So a discussion of this subject can't go outside that article? That article covered every possibility? That article didn't touch the spate of anti-Christian books recently sold in the U.S. either. Does that mean they couldn't possibly have anything to do with this subject?

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

And yet, so many Christians come to an understanding that "evolution" is not contradictory with the bible...
Why is that?

There is nothing "atheistic" about evolution.
Evolution talks to how life developed from its earliest forms.
It does not speak to how those earliest forms came into being.

Even the Catholic church has come to accept that God could have not only created those earliest forms, but also guided the development of life into the form we now see today.


If there is any room for loss here, it is from the Christians who try to proclaim evolution cannot be possible cause their bible tells them to believe otherwise.

If children are taught that it can only be one or the other, and they see the scientific basis for evolution, then your restrictive approach has more blame than anything else.
The percentage of the population that excludes a possibility of God's presence in evolution is only 10%. (1997 Gallup Poll)
Furthermore, it is irrational to blame "evolution" for such a shift considering evolution has been around a LOT longer than the 1990's.

Moreover, a necessary part of your theory would be for a growth in the "evolutionist" category. But this growth is glaringly absent over time, and the numbers are considerably static, demonstrating your claim without foundation ...
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

I realize it's natural for the Christian apologetic mentality to create excuses and reasons out of thin air, but in instances like this we can actually do some research to determine the truth, or falseness, of a claim.
And your claim rings incredibly hollow...

================================================== ========

On the flip side, here's an article documenting what I'm talking about...

Pensito Review Poll: Intolerance of Gays Drives Up Christianity’s Negatives among Young People
That is SOLID statistics on people's perceptions of Christianity and a definitive show of a real "shift".

Amusingly enough, some people on this message board fight the very perceptions which DOMINATE these youth's opinions.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Seems to me that the growth of evangelicalism is precisely what is described in 2 Timothy 4:3, what is the profusion of "non-denominational" pastors except an opportunity to pick and choose the Christianity you want, to indulge your desires for hatred of others and ignore Christ's commands to show love to both neighbour and enemy?

__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

"2 Timothy 4:3

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

Nearly ALL evangelicals (fundies) lack a foundation of 'sound biblical doctrine'. Thus, they tend to rely on 'extra-bibilical' prophesy from self-appointed prophets.
I've yet to meet an evangelical who 'knew his bible' without spewing out one erronious belief or another.

You can praise the 'Lord' all you want...I guess that's the new name for 'Satan.'

__________________
-God couldn't be everywhere, that's why we have America.
-Use the Force...because prayer doesn't work.
-If I mock you on a forum board...and you're too stupid to know...are you really being mocked?
-Joseph of Nazareth said: "Healthy White baby, 5 year wait? What else you got?" to which the adoption agency replied "A Norse kid born with his heart on the outside. Hey, Zeus come 'er!"
-"The only way to win is not to pray." - WOPR

Evolution IS Anti-Christian.

It disproves the Genesis story.
Without that, you have NO sin entering the world through Adams fault.
No sin, no need for salvation.
No need for salvation...NO SAVIOR.
NO CHRIST.

Kindergarten logic.

Most people are VERY ignorant about silly things that their faith entails.


It's like the babelfish...*poof*

__________________
-God couldn't be everywhere, that's why we have America.
-Use the Force...because prayer doesn't work.
-If I mock you on a forum board...and you're too stupid to know...are you really being mocked?
-Joseph of Nazareth said: "Healthy White baby, 5 year wait? What else you got?" to which the adoption agency replied "A Norse kid born with his heart on the outside. Hey, Zeus come 'er!"
-"The only way to win is not to pray." - WOPR

Because the word "evolution" has so many different meanings. Sometimes (usually) it's used as a weapon against Christianity, but it can be toned down to mean "change over time" in just about any capacity, any time atheists need to retreat, or use it for any other purpose.

This ridiculous statement is common in the scientific community, and they've invested a lot of time trying to back it up. But that doesn't make it any less laughable to much of the general population.


Yes, it does have huge gaps. But the most famous evolutionists present it with an atheistic point of view. Other avenues of exploration are shouted down, and the general public notices. Younger members of the general public can be more easily swayed by it.

