Seperation of Church & State
- Thread starter Phydeaux
- Start date
Quasar1011
King of Sylvania
Seems to me the separation of church and state, is discriminatory. After all, I don't hear any cries of "separation of mosque and state" or "separation of synagogue and state". Why single out Christians as objects of government oppression?
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
Well, the North could have decided not to be an imperial force. The Cuban territory idea is completely laughable if not a joke.
I just realized I never answered the question that this thread is about, and heck, I live right in the area of discussion.
The first ammendment has NOTHING to do with not being able to put the Ten Commandments on public property. Here is the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Making a display of the Ten Commandments is not establishing a law. However, someone said earlier that the Alabama constitution doesn't allow display of religious symbols on public property, and I don't know whether that's true or not.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments. I mean, how could anyone be offended by them? Go ahead and throw in the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism for all I care. No one's forcing me to live by them.
The first ammendment has NOTHING to do with not being able to put the Ten Commandments on public property. Here is the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Making a display of the Ten Commandments is not establishing a law. However, someone said earlier that the Alabama constitution doesn't allow display of religious symbols on public property, and I don't know whether that's true or not.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments. I mean, how could anyone be offended by them? Go ahead and throw in the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism for all I care. No one's forcing me to live by them.
GerrardCapashen
Benalish Master-at-Arms
Is this a joke? The term "separation of church and state" refers to a separation, originally envisioned to be as solid and unyielding as a brick wall, between the government and religion. The reason the word church is used is because Christianity is the predominant Western religion, and also because it is usually the Christians who are more successful in getting their religious icons/symbols into government buildings. When's the last time you heard of a carving of the Five Pillars of Islam prominently placed in a government building, as was the case with the recent 10 Commandments furor in Alabama?
GerrardCapashen
Benalish Master-at-Arms
A display of the Ten Commandments may not be legally binding, but it does gives the impression that Judeo-Christianity is the preferred religion of the government. It implies that Judeo-Christianity is the one religious grouping that is accepted enough by the government that they get to display their code of behavior, as is not the case with Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Taoism, and all the other religions that I can't think of at the moment. If you include one, you must include all so as to show no preference. Including all is unfeasible, as government buildings should use their space to serve the taxpayers, not to host an impromptu museum of religious symbols.
Anyway, my point was that any government sanctioned display implied government endorsement of that particular religion, and so I think that the 1st Amendment is perfectly clear as to who is in the right in this case. (I also think the same about money and the Pledge of Alliegiance) Please, don't anybody (not talking about you WillJ, more about people like Zarn) make some lame comeback like "If you don't want your money because of "In God We Trust ", give it to me."
I've never heard of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism; I always thought it was the Eightfold Path. Perhaps you could explain this, because I would be interested to learn more about it.
Quasar1011
King of Sylvania
I think you are trying to re-write history! Our founding fathers made dozens of statements indicating the moral foundation of our American government, was rooted in Judeo-Christian values.
The so-called separation of church and state does not exist in our founding documents. The term arrived via a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson, well after the Constitution was framed.
Thank you for making my point for me. As you said, the separation was "originally envisioned to be as solid and unyielding as a brick wall, between the government and religion".
Why not call it separation of religion and state then? That way, all religions would be treated the same. To separate the church from the state, while making no mention of other religions, is intolerant and discriminatory.
Point taken, but so what if it displays that Judeo-Christianity is the preffered religion of the government? The government isn't establishing any sort of official religion, and it is my opinion that the people in government can express their religious feelings however they want. When the governor of Alabama decides to establish an Inquisition, THEN we've got a problem.
Here ya go:
http://ky.essortment.com/whatarefourno_ritl.htm
The Eightfold Path is included in the Four Noble Truths, IIRC.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Seems to me the separation of church and state, is discriminatory. After all, I don't hear any cries of "separation of mosque and state" or "separation of synagogue and state". Why single out Christians as objects of government oppression?
How is the government oppressing you, Quasar?
I think you are trying to re-write history! Our founding fathers made dozens of statements indicating the moral foundation of our American government, was rooted in Judeo-Christian values.
Enlightenment values, not Christian values. The founding fathers decried slavery, and many wanted it permanently done away with, although people from your area of the world prevented that. Since when does the Bible actively condemn slavery? Heck the Bible says I can sell my daughter into prostitution if I want.
Some, many actually, of the values that we enshrine today - due process of law, for instance, since it applies to this 10-commandments-in-the-courthouse case - all these values come from Hellenistic or Roman traditions, revived by the Humanists, and passed on to our country by the American Enlightenment thinkers. In places where those traditions were ignored or reviled, trial by ordeal, the Christian tradition, continued.
