, that doesn't warrant firing.

And let's not forget the great liberal idea of the Teacher's Union. Regardless of what the teacher did, there's no way the union will allow the district to fire the teacher for simply preaching in the class (he may be "reassigned" but he won't be fired); at least, not for a first offense.

[Judge]

The difference is in your analogy you encouraged theft which is a crime. At worse, the teacher used his position of authority to proseltyze. For a first time offense, that doesn't warrant firing.

And let's not forget the great liberal idea of the Teacher's Union. Regardless of what the teacher did, there's no way the union will allow the district to fire the teacher for simply preaching in the class (he may be "reassigned" but he won't be fired); at least, not for a first offense.

I've heard Mt. Vernon has a really strong union.


I wouldn't be suprised if he did keep his job, I know several teacher's the board tried firing and they've kept there jobs. Or at least rumor has it.)

[jace4655]

HE'S A BIOLOGY TEACHER! HE IS MEANT TO TEACH BIOLOGY! EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGY, CREATION IS RELIGION! RELIGION AND BIOLOGY ARE NOT THE SAME!.

For heavens sake, Skeet, sometimes you are trying...

And as for being politically correct, there is meant to be no religion in schools. He can have the Bible or Qu'ran on his desk, that's fine, but please do not teach religion in a biology class.

The teacher should be fired and not allowed to teach biology again...
Yup anyone that doesn't believe that two rocks colliding in space isn't what created earth is a idiot! :hmm:

I also guess that Columbus should of been hung because everyone knew back in the day that the world was flat, so since he dint believe in the basic fundamentals of geography he shouldn't of ever been given the chance to sail around the world.

[jamiethelanky]

Yup anyone that doesn't believe that two rocks colliding in space isn't what created earth is a idiot! :hmm:

I also guess that Columbus should of been hung because everyone knew back in the day that the world was flat, so since he dint believe in the basic fundamentals of geography he shouldn't of ever been given the chance to sail around the world.
What?

BTW, Two rocks colliding didn't create earth, rather than a huge amount of dust and debris of heavy elements such as iron pulled together by a gravitational force.

Belief in a flat Earth had all but died out by about the 4th century so Columbus was well in the know.

Denying something that has stood the rigour of science in this day and age needs to be strongly considered. Modern-day science is now at a level where even the slightest weakness is enough to entirely debunk a theory.

Going against regular scientific opinion on a "let's wait and see" or even worse "my God says this so evolution can't be true" is stupid and is denying children an opportunity to learn about biological theory. If they want to discuss creationism, then do it in religious studies. Not in science, thank you very much.

[Who Dayton]

But, it has been admitted by a student that he has denied evolution. In this thread. That is enough reason to have him fired...

The main debate is about his Bible being on the desk. If he is not willing to do his job, then yes, he should be reassigned a new teaching position. But that is not the case being pressed on him.

What gets me, is that this is the second case in a matter of months about Christianity being under scrutiny. What was it, a month or 2 ago, when the kid in art class made a religious mask, and the teacher destroyed it or something like that, but allowed demon masks and whatnot. Yet that school has on display many other religious symbols and Gods, but rebukes anything Christian. What is the world coming too?

Diversity is a 2 way street.

[Skeeter McGee]

You know what people? I think i'm just gonna go off into the woods and smoke me some mushrooms and then i'm just gonna pretend like i created the planet earth. :thumbsup:

[philhos]

Modern-day science is now at a level where even the slightest weakness is enough to entirely debunk a theory.

Whilst I'd like to agree with you on this sentence, it's just not true ... really. Think of global warming. We have all this "evidence" of its existence and Al Gore has said the debate is over. Yet, there are many scientists (not kook ones, either, but respectable ones) - and seemingly more and more of them every day - that have proposed MANY flaws in global warming (like for example how global temperatures have actually been on a downward trend the last 5-10 years). It's also why you're hearing more about "climate change" and not so much about "global warming."

Thus, the debate goes on in a scientific field.

[Domata Dominance]

First, I apologize for showing up late to another thread.
The way I see it, "freedom of religion" is NOT "freedom FROM religion" You cannot ask a teacher to lay aside his own religious beliefs. The Bible was just sitting on the desk. As far as we know, he wasn't even reading it to the class. Did the kids complain? I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't think they did.
I will take this a step further. Even if he was reading it to the class, was he telling them that they had to believe it? I'm a devout Christian, but I would have absolutely no problem with a teacher reading the Koran in a classroom. As long as he isn't telling people that they have to believe it, I have no problem with it. I believe kids should learn about religion in the public schools. Religion is important, and it's the duty of the public schools to give kids at least a general understanding of the major religions. Islam, Buddhist, etc. included.

[barryllium]

First, I apologize for showing up late to another thread.
The way I see it, "freedom of religion" is NOT "freedom FROM religion" You cannot ask a teacher to lay aside his own religious beliefs. The Bible was just sitting on the desk. As far as we know, he wasn't even reading it to the class. Did the kids complain? I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't think they did.
I will take this a step further. Even if he was reading it to the class, was he telling them that they had to believe it? I'm a devout Christian, but I would have absolutely no problem with a teacher reading the Koran in a classroom. As long as he isn't telling people that they have to believe it, I have no problem with it. I believe kids should learn about religion in the public schools. Religion is important, and it's the duty of the public schools to give kids at least a general understanding of the major religions. Islam, Buddhist, etc. included.

All great points. I also think learning about different religions is a very good thing - at least to be able to understand the beliefs of others, and at it's greatest to see how all the major religions share many of the same ideas at their cores. Can't we all just get along?!?!

[Who Dayton]

First, I apologize for showing up late to another thread.
The way I see it, "freedom of religion" is NOT "freedom FROM religion" You cannot ask a teacher to lay aside his own religious beliefs. The Bible was just sitting on the desk. As far as we know, he wasn't even reading it to the class. Did the kids complain? I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't think they did.
I will take this a step further. Even if he was reading it to the class, was he telling them that they had to believe it? I'm a devout Christian, but I would have absolutely no problem with a teacher reading the Koran in a classroom. As long as he isn't telling people that they have to believe it, I have no problem with it. I believe kids should learn about religion in the public schools. Religion is important, and it's the duty of the public schools to give kids at least a general understanding of the major religions. Islam, Buddhist, etc. included.

I agree with you, but you cant teach religion or preach religion in biology class. If he wasn't teaching or preaching it, then there shouldn't be a problem.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

At this point, even most of the non-religious folk (including myself) agree that as long as he wasn't teach or preaching to the students, having the bible on the desk shouldn't have been a big deal. I really don't understand why there is a big hoopla over it. It really should be a non-issue.

[Judge]

Also, found out today that he would go to strip clubs around Mt. Vernon, and take picture's of liesence plates of the people at the club, and post them on the internet. Kinda weird, eh?

[VCU Rams]

Also, found out today that he would go to strip clubs around Mt. Vernon, and take picture's of liesence plates of the people at the club, and post them on the internet. Kinda weird, eh?

That explains all my angry emails after my trip to Mt. Vernon :D

[Judge]

That explains all my angry emails after my trip to Mt. Vernon :D


Haha!

[Who Dayton]

This case keeps getting weirder. Next they will say he has been killing kittens by beating them with puppies.

[jamiethelanky]

Also, found out today that he would go to strip clubs around Mt. Vernon, and take picture's of liesence plates of the people at the club, and post them on the internet. Kinda weird, eh?
That's just insane...

And unethical. I don't believe a true Christian would pursue judging a person like that. i was willing to think he was a misguided devotee at first, but that's a little more malevolent...

[Judge]

Yeah, it started out with just a bible, and now there learning a lot of information about him.

[The Noob Avenger]

Welp, time to bump this thread up again.. This teacher made it onto drudge report with this story.

Looks like they determined that he WAS burning crosses into student's arms.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1

This is the link to my local newspaper. It has the report on the teacher

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080620/UPDATES01/80620011

[Domata Dominance]

Welp, time to bump this thread up again.. This teacher made it onto drudge report with this story.

Looks like they determined that he WAS burning crosses into student's arms.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1

hmmm, he says he was showing the device to the students. If the students didn't object, then I have no problem with it. If he forced students to have a cross or X or whatever it was burned into their arms, then there is a problem. But the article doesn't mention this. I wonder why?

[The Noob Avenger]

hmmm, he says he was showing the device to the students. If the students didn't object, then I have no problem with it. If he forced students to have a cross or X or whatever it was burned into their arms, then there is a problem. But the article doesn't mention this. I wonder why?

You should read the report in the second link I edited into that post. It may shed some light on that.

Hmmm... Picture.

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/6/20/D91DVT200/D91DVT200.jpg

[Domata Dominance]

You should read the report in the second link I edited into that post. It may shed some light on that.

Hmmm... Picture.

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/6/20/D91DVT200/D91DVT200.jpg

hmmm, I still didn't see anything as to whether or not the students were willing participants in the "burning"

[The Noob Avenger]

hmmm, I still didn't see anything as to whether or not the students were willing participants in the "burning"

It was saying that they volunteered to be shown the machine. I'll have to DL the adobe reader so I can see the report.