But the Catholic church is not in control of how it is presented scientifically.

They proclaim that the atheistic application of evolution isn’t possible, then they’re accused of proclaiming that plants cannot grow. As I said, definitions of the word evolution vary widely.

And the percentage of biological scientists that excludes a possibility of God’s presence in evolution is 99.86%, according to your link below. They’re largely in control of what goes on in public science classrooms. Yet it’s Christianity’s fault that its belief is slipping among young people?

Evolution has been around a lot longer than the 1990's, but an intense marketing of atheism has only been around since the 1990's. Activist Atheist websites have been created on the internet since then - plenty of influence on the general public never seen before. Discrimination against Christianity in U.S. universities has been on the rise in the last few decades. Books such as “The God Delusion”, “How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”, and "Letter To A Christian Nation" and many other similar ones have been best sellers only recently. Yet when new statistics show that Christianity has weakened somewhat in the last few decades, atheists want to blame ONLY their perceived weaknesses within Christianity for it!! Why not give yourselves some credit?



Not necessarily the evolutionist catagory, but the militant atheist catagory. The internet is a very influential tool.


But it’s not solid proof about just where those perceptions came from. Christianity’s “intolerance” hasn’t changed in the last few decades, but strawmen accusations and intolerance of Christianity has been made public more than ever, in recently formed places like the websites and books I named above.

Atheist perceptions that are pushed in today's public education, yes. It's a public establishment of atheism, in violation of the first amendment.

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

I see the growth of evolution as precisely what is described in 2 Timothy 4:3. Why do you put quotation marks around your words "non-denominational"; they're nowhere to be found in 2 Timothy. It spoke of teachers, (not necessarily Christian ones) and myths and itching ears. It says to "do the work of an evangelist". That doesn't mean to love atheists while they indoctrinate future generations into atheism, it means to enlighten them in a non-violent way. There is a difference between firmness/assertiveness, and violence.

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

What makes non "fundies" better authorities on the Bible than "fundies? What qualifications do you have to recomend yourself?

That wasn't very impressive.

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

You describe evolution very well. I'm impressed.

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

No. It does not have "so many different meanings".
It's a scientific theory. Not something that morphs around just cause other people look at it.

The only "weapon against Christianity" regards anybody who takes an extreme literal interpretation of the bible. And even then, other scientific tools like carbon dating easily prove Christianity wrong.
To put it another way, it's like saying "Mark didn't break that vase", and then complaining because evidence is provided showing he did in fact break the vase.


I can't help but think this is a clear demonstration of the absurdity of your position.
It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, but you try to contradict SCIENTISTS who tell you something about its application.

The hubris of you trying to tell science how science is, contradicting scientists, is amazing!
Might as well be a hair-dresser trying to lecture a mechanic on how a car runs.


"gaps" declared by people who typically have no real rational understanding of the theory, pretending to tell scientists what they see in the scientific theory...

I might as well be telling a Christian that "communion" is about cannibalism! And then insisting he is wrong when he protests the assessment.


Is that what this is really about to you? CONTROL ????
I'm sorry, but RELIGION can control RELIGION.
Religion does NOT get to control science. Such attempts stunt science and prove counter-productive for societal good.


Sounds like there are a variety of arguments in favor of evolution which you just plain do not understand...


Is this an absurd lie, or are you not reading correctly?
My link showed the following positions from scientists:
* 05% God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
* 40% Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
* 55% Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

There is no "99.86%" in my link.
ABOVE is what it ACTUALLY says.


Yes, it is Christians fault.
And no. It is TEACHERS who teach in the classrooms.

When people like you insist that it has to be evolution, which has a basis, or the bible, whereby a literal translation is disproven by science in SOOOO many ways, then it is your fault.


Oh great.
More conspiracy theories?

I'm sorry, but your claim is absurd.
There is no "intense marketing of atheism".


1) I'm not an atheist.
You repeatedly miscategorize things, which is consistent with your failure to recognize the real problem with Christianity's decline.

2) Do you seriously think a book like "The God Delusion" can convince people that God does not exist?
If the religion had any true strength, it could stand to a challenge.

In a lot of ways, your approach is like blaming the "winner" for winning, while ignoring how the loser fumbles the ball.