Jesus Christ contributed a heck of a lot to our legislative, our judicial, and our governmental traditions, but HE WAS NOT ALONE.
Why not call it separation of religion and state then? That way, all religions would be treated the same.
All religions ARE treated the same, except in two cases:
1. Yours, where you pretend to be wounded and oppressed in order to garner sympathy for pushing your religious symbols onto the public podium.
2. That Alabama judge's, in which his wonderful faith carried him away so much that he forgot to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.
With such examples to guide us, who can complain that that wall of separation between religion and state should be battered down? We certainly don't want any more of either of you.
How is the government oppressing you, Quasar?
I think you are trying to re-write history! Our founding fathers made dozens of statements indicating the moral foundation of our American government, was rooted in Judeo-Christian values.
Enlightenment values, not Christian values. The founding fathers decried slavery, and many wanted it permanently done away with, although people from your area of the world prevented that. Since when does the Bible actively condemn slavery? Heck the Bible says I can sell my daughter into prostitution if I want.
Some, many actually, of the values that we enshrine today - due process of law, for instance, since it applies to this 10-commandments-in-the-courthouse case - all these values come from Hellenistic or Roman traditions, revived by the Humanists, and passed on to our country by the American Enlightenment thinkers. In places where those traditions were ignored or reviled, trial by ordeal, the Christian tradition, continued.
Jesus Christ contributed a heck of a lot to our legislative, our judicial, and our governmental traditions, but HE WAS NOT ALONE.
Why not call it separation of religion and state then? That way, all religions would be treated the same.
All religions ARE treated the same, except in two cases:
1. Yours, where you pretend to be wounded and oppressed in order to garner sympathy for pushing your religious symbols onto the public podium.
2. That Alabama judge's, in which his wonderful faith carried him away so much that he forgot to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.
With such examples to guide us, who can complain that that wall of separation between religion and state should be battered down? We certainly don't want any more of either of you.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
"Government oppression"!? It is nothing of the sort.
I hope that Vrylakas does not mind my quoting from the very clear post on page one of this thread.....
Edit: Oops! Too slow Kryten....Pontiuth Pilate posted before I did.
GerrardCapashen
Benalish Master-at-Arms
But not. If you will look at WillJ's above post, you will see the First Amendment, which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Since the laws passed by Congress are the highest law in the land, and federal laws override state laws, it follows that religion cannot be involved in the legal system of the United States. You are mistaken as to the religious perspectives of the Founding Fathers, many of whom were deistic, agnostic, or even atheistic. But this is not your most grievous error, which is that you mistake the moral foundation of America (which I freely admit to be based on Christianity) for the legal justification of allowing religion to be supported and endorsed by the government. The two are not related.
Making your point for you? I think not. If you ask me, the overall attitude of people in the U.S.A. is much more influenced towards supporting Christianity in the government by their religious views that they are repelled by the specific common use of Christianity-specific vocabulary in our term for the separation of government and religion. I personally would much prefer the term "separation of religion and state" because it is all-inclusive rather than using vocabulary specific to a certain set of religion. I merely use the term for convenience, so as to be understood better. I expect that the pro-democracy students in Iran are calling for the "separation of mosque and state", and nobody is complaining that that is anti-Muslim because that isn't the issue, nor is it a problem.
Edit: Darn, Pontiuth Pilate beat me to the punch.
Quasar1011
King of Sylvania
It isn't, at least not in this area. My point was, if the government begins to restrict the expression of Christianity, while not restricting all religions, then it will have crossed the line into oppression. Which it has done so in Alabama in Judge Roy Moore's case.
Actually, the people from my area of the world wanted to do away with slavery, considering I am a Yankee transplant in the south. Northern Christians went by the idea of "loving another as yourself", and even "think of others as being higher than yourself", which would obviously preclude owning slaves. My area of the world is Sylvania.
I neither need nor want sympathy. Symbols I do not have. If CFC be a public podium, then so be it. So far, I am getting what I want, which is the right to express my views without interference.
Judge Roy Moore had no official duty to the nation, only to the State of Alabama. But even with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the judge was follwing the law, not violating it. Judge Roy Moores own words:
"One nation under God was their cry and declaration, Upon the law of Nature's God they built a mighty Nation. For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod, These men would never question the Sovereignty of God.
"That all men were 'created' was a truth 'self-evident,' To secure the rights God gave us was the role of government. And if any form of government became destructive of this end, It was their right, their duty, a new one to begin."