BTW.. The teacher thinks its an "X" and not a cross.

[barryllium]

hmmm, I still didn't see anything as to whether or not the students were willing participants in the "burning"

Honestly, Domata - it shouldn't matter. A teacher shouldn't be party to something like this happening in a school, regardless of any other questions or facts of this issue.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

religion has no place in school, he can have his bible but don't say a word of it to any student.

and teaching creationism in science class is completely wrong, he can feel free to point out holes in the evolution theory, but "teaching" about a creator in a biology or chemistry or physics class is a disservice to the students.

[barryllium]

religion has no place in school, he can have his bible but don't say a word of it to any student.

and teaching creationism in science class is completely wrong, he can feel free to point out holes in the evolution theory, but "teaching" about a creator in a biology or chemistry or physics class is a disservice to the students.

Religion most definitely has a place in school - science just isn't the place. Pretty hard to teach history without religion, though.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Religion most definitely has a place in school - science just isn't the place. Pretty hard to teach history without religion, though.

teaching about a religion as it pertains to history is great, that will give them a very good objective view.

but teaching scriptures or the preaching the ideals of a religion has no place, sorry i didn't articulate that enough.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

"dont be coming around here with no babies"

that was all i got.

[jamiethelanky]

Welp, time to bump this thread up again.. This teacher made it onto drudge report with this story.

Looks like they determined that he WAS burning crosses into student's arms.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1

This is the link to my local newspaper. It has the report on the teacher

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080620/UPDATES01/80620011
That's practising religion in public education, led by the institution itself.

He should be sacked. End of.

[Domata Dominance]

religion has no place in school, he can have his bible but don't say a word of it to any student.

and teaching creationism in science class is completely wrong, he can feel free to point out holes in the evolution theory, but "teaching" about a creator in a biology or chemistry or physics class is a disservice to the students.

Religion NEEDS to be taught in schools, and a teacher should not be asked to teach something that he believes is wrong. Creation is at least as, if not more credible than evolutionism. Also, there's nothing wrong with reading from the Bible to his students. Even in science class. Is he forcing them to believe it? I don't think so. If he is, that's a different issue. The Bible does have many interesting chapters with regard to science, such as the mention of leviathan, among other dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. But to say that he can't even have a Bible on his desk is to prohibit him from practicing his own religion. Would they have a problem if he was Muslim, and it was a Koran on his desk? Of course not. Because that would be considered educational, since he was helping the class understand the Muslim worldview. The hypocrisy is just sickening.

[jamiethelanky]

Religion NEEDS to be taught in schools, and a teacher should not be asked to teach something that he believes is wrong. Creation is at least as, if not more credible than evolutionism. Also, there's nothing wrong with reading from the Bible to his students. Even in science class. Is he forcing them to believe it? I don't think so. If he is, that's a different issue. The Bible does have many interesting chapters with regard to science, such as the mention of leviathan, among other dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. But to say that he can't even have a Bible on his desk is to prohibit him from practicing his own religion. Would they have a problem if he was Muslim, and it was a Koran on his desk? Of course not. Because that would be considered educational, since he was helping the class understand the Muslim worldview. The hypocrisy is just sickening.
Nope, disagree entirely. Teaching religion has no place. Teaching about religion does.

Religion =/= science. If it's a biology class, teach what biologists believe. If it's a class about Christianity, teach what they believe.

[Domata Dominance]

Nope, disagree entirely. Teaching religion has no place. Teaching about religion does.

Religion =/= science. If it's a biology class, teach what biologists believe. If it's a class about Christianity, teach what they believe.

Many biologists believe in Creation as opposed to evolution. It's just that the evolutionists try to discredit them by blowing them off and calling them "unscientific". That way, in their own mind, all biologists believe evolution.

[barryllium]

Religion NEEDS to be taught in schools, and a teacher should not be asked to teach something that he believes is wrong. Creation is at least as, if not more credible than evolutionism. Also, there's nothing wrong with reading from the Bible to his students. Even in science class. Is he forcing them to believe it? I don't think so. If he is, that's a different issue. The Bible does have many interesting chapters with regard to science, such as the mention of leviathan, among other dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. But to say that he can't even have a Bible on his desk is to prohibit him from practicing his own religion. Would they have a problem if he was Muslim, and it was a Koran on his desk? Of course not. Because that would be considered educational, since he was helping the class understand the Muslim worldview. The hypocrisy is just sickening.

In a historical sense, I agree with you. School should be for teaching facts - and I in no way mean to demean any religion or anyone's religious beliefs - but religions are based in faith. I believe evolution should be taught in the senses we know it to be fact - but teaching evolution or creation in a "how did we get here" way, well, both are theories, and both contain speculation. If they are taught that way, I'm fine with it, but neither should be taught as "the definitive, proven answer".

As far as teaching from the bible goes, I'm against that as well, because it is directly linked to faith and religion. If something is corroborated in another historical context, then I'm fine with it being taught from that context - and have no problem with the bible being used to back it historically.

Finally, it would definitely be no different if we were talking about a Muslim teacher having the Qur'an on their desk. Both are religious texts, neither scripture should be taught (except in a comparative religions course where each is given due credence).

[jamiethelanky]

Many biologists believe in Creation as opposed to evolution. It's just that the evolutionists try to discredit them by blowing them off and calling them "unscientific". That way, in their own mind, all biologists believe evolution.
The vast, vast majority of biologists hold evolution as the correct theory.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Many biologists believe in Creation as opposed to evolution. It's just that the evolutionists try to discredit them by blowing them off and calling them "unscientific". That way, in their own mind, all biologists believe evolution.

some biologist believe that god exists, but please provide a link to a biologist who believes that life forms don't evolve, i'd like to hear his/her reasoning.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Religion NEEDS to be taught in schools, and a teacher should not be asked to teach something that he believes is wrong. Creation is at least as, if not more credible than evolutionism.

evolutionism? thats the problem right there.

[Domata Dominance]

The vast, vast majority of biologists hold evolution as the correct theory.

I cite the following list as evidence against your claim.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-*** Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientsts are sorted by birth year.

George Romanes (1848-1894) Biology; Physiology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864-1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890-1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875-1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858-1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878-1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851-1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852-1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882-1954) Organic Chemist
A. Rendle-Short (1885-1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892-1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer


http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

[Domata Dominance]

Here is more that I couldn't fit into that post:

Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology
David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience
Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology)
Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics
Robert Franks, M.D.
Robert H. Eckel, M.D.
Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology
Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology
David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology
Raymond V. Damadian, M.D.
Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology
Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology
Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology
Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal/Molecular Genetics
Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology
Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology
John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D.
Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (Technical Advisory Board)
Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics (Technical Advisory Board)
Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education
Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology
Roger W. Sanders, Ph.D. Botany
Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology
Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences
Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry
Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology
Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology
David A. Demick, M.D.
Randy Guliuzza, M.D.
Keith Swenson, M.D.
George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology
Inis J. Bardella, M.D.
Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.


http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

Creation Scientists in the Physical Sciences

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering
John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering
Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology
Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology
David Phillips, M.A. Paleoanthropology
Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy
Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics
John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics
Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry
Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Combustion Theory
Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology
Tom McMullen, Ph.D. History and Philosophy of Science
Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. Geology (Paleontology)
David P. Livingston, Jr., Ph.D. Archaeology and Ancient History
Paul Ackerman, Ph.D. Psychology
Keith H. Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics
Edmond W. Holroyd, III Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D. Chemistry
Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
Arlo Moehlenpah, D.Sc. Chemical Engineering
Robert Hermann, Ph.D. Mathematics
Otto E. Berg, B.A. Physics/Chemistry
Malcolm A. Cutchins, Ph.D. Engineering Mechanics
Patrick Young, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry
Ron Samec, Ph.D. Physics
Daniel W. Reynolds , Ph.D. Physical Organic Chemistry
Gary Locklair, Ph.D. Computer Science
Michael Oard, M.S. Atmospheric Science
Jerry R. Bergman, Ph.D. Evaluation and Research
Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
Edward A. Boudreaux, Ph.D. Chemistry
Jerry M. Simmons, Ph.D. Multicultural Teacher & Childhood Education
David R. McQueen, M.S. Geology
Les Bruce, Ph.D. Linguistics



http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html



Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)

600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

[Domata Dominance]

And here's more:

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.



http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html


Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Sarfati, Jonathan
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, Henry

Is that enough for you?

[Domata Dominance]

I tried to edit out some of the older ones, so as to give the theory of evolution time to develop.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

hold on

are you simply listing christians who are scientists or scientists who believe evolution is a myth?

[Domata Dominance]

If they believe in evolution also, then there is a note next to their name saying so. However, I'm trying to make a list of Creation-believing scientists, so I edited out the ones who believe in evolution. I may have missed some. It's a long list.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

heres the deal

those scientists are welcome to say that god could have created everything, science can't disprove or prove that.

they are not welcome to say that life forms don't evolve as their is proof of that.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

so what is the collective belief of creationists?

the 6 day creation in genesis?

god creating the earth and bouncing leaving it to develop on its own (thus were we not created in it's image and evolved to what we are)

that all life forms living are created by god and evolution is a myth?