First you want to blame "evolution".
Now, when that has been proven, you change your tactic and try to blame "militant atheists" instead.

And quite frankly, "militant atheists" are few and far between.
I will admit Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are decidedly in that category.
But they are the exception and not the rule.


The real problem is that today's kids ARE QUESTIONING the claims of religion more, and found them wanting.

The youth KNOW gay people, and realize that they aren't the boogeyman.
In the past, people LIED (or told their delusional accounts) about gays and people didn't know any better.
Anita Bryant is a perfect example with her campaign against gays in teaching positions.

But today, kids are questioning the justness of Christianity. It's not atheisms fault that Christianity isn't competitive unless you already believe...
It isn't atheism's fault that Christianity gives itself a bad name, behaving badly.

"intolerance of Christianity"? NO religion should be taught in school. That's not "intolerance of Christianity".
Why do I suspect your remedy to this would be to FAVOR Christianity.

"strawmen accusations"? Any elaboration on this one?

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

I don't know.. 'evolution' is not doctrine. It is a scientific theory based on evidence. This literal reading of genesis is just plain nuts. It was even talked about in early CHristianity as being stupid (Read some Saint Augustine of Hippo's essays)
Here is a quote from him

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.


It is not a coincidence that fundamentalist Christianity is flourishing the most in the least educated states.

__________________
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.”
Owen Rowley

That is the whole thing about what the authoritarian Christians believe. Since evolution has been shown to be the best explaination of the facts, it does mean that at least that form of Christianity is intellectually and morally bankrupt

__________________
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.”
Owen Rowley

Actually, your link showed several sets of numbers from a variety of polls. However, the very first poll mentioned, from 1987, was apparently a poll of "earth and life scientists." That would be geologists, biologists, paleontologists, paleoanthropologists, population geneticists, geneticists, and so on. Your link states that of about 480,000 qualified scientists in 1987, only about 700 were creationists. That makes up the 0.14% that is stated. It is a simple matter to subtract 0.14% from 100% and get 99.86%. So while Marc's points are generally mindless nonsense, there is nothing wrong with his arithmetic. However, he limits his group of scientists to biologists, which is incorrect.

It's actually pretty easy to name a couple of the 0.14% of qualified scientists. There is Jonathan Wells, PhD cell biologist from UC Berkeley, Kurt Wise, PhD paleontologist from Harvard, Andrew Snelling, PhD in geology (uranium mineralisation) from U of Sydney. It's even easier to name some scientists who are on the fringe of "qualified". Duane Gish, PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley, Michael Behe, PhD in biochemistry from U of Penn, John Morris, PhD in geological engineering from OU, Carl Wieland, MD from Adelaide University. Others have (or had) no qualifications whatsoever. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD in chemistry from Victoria University, Henry Morris, PhD in hydraulic engineering from U of Minn , Walt Brown, PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. Wise teaches at a creationist college, Snelling used real geology to find oil while he denied it in private writings, and Behe is a college professor (whose whose creationist views have been officially disavowed by his university). Other than that, none actually was engaged in "doing" science. Most conduct "ministries."

The poll numbers are fairly consistent over years and a number of polls. Biological and earth scientists, 99.5%+. All scientists, 95%+. It seems clear that creationists just don't do science.

__________________
From The Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11, negociated under Washington, passed unanimously by the senate, and signed by Adams -- "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

I disagree.
Marc's claim was: "And the percentage of biological scientists that excludes a possibility of God’s presence in evolution is 99.86%, according to your link below."
The article stated CREATIONISTS.
There is a third category, as I just showed, of people who believe evolution existed with God's guidance.
Just because a person is not a "creationist" does not mean that they don't believe in God. Considering the later poll, with 45% believing in God, it's obviously not consistent to jump from just "0.14%" to a whopping 45% believing in God.


Actually, the poll I just quoted is thoroughly inconsistent with that claim.
40% Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

The Christian Science Monitor made a prediction about evangelical Christianity.
I am not sure I buy it, but here is the article.

The coming evangelical collapse | csmonitor.com


The coming evangelical collapse
An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise.

__________________
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.”
Owen Rowley