"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution 'invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama's] constitution unconstitutional."
"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."
Therefore, what you see as the Judge's failure "... to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.", I see as his supporting and upholding the law in the face of runaway judicial rulings. If, as the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", then no law is allowed to be passed which restricts the judge from exercising his freedom of religion.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-John Adams, 2nd President of the United States of America
Attachments
John Adams:
Thomas Jefferson:
James Madison:
Benjamin Franklin:
Thomas Paine:
Ethan Allen:
More than just Thomas Jefferson thought that way.
If Congress were to pass a law that required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all federal courthouses, that would be unconstitutional as it is related to the establishment of a religion. Same goes for any other religious symbol, regardless of what religion they're from. This argument that "church" is somehow descriminatory is rubbish - it clearly refers to all religions and besides, the word "church" doesn't appear in the first amendment anyway.
The first amendment and the fourteenth amendment, when taken together, amount to a restiction against state legislatures in regards to making laws respecting the establishment of religion. However, this is not a legislature, this is a court. Does it apply? Probably not, furthermore the Alabama legislature can't pass a law prohibiting it, because that would be a law respecting the establishment of religion! However if, for example, it were prohibited by the state constitution, then the judge would have to remove the monument.
In any case, this does not run counter to the US Constitution.
I can't speak for Jefferson, but I'm almost sure that's what he meant. Don't be so pedantic - it's a piss-poor way to argue.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Edit: Oops! Too slow Kryten....Pontiuth Pilate posted before I did.
Edit: Darn, Pontiuth Pilate beat me to the punch.
Fast Fingers beats them all to the draw :10gallonhat:
@ Quasar:
My point was, if the government begins to restrict the expression of Christianity, while not restricting all religions, then it will have crossed the line into oppression. Which it has done so in Alabama in Judge Roy Moore's case.
Nonsense. To restrict one religion is unconstitutional. To restrict some religions, and some more than others, is discriminatory on top of being unconstitutional, sort of like adding insult to injury. Fortunately, no such circumstances are under consideration here. It is not oppression to forbid you to put a bronze Bible in a courthouse, because to do so is unconstitutional. If you find that following the Constitution equals oppression, then you can move to Iran. Nor is it discrimination, because nobody else, of any other religion, can put their tenets, or a monument symbolizing them, on govt property, and that covers the gamut from animism to Anglicanism.
I note here that only the Christians are thick-headedly unadvised as to the Constitution's contents, or perhaps so secure of their dominance in your parochial state, as to ask for this unconstitutional monument. The other religions know their business, namely:
There are plenty of other ways to display your Bible, if you wish, in crass and crude prominence. You can buy a plot of land in the city center, tear down all the buildings on it, and erect a 50-story high bronze monument of Moses if you like. Your property, your rights. I imagine the zoning code wouldn't like it though.
The point is, the courthouse is yours, it's mine, it's everybody's, and therefore it can't be the place to advocate religion, because then the republic is advocating it, not individuals. That's not oppression, that's protecting you from Buddhist monuments and me from Christian monuments.
It protects everyone's rights equally by ignoring religion altogether, on public property. This is the safest path any nation can tread.
"One nation under God was their cry and declaration, Upon the law of Nature's God they built a mighty Nation. For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod, These men would never question the Sovereignty of God.
Bullsh*t. Kilroy provides some excellent examples of why this is Christian propaganda, but these are the cream of the crop, not the entire harvest. Believe me, there's more. I can find some if you insist on being stubborn.
"That all men were 'created' was a truth 'self-evident,' To secure the rights God gave us was the role of government. And if any form of government became destructive of this end, It was their right, their duty, a new one to begin."
And some did not believe in God. Unlike you, the Founding Fathers were not selfish in their philosophy - they knew that people would disagree, and they had seen the harm that a state religion had wrought. So, even though a FEW [but not the greatest, not the ones whose names children recite today], even though a FEW believed in God, they did not make the govt force people to believe in God.
"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution 'invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama's] constitution unconstitutional."
What about the Alabaman atheists? Can the State of Alabama acknowledge that God does not exist? Or was Mr. Moore not thinking of them?
Just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. That's mob rule, not democracy. No matter how large a majority there is, a democracy PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF EVEN THE SMALLEST MINORITY. And that includes what is probably the smallest of all: atheists in Alabama.
"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."
They do forbid that Congress, and by extension [by interpretation of the Supreme Court, to whom this renegade judge IS responsible] all the government, favor one religion over another. And that includes putting this monument in the courthouse.