[Domata Dominance]

heres the deal

those scientists are welcome to say that god could have created everything, science can't disprove or prove that.

they are not welcome to say that life forms don't evolve as their is proof of that.

This, my friend, is a list of scientists who believe that we did NOT come from monkeys or whatever. No one debates that different kinds of dogs can be bred. We debate the idea that species change to the point of becoming another species. In scientific terms, we debate macroevolution, not microevolution. I really didn't mean to start a creation vs. evolution debate, buuuuut it's a little late for that. :lol:

The whole point is that there are MANY credible people who agree with the teacher in question's view of science.

[Domata Dominance]

so what is the collective belief of creationists?

the 6 day creation in genesis?

god creating the earth and bouncing leaving it to develop on its own (thus were we not created in it's image and evolved to what we are)

that all life forms living are created by god and evolution is a myth?

That God created humans in the image of God. I suspect that the scientists in my list may vary somewhat on their belief of a literal six days, but they do not vary on their belief that people were created by God as humans.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

That God created humans in the image of God. I suspect that the scientists in my list may vary somewhat on their belief of a literal six days, but they do not vary on their belief that people were created by God as humans.

so god created life on earth, allowed it to cultivate, then killed off the dinosaurs and 65 million years later made us?

im not trying to be difficult seriously im trying to understand how these scientists are combining what we know and the bible.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

This, my friend, is a list of scientists who believe that we did NOT come from monkeys or whatever. No one debates that different kinds of dogs can be bred. We debate the idea that species change to the point of becoming another species. In scientific terms, we debate macroevolution, not microevolution. I really didn't mean to start a creation vs. evolution debate, buuuuut it's a little late for that. :lol:

The whole point is that there are MANY credible people who agree with the teacher in question's view of science.

no scientist believes we came from monkeys or whatever. they believe we have common ancestry with them.

my first question to any scientist who doesn't believe that is to explain this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_rudolfensis

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

stupid filters

type in the 4 letter derogatory term for a progressive lifestyle and then rudolfensis

[jmccracky]

I don't think it is right for them to take his bible away. We have freedom of religion, and he has every right IMO to have a bible on his desk. He has every right to pray in school.

I've been reading about this story for the past few days, and they all say that he did brand a cross onto a student's arm. He was told back in December not to do it again. My take is, if he did this (and the signs point to yes), then he should've been fired for THAT. If my kid came home with a branded cross into their arm, I would be LIVID. Now, if my kid asked him what the bible on his desk was, and he told my kid his beliefs etc.......I would have no problem with that.

Religion, because there are sooooo many of them, can be taught in a course that a student has the option to select. Other than that, Christianity should be taught in Christian church's. Same goes with any other religion.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I don't think it is right for them to take his bible away. We have freedom of religion, and he has every right IMO to have a bible on his desk. He has every right to pray in school.

I've been reading about this story for the past few days, and they all say that he did brand a cross onto a student's arm. He was told back in December not to do it again. My take is, if he did this (and the signs point to yes), then he should've been fired for THAT. If my kid came home with a branded cross into their arm, I would be LIVID. Now, if my kid asked him what the bible on his desk was, and he told my kid his beliefs etc.......I would have no problem with that.

Religion, because there are sooooo many of them, can be taught in a course that a student has the option to select. Other than that, Christianity should be taught in Christian church's. Same goes with any other religion.

so this man burned a cross into a child's arm and wasn't arrested?

[jmccracky]

so this man burned a cross into a child's arm and wasn't arrested?

Yes, there was a picture in the Columbus Dispatch today of a student with the cross burned into his arm. It's on the second page of the Metro section. From what I've been gathering, it hasn't only been one student, but the story is still early in the making.......

And I agree with you Lombardi. The guy should've been arrested for something like this if it indeed did happen. That is abuse and sick.

[Domata Dominance]

Yes, there was a picture in the Columbus Dispatch today of a student with the cross burned into his arm. It's on the second page of the Metro section. From what I've been gathering, it hasn't only been one student, but the story is still early in the making.......

And I agree with you Lombardi. The guy should've been arrested for something like this if it indeed did happen. That is abuse and sick.

It's only abuse if it was forced on the student. Was that the case? Honest question.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Yes, there was a picture in the Columbus Dispatch today of a student with the cross burned into his arm. It's on the second page of the Metro section. From what I've been gathering, it hasn't only been one student, but the story is still early in the making.......

And I agree with you Lombardi. The guy should've been arrested for something like this if it indeed did happen. That is abuse and sick.

im sure there were many christians on board with supporting his having a bible in school but after that only the most extreme will back him, too bad he has to give the religion a bad name.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

It's only abuse if it was forced on the student. Was that the case? Honest question.

even him asking the student if he would like to have a symbol burned into his arm is abuse, as he is a teacher in a position of authority.

[Domata Dominance]

so god created life on earth, allowed it to cultivate, then killed off the dinosaurs and 65 million years later made us?

im not trying to be difficult seriously im trying to understand how these scientists are combining what we know and the bible.

We believe (in general) that the earth is not millions of years old. God created all of creation within a very short time span, such that people did in fact live at the same time as dinosaurs. There is plenty of evidence of this in another thread which I am too lazy to dig up. I am out of town for the weekend, unfortunately, so I will look at the Wiki link when I get back. If I forget, remind me.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

We believe (in general) that the earth is not millions of years old. God created all of creation within a very short time span, such that people did in fact live at the same time as dinosaurs. There is plenty of evidence of this in another thread which I am too lazy to dig up. I am out of town for the weekend, unfortunately, so I will look at the Wiki link when I get back. If I forget, remind me.

im not asking what you believe

im asking what these educated scientists believe (no offense)

as ALL of that goes against over a 100 years of research

[jmccracky]

It's only abuse if it was forced on the student. Was that the case? Honest question.

That's a good question. But the teacher is in a position of influence, and if he were to do that, he should've sent home a letter of permission for the parent's to sign. But even then, it's questionable.

Let's say I was a teacher, and I asked my 14 year old student if I could burn a pentagram into their arm, and they said yes.....would I have the right to do it? Should I also give that kid a tattoo on his arm without his/hers parent's permission? If the kid asked me to tattoo his or hers arm, don't ya think that the parent's have a right to get mad at me?

Now, if the student did it on their own, without influence of the teacher then the kid's parents should not be mad at the teacher or blame them.

And even if a student asked him to brand the cross into his arm, that's ridiculous if the teacher obliged and did it. Branding is very painful, I don't think a good teacher/role model should be doing things like that.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

That's a good question. But the teacher is in a position of influence, and if he were to do that, he should've sent home a letter of permission for the parent's to sign. But even then, it's questionable.

.

yeah, i'd say it's questionable

"mrs. roberts, may i burn a symbol of our lord jesus christ into your sons arm using a coat hanger and a bunsen burner?"

[The Noob Avenger]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080620/UPDATES01/80620011/-1/newsfront2

The teacher just got fired.

[Domata Dominance]

im not asking what you believe

im asking what these educated scientists believe (no offense)

as ALL of that goes against over a 100 years of research

I said "we"

I meant me and these scientists.

[Danno]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080620/UPDATES01/80620011/-1/newsfront2

The teacher just got fired.



Ok, it said he taught his beliefs... eh close to par with preaching it... not sure how I feel. HOWEVER. It does say he had a device that burned an image of the cross onto students arms... yeah sorry. That, in and of itself, crosses the line (whether religious or not).

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I said "we"

I meant me and these scientists.

so you believe humans and dinosaurs lived together?

regardless of what carbon dating has shown, the environment dinosaurs could exist in would be too hot for humans, plus we'd all be food.

ever wonder why theres no dinosaurs in cave paintings? dinosaurs died out 65 million years before we were painting them.

[barryllium]

Ok, it said he taught his beliefs... eh close to par with preaching it... not sure how I feel. HOWEVER. It does say he had a device that burned an image of the cross onto students arms... yeah sorry. That, in and of itself, crosses the line (whether religious or not).

Bingo.

[Domata Dominance]

so you believe humans and dinosaurs lived together?

regardless of what carbon dating has shown, the environment dinosaurs could exist in would be too hot for humans, plus we'd all be food.

ever wonder why theres no dinosaurs in cave paintings? dinosaurs died out 65 million years before we were painting them.

Yes, dinosaurs and humans lived together. There's plenty of evidence if you want it. Here's some: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

This shows plenty of dinosaurs in cave drawings. I wonder why they wouldn't publish that first photo? I don't know why you think dinosaurs would have needed such a hot climate. I do understand that they probably would need a tropical climate at the very least. However, before the flood, the entire earth was a tropical climate. So it makes perfect sense that the ice age, which followed the flood, killed them all off.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Yes, dinosaurs and humans lived together. There's plenty of evidence if you want it. Here's some: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

This shows plenty of dinosaurs in cave drawings. I wonder why they wouldn't publish that first photo? I don't know why you think dinosaurs would have needed such a hot climate. I do understand that they probably would need a tropical climate at the very least. However, before the flood, the entire earth was a tropical climate. So it makes perfect sense that the ice age, which followed the flood, killed them all off.

wow its amazing you believed that article, that one of the dragon was priceless.

dinosaurs were known to exist in the polar regions , not only was it hotter then, but the atmosphere had a higher oxygen content as well. many believe these factors were required for dinosaurs to grow so large.
you can also look at the anatomy of certain dinosaurs to see how hot it was, look at stegosaurus http://www.dinoland.dk/Dinobilleder/stegosaurus_550px.jpg
those sails on it's back are their to regulate it's body temperature and keep it cool

same for dinmetrodon http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s207/captainblackadder/dimetrodon.jpg
that giant sail regulates it's body temperature as well

the earth was much hotter during their time and it's most the likely the asteroid that not only killed everything over 20 pounds, but also brought on climate change as well as forming the gulf of mexico.

[Domata Dominance]

wow its amazing you believed that article, that one of the dragon was priceless.

dinosaurs were known to exist in the polar regions , not only was it hotter then, but the atmosphere had a higher oxygen content as well. many believe these factors were required for dinosaurs to grow so large.
you can also look at the anatomy of certain dinosaurs to see how hot it was, look at stegosaurus http://www.dinoland.dk/Dinobilleder/stegosaurus_550px.jpg
those sails on it's back are their to regulate it's body temperature and keep it cool

same for dinmetrodon http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s207/captainblackadder/dimetrodon.jpg
that giant sail regulates it's body temperature as well

the earth was much hotter during their time and it's most the likely the asteroid that not only killed everything over 20 pounds, but also brought on climate change as well as forming the gulf of mexico.

I don't know how we know for sure that those plates were used to keep them cool. An awful lot of assumptions go into that. But even if you can prove that their purpose was, indeed to keep them cool, it doesn't make much difference. After all, we have sweat glands to keep us cool. Does that mean that we must live in a very hot climate? Of course not.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe the article. You don't agree with it, so it must be completely fake. I'm sure all of those are photoshopped pictures that some religious zealot drew and then made up articles about them. :sarcasm:

I don't know a whole lot about the asteroid theory, so this is an honest question. Where is the crater? A rock that big surely would leave a mark on the earth. And how did it kill everything? If it hit the ocean, and thus didn't leave a crater, I fail to see how a bunch of rain that would obviously result would kill everything.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I don't know how we know for sure that those plates were used to keep them cool. An awful lot of assumptions go into that. But even if you can prove that their purpose was, indeed to keep them cool, it doesn't make much difference. After all, we have sweat glands to keep us cool. Does that mean that we must live in a very hot climate? Of course not.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe the article. You don't agree with it, so it must be completely fake. I'm sure all of those are photoshopped pictures that some religious zealot drew and then made up articles about them. :sarcasm:

I don't know a whole lot about the asteroid theory, so this is an honest question. Where is the crater? A rock that big surely would leave a mark on the earth. And how did it kill everything? If it hit the ocean, and thus didn't leave a crater, I fail to see how a bunch of rain that would obviously result would kill everything.

1. those sails and plates were made to keep them cool, the fossils show the evidence of this, blood was circulated through them, away from the heart and cooled close to the skin, much like water in a radiator.

2. one of those carvings was a fire breathing dragon, so are we to believe they existed too?

3. like i said, gulf of mexico, go take a look at a map of america, check out that big round hole filled with water directly under us, there's your crater.

[Domata Dominance]

1. those sails and plates were made to keep them cool, the fossils show the evidence of this, blood was circulated through them, away from the heart and cooled close to the skin, much like water in a radiator.

2. one of those carvings was a fire breathing dragon, so are we to believe they existed too?

3. like i said, gulf of mexico, go take a look at a map of america, check out that big round hole filled with water directly under us, there's your crater.

1. So, since they have a cooling device, that means they required a hot climate? Obviously, all the animals that we see now that have such things as sweat glands require a very hot climate to live.

2. http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/fire/fire.htm here's a little bit of evidence for fire breathing dragons. I see no reason not to believe that they existed. The fact that they are described in the Bible is very convicting evidence, especially since the Bible was written before Darwinism came about. Therefore it was not an attempt to counter evolution.

3.So why not the Mediterreanean? Or the Black sea? Heck, let's just say that all the oceans were caused by asteroids. You still didn't tell me how it would have killed everything.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

1. So, since they have a cooling device, that means they required a hot climate? Obviously, all the animals that we see now that have such things as sweat glands require a very hot climate to live.

2. http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/fire/fire.htm here's a little bit of evidence for fire breathing dragons. I see no reason not to believe that they existed. The fact that they are described in the Bible is very convicting evidence, especially since the Bible was written before Darwinism came about. Therefore it was not an attempt to counter evolution.

3.So why not the Mediterreanean? Or the Black sea? Heck, let's just say that all the oceans were caused by asteroids. You still didn't tell me how it would have killed everything.

1. dinosaurs were reptiles, reptiles are cold blooded and cannot maintain body temperature, that is why a cooling apparatus would be needed.

there is however a lot of speculation that dinosaurs were warm blooded because of how active they were versus reptiles today, but this could also be because the hot climate allowed them to be this way.

human did infact evolve in a very hot climate and that is why we have long limbs that circulate blood away from our hearts.

2. im sorry you believe in dragons.

3. look at the shape of the mediterranian and black sea, do they have a crater appearance to you? then look at the gulf of mexico, if you can believe in dragons you can believe in that.

[Domata Dominance]

1. dinosaurs were reptiles, reptiles are cold blooded and cannot maintain body temperature, that is why a cooling apparatus would be needed.

there is however a lot of speculation that dinosaurs were warm blooded because of how active they were versus reptiles today, but this could also be because the hot climate allowed them to be this way.

human did infact evolve in a very hot climate and that is why we have long limbs that circulate blood away from our hearts.

2. im sorry you believe in dragons.

3. look at the shape of the mediterranian and black sea, do they have a crater appearance to you? then look at the gulf of mexico, if you can believe in dragons you can believe in that.

1. Or maybe we have long limbs because they are extremely useful. How do we know that dinosaurs were more active than modern reptiles?

2. The term used before the 1800's for any dinosaur was "dragon". If fireflies can light up, bombardiar beetles can shoot fire out their butts, etc. why it is so hard to believe that some dinosaurs could breathe fire?

3. Still, how did it kill everything? The earth is a big place, and finding a shoreline that appears to be rounded out doesn't seem very hard to me. Surely we need more evidence than that to be sure that a giant asteroid hit the earth.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

1. Or maybe we have long limbs because they are extremely useful. How do we know that dinosaurs were more active than modern reptiles?

2. The term used before the 1800's for any dinosaur was "dragon". If fireflies can light up, bombardiar beetles can shoot fire out their butts, etc. why it is so hard to believe that some dinosaurs could breathe fire?

3. Still, how did it kill everything? The earth is a big place, and finding a shoreline that appears to be rounded out doesn't seem very hard to me. Surely we need more evidence than that to be sure that a giant asteroid hit the earth.

1. they lived in herds, modern reptiles don't. they were bipedal, modern reptiles arn't. they had larger brains than modern reptiles, they could fly etc.

2. its very hard to believe dinosaurs could breath fire because their is no evidence to support that idea, sound familiar?

3. ok here's the evidence that an asteroid struck what is now the gulf of mexico and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html

the same way it killed everything would be the same way it would kill everything today.

shockwave, choking dust clouds, climate change and then famine.

[Domata Dominance]

1. they lived in herds, modern reptiles don't. they were bipedal, modern reptiles arn't. they had larger brains than modern reptiles, they could fly etc.

2. its very hard to believe dinosaurs could breath fire because their is no evidence to support that idea, sound familiar?

3. ok here's the evidence that an asteroid struck what is now the gulf of mexico and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html

the same way it killed everything would be the same way it would kill everything today.

shockwave, choking dust clouds, climate change and then famine.

1. So because of this we know that the climate was a lot hotter?

2. I just sent you some evidence. Did you completely ignore it? Do you think all the legends around the world arose from absolutely nothing?

3. Here's what a real crater looks like. Albeit MUCH smaller than the one proposed by evolutionists now. (It's on the moon, just fyi) http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/images/CratersOfTheMoon03.jpg Look how deep that thing is. The article described the one in the gulf of Mexico as having a depth of 10-15 feet. I'm sorry, but that sounds like a pretty major reach to me. If something that big hit the earth, we wouldn't have to search to find the evidence. It would leave such a massive scar on the earth that it would be obvious.

[tbone77]

I cite the following list as evidence against your claim.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-*** Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientsts are sorted by birth year.

George Romanes (1848-1894) Biology; Physiology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864-1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890-1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875-1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858-1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878-1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851-1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852-1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882-1954) Organic Chemist
A. Rendle-Short (1885-1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892-1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer


http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

Domato, you used the same ploy that the head-in-the-sand deniers of anthropogenic climate-change use. You listed a bunch of people who aren't even real biologists. You included a lot of chemists, dentists, surgeons, plastic surgeons, even a "tropical fruit expert", etc. to inflate your ranks. It's actually a comical list to refer to all of them as biologists. You would be hard pressed to find one person on your list who is a practicing biologist with any recent publications on the subject of biology (not relgion).