Therefore, what you see as the Judge's failure "... to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.", I see as his supporting and upholding the law in the face of runaway judicial rulings. If, as the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", then no law is allowed to be passed which restricts the judge from exercising his freedom of religion.
The judge's religion is irrelevant.
The judge's jurisdiction is to determine whether this monument is legal or illegal. Since it CLEARLY FAVORS one religion over others [no Buddhist monument, remember?], since it CLEARLY ENDORSES that religion [symbolizing that the 10 commandments are the root of our judicial system] and since it CLEARLY IS ON PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, and therefore is representative of the views of the government, this monument is CLEARLY ILLEGAL. No question about it.
Let me make this absolutely clear. Even if our nation was founded by devout Christians [which it wasn't], and even if the Judeo Christian ethic is the parent of our modern legal system [which it isn't], and even if absolutely nobody raised an objection [which, of course, has failed to happen], THIS MONUMENT WOULD STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Edit: Darn, Pontiuth Pilate beat me to the punch.
Fast Fingers beats them all to the draw
:10gallonhat:@ Quasar:
My point was, if the government begins to restrict the expression of Christianity, while not restricting all religions, then it will have crossed the line into oppression. Which it has done so in Alabama in Judge Roy Moore's case.
Nonsense. To restrict one religion is unconstitutional. To restrict some religions, and some more than others, is discriminatory on top of being unconstitutional, sort of like adding insult to injury. Fortunately, no such circumstances are under consideration here. It is not oppression to forbid you to put a bronze Bible in a courthouse, because to do so is unconstitutional. If you find that following the Constitution equals oppression, then you can move to Iran. Nor is it discrimination, because nobody else, of any other religion, can put their tenets, or a monument symbolizing them, on govt property, and that covers the gamut from animism to Anglicanism.
I note here that only the Christians are thick-headedly unadvised as to the Constitution's contents, or perhaps so secure of their dominance in your parochial state, as to ask for this unconstitutional monument. The other religions know their business, namely:
There are plenty of other ways to display your Bible, if you wish, in crass and crude prominence. You can buy a plot of land in the city center, tear down all the buildings on it, and erect a 50-story high bronze monument of Moses if you like. Your property, your rights. I imagine the zoning code wouldn't like it though.
The point is, the courthouse is yours, it's mine, it's everybody's, and therefore it can't be the place to advocate religion, because then the republic is advocating it, not individuals. That's not oppression, that's protecting you from Buddhist monuments and me from Christian monuments.
It protects everyone's rights equally by ignoring religion altogether, on public property. This is the safest path any nation can tread.
"One nation under God was their cry and declaration, Upon the law of Nature's God they built a mighty Nation. For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod, These men would never question the Sovereignty of God.
Bullsh*t. Kilroy provides some excellent examples of why this is Christian propaganda, but these are the cream of the crop, not the entire harvest. Believe me, there's more. I can find some if you insist on being stubborn.
"That all men were 'created' was a truth 'self-evident,' To secure the rights God gave us was the role of government. And if any form of government became destructive of this end, It was their right, their duty, a new one to begin."
And some did not believe in God. Unlike you, the Founding Fathers were not selfish in their philosophy - they knew that people would disagree, and they had seen the harm that a state religion had wrought. So, even though a FEW [but not the greatest, not the ones whose names children recite today], even though a FEW believed in God, they did not make the govt force people to believe in God.
"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution 'invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama's] constitution unconstitutional."
What about the Alabaman atheists? Can the State of Alabama acknowledge that God does not exist? Or was Mr. Moore not thinking of them?
Just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. That's mob rule, not democracy. No matter how large a majority there is, a democracy PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF EVEN THE SMALLEST MINORITY. And that includes what is probably the smallest of all: atheists in Alabama.
"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."
They do forbid that Congress, and by extension [by interpretation of the Supreme Court, to whom this renegade judge IS responsible] all the government, favor one religion over another. And that includes putting this monument in the courthouse.
Therefore, what you see as the Judge's failure "... to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.", I see as his supporting and upholding the law in the face of runaway judicial rulings. If, as the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", then no law is allowed to be passed which restricts the judge from exercising his freedom of religion.
The judge's religion is irrelevant.
The judge's jurisdiction is to determine whether this monument is legal or illegal. Since it CLEARLY FAVORS one religion over others [no Buddhist monument, remember?], since it CLEARLY ENDORSES that religion [symbolizing that the 10 commandments are the root of our judicial system] and since it CLEARLY IS ON PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, and therefore is representative of the views of the government, this monument is CLEARLY ILLEGAL. No question about it.