I checked the background of the first "Biologist" on your lists and turns out he hasn't published anything scientific since his phD dissertation in 1991 which was a requirement. He's not even a practicing "biologist." He is actually the Executive Director of Probe Ministries. That is his job.

His sole scientific publication appears to be his only non-religious publication. Don't you find that a little strange? He's not even a real practicing biologist. He defends Christianity, and he lists his writing about Christianity under his professional publications, almost completely devoid of any publications on the subject of biology. Does that not affect his standing as a biologist in your view?

Jamie was correct. Over 99% of practicing biologists understand and study evolution. Your mind may not be able to fathom it, but fairies, gods, and supernatural beings have no role in modern biology. That's not to say that a biologist can't be religious. That's just to say that biology is a natural science. Supernatural powers are not part of that science.

The natural sciences search for natural reasons in nature to explain physical and biological phenomena. They don't resort to supernatural powers, angels, fairies, legends, creation myths, etc. to explain these things. That's the role of religion.

[tbone77]

What I want to know is this.

The bible was actually read in schools at the time of the founding fathers. If it were unconstitutional, you would think that the guys who actually wrote the constitution would have stopped it. But it stayed a legal event until June 25, 1962, when a packed, leftist court decided the Founding Fathers somehow missed this unconstitutional act that had gone on for nearly 200 years.

I like how the lunactic fringe on the right criticizes Iran for being a theocracy and then turns around and promotes bibles in U.S. schools. Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

1. So because of this we know that the climate was a lot hotter?

2. I just sent you some evidence. Did you completely ignore it? Do you think all the legends around the world arose from absolutely nothing?

3. Here's what a real crater looks like. Albeit MUCH smaller than the one proposed by evolutionists now. (It's on the moon, just fyi) http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/images/CratersOfTheMoon03.jpg Look how deep that thing is. The article described the one in the gulf of Mexico as having a depth of 10-15 feet. I'm sorry, but that sounds like a pretty major reach to me. If something that big hit the earth, we wouldn't have to search to find the evidence. It would leave such a massive scar on the earth that it would be obvious.

1. we have sampled air pockets from different time periods and can tell how hot it was by oxygen content of the air. triassic period was hottest, then it cooled up until the asteroid hit.

2. none of that is evidence, hadrosaur's hollow skulls were for trumpeting.

3. the crater is 65 million years old, and has had water over it for millions of years. also, that crater is on the moon, no atmosphere to break up the asteroid, no wind to erode the crater.

you really need to go back to school.

[tbone77]

wow its amazing you believed that article, that one of the dragon was priceless.

dinosaurs were known to exist in the polar regions , not only was it hotter then, but the atmosphere had a higher oxygen content as well. many believe these factors were required for dinosaurs to grow so large.
you can also look at the anatomy of certain dinosaurs to see how hot it was, look at stegosaurus http://www.dinoland.dk/Dinobilleder/stegosaurus_550px.jpg
those sails on it's back are their to regulate it's body temperature and keep it cool

same for dinmetrodon http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s207/captainblackadder/dimetrodon.jpg
that giant sail regulates it's body temperature as well

the earth was much hotter during their time and it's most the likely the asteroid that not only killed everything over 20 pounds, but also brought on climate change as well as forming the gulf of mexico.

dinmetrodon looks mean.

[Jumbro]

1. those sails and plates were made to keep them cool, the fossils show the evidence of this, blood was circulated through them, away from the heart and cooled close to the skin, much like water in a radiator.



Who made them sloppy?

[jamiethelanky]

http://newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080620/UPDATES01/80620011/-1/newsfront2

The teacher just got fired.
Well at least someone in this whole thing has shown sense. Well done to the people behind that. He deserved it.

[tbone77]

Why the hell was he branding students with crosses on the taxpayer's dime???

[Domata Dominance]

Domato, you used the same ploy that the head-in-the-sand deniers of anthropogenic climate-change use. You listed a bunch of people who aren't even real biologists. You included a lot of chemists, dentists, surgeons, plastic surgeons, even a "tropical fruit expert", etc. to inflate your ranks. It's actually a comical list to refer to all of them as biologists. You would be hard pressed to find one person on your list who is a practicing biologist with any recent publications on the subject of biology (not relgion).

I checked the background of the first "Biologist" on your lists and turns out he hasn't published anything scientific since his phD dissertation in 1991 which was a requirement. He's not even a practicing "biologist." He is actually the Executive Director of Probe Ministries. That is his job.

His sole scientific publication appears to be his only non-religious publication. Don't you find that a little strange? He's not even a real practicing biologist. He defends Christianity, and he lists his writing about Christianity under his professional publications, almost completely devoid of any publications on the subject of biology. Does that not affect his standing as a biologist in your view?

Jamie was correct. Over 99% of practicing biologists understand and study evolution. Your mind may not be able to fathom it, but fairies, gods, and supernatural beings have no role in modern biology. That's not to say that a biologist can't be religious. That's just to say that biology is a natural science. Supernatural powers are not part of that science.

The natural sciences search for natural reasons in nature to explain physical and biological phenomena. They don't resort to supernatural powers, angels, fairies, legends, creation myths, etc. to explain these things. That's the role of religion.

I never said they were all biologists. I was listing scientists in general. Some of whom were biologists, and some where not.

[Domata Dominance]

1. we have sampled air pockets from different time periods and can tell how hot it was by oxygen content of the air. triassic period was hottest, then it cooled up until the asteroid hit.

2. none of that is evidence, hadrosaur's hollow skulls were for trumpeting.

3. the crater is 65 million years old, and has had water over it for millions of years. also, that crater is on the moon, no atmosphere to break up the asteroid, no wind to erode the crater.

you really need to go back to school.

1. You have a lot of faith to believe that geologists can accurately date rocks up to millions of years in the first place, let alone determine the entire climate temperature by tiny pockets of air. How do we know whether it was summer or winter when those pockets of air were trapped?

2. And all the legends? What is your problem with dragons?

3. Either that or the earth is a lot younger than that, and it's nothing more than a depression in the ground.

[tbone77]

I never said they were all biologists. I was listing scientists in general. Some of whom were biologists, and some where not.

:lol:

JTL: The vast, vast majority of biologists hold evolution as the correct theory.

Domato: I cite the following list as evidence against your claim.

:hmm:

And like I said, you would be hard pressed to show me one practicing biologist in your list.

[Domata Dominance]

:lol:

JTL:

Domato:

:hmm:

And like I said, you would be hard pressed to show me one practicing biologist in your list.

Fair enough, I didn't catch that he said "biologist". I'll find another list when I get a chance. However, off the top of my head, I can name Dr. Jay Wile and Dr. Ken Ham.

[eliminate08]

What I want to know is this.

The bible was actually read in schools at the time of the founding fathers. If it were unconstitutional, you would think that the guys who actually wrote the constitution would have stopped it. But it stayed a legal event until June 25, 1962, when a packed, leftist court decided the Founding Fathers somehow missed this unconstitutional act that had gone on for nearly 200 years.

Exactly, but the Constitution has already been destroyed, in Civil law anyway.

It is already too late, everyone has made the argument against right for so long, there is no
right.

No right or wrong, just money and politics.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

3. Either that or the earth is a lot younger than that, and it's nothing more than a depression in the ground.

if the earth was as young as you believe, 6 thousand years, life wouldn't be possible here yet. it takes a length of time for a planet to cool to the point where life is possible.

[Domata Dominance]

if the earth was as young as you believe, 6 thousand years, life wouldn't be possible here yet. it takes a length of time for a planet to cool to the point where life is possible.

God can create a planet at whatever temperature he wants.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

God can create a planet at whatever temperature he wants.

if religion is the opium of the masses, you need some serious methadone.

[Domata Dominance]

if religion is the opium of the masses, you need some serious methadone.

Religion is man's attempt to find God. Christianity is God reaching out to man. I don't subscribe to religion. I have a relationship with God, not just a set of beliefs.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Religion is man's attempt to find God. Christianity is God reaching out to man. I don't subscribe to religion. I have a relationship with God, not just a set of beliefs.

you have a relationship with a being you can't see, hear or touch?

isn't that just like when you have a relationship with a woman?

sorry couldn't resist, but seriously yeah thats insane how did you convince yourself of that?

[Domata Dominance]

you have a relationship with a being you can't see, hear or touch?

isn't that just like when you have a relationship with a woman?

sorry couldn't resist, but seriously yeah thats insane how did you convince yourself of that?

Relationship requires communication. I can talk to God through prayer, and he speaks to me through the Bible, as well as many little things each day that are just too much to be coincidence.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Relationship requires communication. I can talk to God through prayer, and he speaks to me through the Bible, as well as many little things each day that are just too much to be coincidence.


you really to watch banned from the bible then, it's not god talking to you, but 1000's of years of humans.

[Domata Dominance]

you really to watch banned from the bible then, it's not god talking to you, but 1000's of years of humans.

Sorry, I've read the Bible, I've done my research, and I've come to the opposite conclusion. Trying to convince me otherwise is really kind of pointless.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Sorry, I've read the Bible, I've done my research, and I've come to the opposite conclusion. Trying to convince me otherwise is really kind of pointless.

the opposite conclusion?

so you think the bible is 100% the word of god?

[Domata Dominance]

the opposite conclusion?

so you think the bible is 100% the word of god?

yes. Not that God personally spoke every word, but that every word was inspired by God. Because of this, the Bible offers a look into the heart of God.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

yes. Not that God personally spoke every word, but that every word was inspired by God. Because of this, the Bible offers a look into the heart of God.

and an evil black heart it is.

[Domata Dominance]

and an evil black heart it is.

Why do you say that? After all, he did die for us.

[barryllium]

Why do you say that? After all, he did die for us.

He says that because he is ignorant, and believes his opinion equals fact. You're putting up an admirable fight, Domata - much respect, and good luck.

[David From Cincy]

and an evil black heart it is.

You have lacked attention your whole life. In defense of my assumption you will say that you have not and in fact you got all the attention you Ever wanted. The problem is that through your posts you have repeatedly shown the desire for any type of attention either positive or negative.that rarely displays itself in someone who routinely received the desired amount of attention throughout their early life. I would suggest that you look inward and decide just why you feel the need to seek this attention and hopefully in time you will no longer desire the negative attention and realize that if you speak well and show others courtesy that they will give you the positive attention you require.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

You have lacked attention your whole life. In defense of my assumption you will say that you have not and in fact you got all the attention you Ever wanted. The problem is that through your posts you have repeatedly shown the desire for any type of attention either positive or negative.that rarely displays itself in someone who routinely received the desired amount of attention throughout their early life. I would suggest that you look inward and decide just why you feel the need to seek this attention and hopefully in time you will no longer desire the negative attention and realize that if you speak well and show others courtesy that they will give you the positive attention you require.

whoa thats a mouthful

sorry to disappoint you, but im a completely happy well-adjusted person.

i know you would love to think that only a self-hating individual would go to such lengths to convey a distaste for religion, but it's 100% because i feel religion is something humans need to grow out of.

and after seeing some of the views on here, that statement is only reinforced.

dont mistake my fondness for arguing and proving points as a fondness for attention, if this was a subject i had no interest in, i wouldn't be here.

[Domata Dominance]

He says that because he is ignorant, and believes his opinion equals fact. You're putting up an admirable fight, Domata - much respect, and good luck.

thank you, but I'm trying to have a discussion with Sloppy, and you're kind of throwing it off track.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Why do you say that? After all, he did die for us.

americans have died for you, not jesus.

if jesus really lived, there is no doubt in my mind he was the most revolutionary man to ever live, but i dont believe he is the son of god and i dont believe he died for my sins.

but bringing that up illustrates what im talking about, it's guilt, and thats one of the angles religion has used for 1000's of years.

guilt and fear have kept people religious since its creation.

[Domata Dominance]

americans have died for you, not jesus.

if jesus really lived, there is no doubt in my mind he was the most revolutionary man to ever live, but i dont believe he is the son of god and i dont believe he died for my sins.

but bringing that up illustrates what im talking about, it's guilt, and thats one of the angles religion has used for 1000's of years.

guilt and fear have kept people religious since its creation.

Guilt is a real thing. There's nothing wrong with trying to explain it, because it's something that is unexplainable froma scientific point of view.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. There are three possibilities that I can think of.

1. He was in fact the Son of God.
2. He lied deliberately
3. He was crazy

There's no middle ground. Most people want to believe that he was simply "a good man and an amazing teacher" However, when he claims to be the Son of God, he's either much more than that, or much less than that.

The resurrection testified to the truth of Jesus' statement. Mere humans do not have power over death. And his disciples testify to the resurrection. All but one of them were brutally martyred for preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you think, that if the disciples hid the body and made up the resurrection, that they would be willing to die for a lie? I don't.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Guilt is a real thing. There's nothing wrong with trying to explain it, because it's something that is unexplainable froma scientific point of view.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. There are three possibilities that I can think of.

1. He was in fact the Son of God.
2. He lied deliberately
3. He was crazy

There's no middle ground. Most people want to believe that he was simply "a good man and an amazing teacher" However, when he claims to be the Son of God, he's either much more than that, or much less than that.

The resurrection testified to the truth of Jesus' statement. Mere humans do not have power over death. And his disciples testify to the resurrection. All but one of them were brutally martyred for preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you think, that if the disciples hid the body and made up the resurrection, that they would be willing to die for a lie? I don't.

how is guilt unexplainable from a scientific view?

jesus could have very well been crazy and lying at the same time.

many many many many people have claimed to be the son of god, the only thing that separates them from jesus is how many people believe it.

if there were 20 million branch dividians in america jesus would have to compete with david koresh.

[Domata Dominance]

how is guilt unexplainable from a scientific view?

jesus could have very well been crazy and lying at the same time.

many many many many people have claimed to be the son of god, the only thing that separates them from jesus is how many people believe it.

if there were 20 million branch dividians in america jesus would have to compete with david koresh.

But Jesus is the only one who fulfilled the prophesies describing the Messiah. Being born in Bethlehem, descended from David....etc. Jesus himself said that many people would come in his name claiming to be the second coming of Jesus. Their lies are testimony to Jesus' truth.

Please explain how the process of evolution would produce guilt.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

But Jesus is the only one who fulfilled the prophesies describing the Messiah. Being born in Bethlehem, descended from David....etc. Jesus himself said that many people would come in his name claiming to be the second coming of Jesus. Their lies are testimony to Jesus' truth.

Please explain how the process of evolution would produce guilt.


so whats to stop jesus from just saying he's the fulfillment of the prophecy?

just like how mohammed said he was the final prophet supplanting jesus, people can say anything, and if enough people believe it, BAM it's scripture, BAM its true, and BAM its a religion.

see how fragile faith is? you might find yourself worshiping a crazy person or a liar.

guilt comes from being a pack animal, pack mentality means you do whats best for the group, means you have solidarity.

humans are the ultimate pack animal, and to counter baser instincts, like the urge to steal or cheat, guilt developed in the human mind to prevent us from hurting the group, which ensures our own survival

whats even more interesting is the evolutionary reason for why humans laugh.

[Domata Dominance]

so whats to stop jesus from just saying he's the fulfillment of the prophecy?

just like how mohammed said he was the final prophet supplanting jesus, people can say anything, and if enough people believe it, BAM it's scripture, BAM its true, and BAM its a religion.

see how fragile faith is? you might find yourself worshiping a crazy person or a liar.

guilt comes from being a pack animal, pack mentality means you do whats best for the group, means you have solidarity.

humans are the ultimate pack animal, and to counter baser instincts, like the urge to steal or cheat, guilt developed in the human mind to prevent us from hurting the group, which ensures our own survival


whats even more interesting is the evolutionary reason for why humans laugh.

What's to stop him? Of course anyone can claim to be anything they want. They just can't back it up. Jesus backed it up. Like I said, he rose from the dead. If you don't believe that, please explain the martyrdom of the disciples.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

What's to stop him? Of course anyone can claim to be anything they want. They just can't back it up. Jesus backed it up. Like I said, he rose from the dead. If you don't believe that, please explain the martyrdom of the disciples.

so you're saying that because the apostles died for their belief that that makes it true?

are you serious??

what about all the other people throughout ancient and modern history who have died for crazy beliefs

hale bop comet, jim jones, david koresh those are just a few who's disciples died for them, did that prove them to be true???!?

[Domata Dominance]

so you're saying that because the apostles died for their belief that that makes it true?

are you serious??

what about all the other people throughout ancient and modern history who have died for crazy beliefs

hale bop comet, jim jones, david koresh those are just a few who's disciples died for them, did that prove them to be true???!?

Everyone who died for their beliefs at least believed them to be true. Whether they were lies or not, they believed them to be true. In the case of the disciples, how could they believe that Jesus talked with them personally unless he actually did?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Everyone who died for their beliefs at least believed them to be true. Whether they were lies or not, they believed them to be true. In the case of the disciples, how could they believe that Jesus talked with them personally unless he actually did?

how did those heaven's gate people believe there was a space ship behind hale bop unless there actually was?

im sorry but counting on the human mind for truth will get you no where, at least in science they have numbers to keep them on track, but with religion the imagination is the only limitation and the human imagination is truly boundless, thats how you get pearly gates and lakes of fire and original sin and purgatory and sacrificial lambs etc etc.

[Domata Dominance]

how did those heaven's gate people believe there was a space ship behind hale bop unless there actually was?

im sorry but counting on the human mind for truth will get you no where, at least in science they have numbers to keep them on track, but with religion the imagination is the only limitation and the human imagination is truly boundless, thats how you get pearly gates and lakes of fire and original sin and purgatory and sacrificial lambs etc etc.