Let me make this absolutely clear. Even if our nation was founded by devout Christians [which it wasn't], and even if the Judeo Christian ethic is the parent of our modern legal system [which it isn't], and even if absolutely nobody raised an objection [which, of course, has failed to happen], THIS MONUMENT WOULD STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
How is this relevant? Creationism isn't a scientific theory, and it certainly isn't a serious scientific comeptitor to evolution.
Originally posted by Phydeaux
Send the flat earthers into space and see what the say.
The point being, ultimate, total faith in belief will ultimately disregard 100% total evidence. That's not the current case with this subject, but the point stands - current scientific understanding should not be completely dictated to by theological/spiritual position to the extent where science is stamped on by subjects that aren't relevant to understandign based on observations.
Originally posted by Phydeaux
Send the flat earthers into space and see what the say
It will probably be something like "our eyes cannot capture the work of God; earth is flat, it just seens round because the light reflected is distorted by a misterious energy that science haven't explained yet".
That's what creationists do about fossil record and genetic evidence, so I don't see why flat earthers can't also rely on plain denial.
Regards
.quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hamlet
How is this relevant? Creationism isn't a scientific theory, and it certainly isn't a serious scientific comeptitor to evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God made the earth then there would be evidence of Him doing so right?
Maybe you should reasearch on Creationism do searchs like creation yong earth and stuff like that. Here http://www.texasoutside.com/glenrose/creation-museum.htm a web page to get you started.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hamlet
The point being, ultimate, total faith in belief will ultimately disregard 100% total evidence. That's not the current case with this subject, but the point stands - current scientific understanding should not be completely dictated to by theological/spiritual position to the point where science is stamped on by subjects that aren't relevant to understandin based on observations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right nothing is 100%. Science can not understand the spiritual world.
Science is for looking at the earth not for looking spiritual. The spiritual is for looking at God. None of the facts in the bible on how the world was made has ben proved wrong and we have found evidence that God made the world. Evolution is just another way of looking at how the world was put into place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hamlet
How is this relevant? Creationism isn't a scientific theory, and it certainly isn't a serious scientific comeptitor to evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God made the earth then there would be evidence of Him doing so right?
Maybe you should reasearch on Creationism do searchs like creation yong earth and stuff like that. Here http://www.texasoutside.com/glenrose/creation-museum.htm a web page to get you started.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hamlet
The point being, ultimate, total faith in belief will ultimately disregard 100% total evidence. That's not the current case with this subject, but the point stands - current scientific understanding should not be completely dictated to by theological/spiritual position to the point where science is stamped on by subjects that aren't relevant to understandin based on observations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right nothing is 100%. Science can not understand the spiritual world.
Science is for looking at the earth not for looking spiritual. The spiritual is for looking at God. None of the facts in the bible on how the world was made has ben proved wrong and we have found evidence that God made the world. Evolution is just another way of looking at how the world was put into place.
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
Originally posted by FredLC
It will probably be something like "our eyes cannot capture the work of God; earth is flat, it just seens round because the light reflected is distorted by a misterious energy that science haven't explained yet".
That's what creationists do about fossil record and genetic evidence, so I don't see why flat earthers can't also rely on plain denial.
Regards
Narrow characterization and blatantly misleading analogy with flat earth.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
No, not neccesarily. It would depend on what you meant by 'Creationism.'
As far as I understand the term, it would imply that you simply believed that god created the Universe and everything in it. And unless he leaves a tree with 'GOD WAZ ERE' on it, then there shouldn't be any direct scientific evidence for that.
As I said, evolution is the most reliable theory for explaining natural development. It's probably not without holes in it in some areas - but it's the best analysis based on the avalible data.
How exactly do you suppose evolution came to be so widely accepted by people and scientists, anyway?
He who suggests must prove.
As I said, Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a belief; it can't be proved one way or the other.
Really? Or have you merely found discrepencies within evolution?
Evolution/science is based on physical understanding. In this, it differs totally from creationism in the classical sense, which relies in the infalibility of scripture for legitimacy as a belief.
The fact that some creationists feel compelled to compile some sort of evidence or pseudo-evidence is, in fact, a tacit admission that the classical basis for creationism is flawed. It's an adoption of the scientific method in an attempt to prove something that can't, ultimately be proved. I find that rather amusing, tbh.
What I mean by Creationism is a theory that God created the world. There would be proof that the earth was created in 6 days or at least that it didn't take mils of years. The proof is spread out all over and some things that have not yet been discovered. Evolution has all types things but have yet to find evidence of something changing in the fossil reckerd. I don't really think evolution has any proof what so ever...