You can believe anything if it can't be tested. But the disciples easily tested the resurrection of Jesus. They went and saw the empty tomb. Even at that point, they only thought someone had taken the body. They didn't believe until Jesus actually showed up at their house.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

You can believe anything if it can't be tested. But the disciples easily tested the resurrection of Jesus. They went and saw the empty tomb. Even at that point, they only thought someone had taken the body. They didn't believe until Jesus actually showed up at their house.

you're absolutely right, you can believe anything if it can't be tested. thats what religion is based on.

[Domata Dominance]

you're absolutely right, you can believe anything if it can't be tested. thats what religion is based on.

You keep skipping around all my points. Stop it and address one thing at a time in a logical fashion. Stop changing the subject every other post. We were talking about the resurection, and either you couldn't answer me, or you just wanted to get a chance to get a random shot in. You know full well that religion has nothing to do with believing whatever you want. My beliefs are based on historical facts, such as Jesus life, death, and resurrection. If you care to do some research, you can see that these are easily tested.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

You keep skipping around all my points. Stop it and address one thing at a time in a logical fashion. Stop changing the subject every other post. We were talking about the resurection, and either you couldn't answer me, or you just wanted to get a chance to get a random shot in. You know full well that religion has nothing to do with believing whatever you want. My beliefs are based on historical facts, such as Jesus life, death, and resurrection. If you care to do some research, you can see that these are easily tested.

ok then, what proof beyond the bible do you have that jesus died and was resurrected?

actual proof of that would be astounding. no sarcasm.

[Domata Dominance]

ok then, what proof beyond the bible do you have that jesus died and was resurrected?

actual proof of that would be astounding. no sarcasm.

Well, I don't think I need proof that he died, since he lived about 2000 years ago. So I'll be concentrating on the resurrection part. Are you ready to thoughtfully consider whatever evidence/proof I come up with?

[philhos]

Well, I don't think I need proof that he died, since he lived about 2000 years ago. So I'll be concentrating on the resurrection part. Are you ready to thoughtfully consider whatever evidence/proof I come up with?

No. He's already admitted to being closeminded on religions. Might as well save yourself the time and move on to something else.

[Domata Dominance]

No. He's already admitted to being closeminded on religions. Might as well save yourself the time and move on to something else.

But this isn't about religion so much as searching for evidence for one fact. I have total respect for you, Phil, but you're not helping our debate, which I haven't quite given up yet.

[Domata Dominance]

Whether or not you are willing to consider it, I present my case:

Christians, Jews, and atheists agree that Jesus was crucified and buried. The crucial belief for Christianity is that he was also resurrected — as evidence that he is the Son of God, the teacher of truth, the door and the way of salvation, the firstfruits of the resurrection. This article presents the evidence for his resurrection.

First, most historians agree that the early disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Although at Jesus' death they were dejected and fearful, they were soon dramatically different: They risked their lives repeatedly to preach about Jesus. Even Christians in the second and third centuries (as well as many today) put their lives on the line to preach about Jesus. Of course, erroneous ideas abound, and people sometimes give their lives for erroneous ideas — but only if they think they are true. People do not put their lives on the line for things they don't believe. The disciples never wavered in their belief in Jesus' resurrection. None of them ever changed their story under the pain of persecution. Even agnostic historians will admit that the disciples believed that Jesus had been resurrected.

Now we can consider how dozens of disciples could come to such a conviction. Perhaps the first possibility we could consider is that Jesus didn't really die. Perhaps it wasn't really him on the cross. Maybe Judas led the soldiers to the wrong man, or a substitution was somehow made at the last minute (as Muslims believe). Is it possible that the disciples were in such a state of shock that they did not recognize the substitute on the cross, nor when they took him down to anoint and wrap his body for burial? Was it then a coincidence that the tomb somehow became empty, and his disciples thought he had reappeared? No, all this stretches the imagination so much that this is not seriously considered.

Well, then, perhaps Jesus did not die on the cross — he just went into a coma, and then later revived. Is this a plausible historical possibility? Would Roman soldiers botch a crucifixion and take down a body without noticing that the person was still alive? Would this severely injured person then be able to revive, unwrap his own grave clothes, roll away his own tombstone, and convince his disciples that he had good health? Then after 40 days he would never be seen again? No, this borders on the preposterous.

Perhaps the disciples helped Jesus revive. They rolled away the stone, unwrapped the clothes, bandaged the wounds, and told a story about getting their leader back alive out of the grave — a story that turned quickly into a tall tale about resurrection and miraculous appearances, a story that the disciples never tried to set straight. Not only is this historically implausible, it turns the disciples into frauds and deceivers — and yet, as we mentioned above, people do not give their lives for something they know is false. This does not provide a believable explanation for the rise of Christianity, rooted in the early first century in the conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead — and this faith spread first in Jerusalem, where the facts could be investigated most easily!

It is not historically likely that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion. Well then, could the disciples have made up the resurrection? Did they steal the body, hide it somewhere, invent the story of a guard, and then preach a resurrection with conviction? This does not make sense, either. These fishermen did not make up the biggest lie in history, going against all the facts of life and death as they knew it, going against all religious beliefs of the day, going against Jewish and Roman authorities, risking their lives to tell the story they made up, without any of them ever betraying the conspiracy. No, these folks were not conniving liars. Their words and deeds do not suggest any such deception. Their behavior matched their message.

As a side point, we might also observe that the evidence of the empty tomb is indirect. (If it wasn't empty, the Jewish leaders could have stopped the whole problem by producing the body.) And yet according to the Gospel stories, the empty tomb did not convince all the disciples. They were convinced only when Jesus appeared, and it is on the basis of the appearances that they preached the resurrection. If they had gone to the trouble of stealing the body, surely they would have used the empty tomb as part of their evidence. The fact that they didn't, tells us that they had what they thought was much better evidence: eyewitnesses of a living Jesus.

As another indirect evidence of the authenticity of their faith, we can observe that the Gospels report that women were the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb and the risen Christ — and the testimony of women was not accepted in that culture. If the disciples were trying to make up a story, they would have invented witnesses who had more authority. It is not likely that these fishermen would have been so subtle in creating evidence, and yet be so bold in preaching. And what about the fact that the Gospel stories vary somewhat? If this had been an enormous conspiracy, wouldn't they ensure that the story was told in exactly the same way by everyone? The most believable explanation again is that the disciples genuinely believed Jesus to be resurrected, and each one told it the way he or she remembered it.

Now let's consider another possibility: graverobbers (hoping for riches in the rich man's tomb) got the guards to drink so much wine that they fell asleep; then the graverobbers took the body and dumped it in the desert. The guards, wanting to cover up their failure and knowing the fears of the religious leaders, made up the story of the angels and the resurrection, and were bribed to blame the disciples. Then the disciples had hallucinations of a risen Jesus.

However, did all the disciples have the same hallucination, several times, against their expectations, against their religious beliefs? Did the hallucination eat and drink, speak, and then suddenly cease 40 days later? This is not the way hallucinations work. The evidence does not match this hypothesis, either.

Let's consider one more idea, that the idea of resurrection was just a religious allegory (sometimes described as a "myth," meaning religious ideas expressed in allegorical stories), and Christianity made a big mistake in taking it literally for almost 2,000 years. There are several problems with this idea. First, the Gospels are not written in a mythological style. And it is clear that the resurrection was understood in a literal way even in the first century, when eyewitnesses of Jesus were still available to either support or refute the story. There was no time for legends to develop. The biblical writers give us history: This is what I saw. This is what it meant. They denounce the idea of myth. They are presenting what they saw.

The disciples were not deceived, nor were they deceivers. They just tell us what they believed, and it is clear that they believed that Jesus died and was buried and was resurrected. And it is clear that the reason they believed this is because they saw it with their own eyes.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

The disciples clearly believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Why did they believe this? The most plausible explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. All other theories are far-fetched and historically unlikely.

When we also take into consideration the need for God to intervene in humanity to save us, and the Old Testament predictions of a suffering servant who would give his life for his people, the explanation that makes the most sense is that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected because Jesus appeared to them and told them he was resurrected. That is why they had such a transformation in their beliefs, and why they preached with such conviction. As Luke puts it, by looking at the evidence we "may know the certainty of the things we have been taught" (Luke 1:4).

[philhos]

But this isn't about religion so much as searching for evidence for one fact. I have total respect for you, Phil, but you're not helping our debate, which I haven't quite given up yet.

But, he's not going to see it as evidence OR fact. I'm just trying to save you some time.

Go ahead and present the evidence. Just recognize that you're not dealing with someone who's going to look at it objectively (if he even looks at it at all).

[Domata Dominance]

I should point out that I did not write the article. It was a guy named Michael. Anyway, enjoy the read.

[philhos]

Adding on to DD's post, check up on The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

He was an atheist who found God and The Case for Christ is sort of a telling how he came to what he believes to be the logical conclusion in Jesus Christ's existence, His resurrection, and ulimately how He truly is the Messiah.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Whether or not you are willing to consider it, I present my case:

Christians, Jews, and atheists agree that Jesus was crucified and buried. The crucial belief for Christianity is that he was also resurrected — as evidence that he is the Son of God, the teacher of truth, the door and the way of salvation, the firstfruits of the resurrection. This article presents the evidence for his resurrection.

First, most historians agree that the early disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Although at Jesus' death they were dejected and fearful, they were soon dramatically different: They risked their lives repeatedly to preach about Jesus. Even Christians in the second and third centuries (as well as many today) put their lives on the line to preach about Jesus. Of course, erroneous ideas abound, and people sometimes give their lives for erroneous ideas — but only if they think they are true. People do not put their lives on the line for things they don't believe. The disciples never wavered in their belief in Jesus' resurrection. None of them ever changed their story under the pain of persecution. Even agnostic historians will admit that the disciples believed that Jesus had been resurrected.

Now we can consider how dozens of disciples could come to such a conviction. Perhaps the first possibility we could consider is that Jesus didn't really die. Perhaps it wasn't really him on the cross. Maybe Judas led the soldiers to the wrong man, or a substitution was somehow made at the last minute (as Muslims believe). Is it possible that the disciples were in such a state of shock that they did not recognize the substitute on the cross, nor when they took him down to anoint and wrap his body for burial? Was it then a coincidence that the tomb somehow became empty, and his disciples thought he had reappeared? No, all this stretches the imagination so much that this is not seriously considered.

Well, then, perhaps Jesus did not die on the cross — he just went into a coma, and then later revived. Is this a plausible historical possibility? Would Roman soldiers botch a crucifixion and take down a body without noticing that the person was still alive? Would this severely injured person then be able to revive, unwrap his own grave clothes, roll away his own tombstone, and convince his disciples that he had good health? Then after 40 days he would never be seen again? No, this borders on the preposterous.

Perhaps the disciples helped Jesus revive. They rolled away the stone, unwrapped the clothes, bandaged the wounds, and told a story about getting their leader back alive out of the grave — a story that turned quickly into a tall tale about resurrection and miraculous appearances, a story that the disciples never tried to set straight. Not only is this historically implausible, it turns the disciples into frauds and deceivers — and yet, as we mentioned above, people do not give their lives for something they know is false. This does not provide a believable explanation for the rise of Christianity, rooted in the early first century in the conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead — and this faith spread first in Jerusalem, where the facts could be investigated most easily!

It is not historically likely that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion. Well then, could the disciples have made up the resurrection? Did they steal the body, hide it somewhere, invent the story of a guard, and then preach a resurrection with conviction? This does not make sense, either. These fishermen did not make up the biggest lie in history, going against all the facts of life and death as they knew it, going against all religious beliefs of the day, going against Jewish and Roman authorities, risking their lives to tell the story they made up, without any of them ever betraying the conspiracy. No, these folks were not conniving liars. Their words and deeds do not suggest any such deception. Their behavior matched their message.

As a side point, we might also observe that the evidence of the empty tomb is indirect. (If it wasn't empty, the Jewish leaders could have stopped the whole problem by producing the body.) And yet according to the Gospel stories, the empty tomb did not convince all the disciples. They were convinced only when Jesus appeared, and it is on the basis of the appearances that they preached the resurrection. If they had gone to the trouble of stealing the body, surely they would have used the empty tomb as part of their evidence. The fact that they didn't, tells us that they had what they thought was much better evidence: eyewitnesses of a living Jesus.

As another indirect evidence of the authenticity of their faith, we can observe that the Gospels report that women were the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb and the risen Christ — and the testimony of women was not accepted in that culture. If the disciples were trying to make up a story, they would have invented witnesses who had more authority. It is not likely that these fishermen would have been so subtle in creating evidence, and yet be so bold in preaching. And what about the fact that the Gospel stories vary somewhat? If this had been an enormous conspiracy, wouldn't they ensure that the story was told in exactly the same way by everyone? The most believable explanation again is that the disciples genuinely believed Jesus to be resurrected, and each one told it the way he or she remembered it.

Now let's consider another possibility: graverobbers (hoping for riches in the rich man's tomb) got the guards to drink so much wine that they fell asleep; then the graverobbers took the body and dumped it in the desert. The guards, wanting to cover up their failure and knowing the fears of the religious leaders, made up the story of the angels and the resurrection, and were bribed to blame the disciples. Then the disciples had hallucinations of a risen Jesus.

However, did all the disciples have the same hallucination, several times, against their expectations, against their religious beliefs? Did the hallucination eat and drink, speak, and then suddenly cease 40 days later? This is not the way hallucinations work. The evidence does not match this hypothesis, either.

Let's consider one more idea, that the idea of resurrection was just a religious allegory (sometimes described as a "myth," meaning religious ideas expressed in allegorical stories), and Christianity made a big mistake in taking it literally for almost 2,000 years. There are several problems with this idea. First, the Gospels are not written in a mythological style. And it is clear that the resurrection was understood in a literal way even in the first century, when eyewitnesses of Jesus were still available to either support or refute the story. There was no time for legends to develop. The biblical writers give us history: This is what I saw. This is what it meant. They denounce the idea of myth. They are presenting what they saw.

The disciples were not deceived, nor were they deceivers. They just tell us what they believed, and it is clear that they believed that Jesus died and was buried and was resurrected. And it is clear that the reason they believed this is because they saw it with their own eyes.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

The disciples clearly believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Why did they believe this? The most plausible explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. All other theories are far-fetched and historically unlikely.

When we also take into consideration the need for God to intervene in humanity to save us, and the Old Testament predictions of a suffering servant who would give his life for his people, the explanation that makes the most sense is that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected because Jesus appeared to them and told them he was resurrected. That is why they had such a transformation in their beliefs, and why they preached with such conviction. As Luke puts it, by looking at the evidence we "may know the certainty of the things we have been taught" (Luke 1:4).


jesus was the most revolutionary man to ever live, after he died what were his followers to do?

go back to their lives or continue his teachings?

jesus said he would rise again. if his disciples were to continue his teachings, it would be pivotal for jesus to have risen from the dead.

so regardless of whether or not jesus actually did rise from the dead, if christianity was going to be "true" it would require jesus to do this.

so the disciples really had no choice but to claim he did in fact rise the dead, jesus made the promise and unless he was a false prophet, it had to come true.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

But, he's not going to see it as evidence OR fact. I'm just trying to save you some time.

Go ahead and present the evidence. Just recognize that you're not dealing with someone who's going to look at it objectively (if he even looks at it at all).

i did in fact look at it very objectively, no blinders at all.

[Domata Dominance]

jesus was the most revolutionary man to ever live, after he died what were his followers to do?

go back to their lives or continue his teachings?

jesus said he would rise again. if his disciples were to continue his teachings, it would be pivotal for jesus to have risen from the dead.

so regardless of whether or not jesus actually did rise from the dead, if christianity was going to be "true" it would require jesus to do this.

so the disciples really had no choice but to claim he did in fact rise the dead, jesus made the promise and unless he was a false prophet, it had to come true.

He was only dead for 3 days. I'm not talking about the disciples attitude when he was dead, I'm talking about their attitude after he rose.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

He was only dead for 3 days. I'm not talking about the disciples attitude when he was dead, I'm talking about their attitude after he rose.

put yourself in their shoes.

you've devoted your life to this man, he said he would return after 3 days of his death.

when he doesn't, do you:

A: admit to yourself he was a false prophet and you followed him for nothing

B: carry on his legacy and tell others he did in fact rise from the dead.

[busamboy]

put yourself in their shoes.

you've devoted your life to this man, he said he would return after 3 days of his death.

when he doesn't, do you:

A: admit to yourself he was a false prophet and you followed him for nothing

B: carry on his legacy and tell others he did in fact rise from the dead.

Most probably B, that is why it took another 300 years for it to really take shape and actually be a religion that was recognized in my opinion. If he really did things that would have made the common man astounded, which wouldn't have been hard in those days (if you look at the gimmicks every religion used to attract people to their church) then they would have recognized him as a god. If it was that important for god to bring his son to this earth for us to follow him, I am positive that he would have other powers than to walk on water (which I have seen done many times before by men not named jesus) or to heal people better than the average person. I don't know of all of his alleged miracles, but I am sure there is some way for all of them to take place. A blind man could easily see if he pretended to be blind. I'm not saying that this is what happened by any means, but I just highly doubt the fact that you need to follow jesus to get into heaven. What about all the people before jesus. All the people in asia all the way to the americas who had no idea who he was. God is smart enough to know that if he wanted us to worship him in any certain way, he would have put his son on this earth in a day in age when everyone can follow his teachings. For me, I am almost positive that Jesus would be marked a phony by todays society.

I also wonder why it took Jesus so long to actually be the son of god. Why did he need to become an adult if he is the son of god:hmm:

Thats all I'm going to write because I am sure that somebody is going to rip that up into pieces and comment on every sentence and it is not suppose to be read like that.

[Domata Dominance]

put yourself in their shoes.

you've devoted your life to this man, he said he would return after 3 days of his death.

when he doesn't, do you:

A: admit to yourself he was a false prophet and you followed him for nothing

B: carry on his legacy and tell others he did in fact rise from the dead.

Option B. But if it came down to a choice between death and giving up my false beliefs, I'd give them up in a second. The disciples didn't. They were tortured and still refused to deny the resurrection.