[CS-FSLUG] Freedom of speech VS evolutionists

[groundhog3000]

Perhaps we should take a look from this angle,

>Personally I think its an infringement on people's rights telling anyone that 
>the stickers are "unconstitutional", it doesn't even make mention of creation 
>it simply says that Evolution is a theory and not a fact and that the 
>materials in the books should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
>Very hypocritical of that judge that rule the stickers as "unconstitutional" 
>when blocking them infringes on freedom of speech, even more ridiculous for 
>people to attach Christian beliefs over this since it makes no mention of 
>anything Christian, even many non-Christians don't believe that evolution is 
>a fact. If people accept evolution as unquestionable fact and take that belief with 
>
>them to their graves then they will inevitably suffer for their ignorance.
>
>In the end I just can't make any sense of these people's logic:
>

The paragraph disclaimer in the book is still there, by the way.
It should be noted that apart from evolution, what other options are 
there for the origins of life?
The judge well knows that the only other viable option is creation.
So by default the sticker has a "religious" connotation (i.e. not all 
natural).

However, as a Christian, I don't see the "religious" nature of 
scientific knowledge
pointing to the logical conclusion that evolution is impossible and 
creatio is a
much more convincing model. Most people are simply blinded by the scientific
"smoke and mirrors" and the large, complicated words that make up their 
fairy tales
and speculations. There are some that believe religiously in the 
speculations
because it's either what they want to be true or they, like most people, 
just don't care
enough to check.

As an example, if any of you have ever participated on a list or other 
creation vs. evolution
debate, you know that most scientific material available online assumes 
evolution is true.
You will quite quickly be "cut and pasted" to death with material from 
websites featuring the
wild, drug-induced fantasies of PhD's. Then what you are required to do 
is to either find some
apologetics for that subject or personally attempt to argue against the 
musings of the PhD.
If you attempt to argue yourself using facts and personal study, you are 
immediately dismissed
by another "cut and paste" (since there are 100 counter-apologetic sites 
for every 1 apologetic)
or simply dismissed since, as we all know, a PhD is right until proven 
wrong (kinda like the
pope). On the other hand, in cases where quility, recent apologetics is 
found, the immediate
reaction of the "evolution religious fanatics" is to either quickly 
change the subject or start
very, very violent hecking to quiet your voice. In all that, there is 
never another alternative
given nor accepted. Conclusion: Evolution is a religion with a clergy 
(PhD's), activists
(Michael Newdow, ACLU) and fanatical followers (the evil, violent, 
heckling, lower forms of
life on the debate lists).

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

>- People claim that evolution is the bulletproof evidence against God and the 
>bible
>-- There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in favour of evolution that 
>wasn't made up and none of that holds up when properly examined. For that 
>matter people seem to forget that evolution has evaded explaining how 
>lifeless molecules, atoms, etc... could possibly have made even the simplest 
>of life forms never mind the creatures that supposeduly "evolved" from them.
>Of course lets not forget the big bang theory, people claim nothing existed 
>before hand but then what caused the "big bang"? I've heard people say it was 
>gasses but then where did the gasses come from?
>  
>
The point here is simple. Evolution is a fantasy from start to finish. 
Try asking,
"Which came first, complex amino acid sequences or ozone?"
That's a real chicken and egg scenerio.
How about: "Could you point out to me examples or two-celled life? Three
celled? Four celled? Five?" (Hint: there aren't any.)
Here's a good one: "How do we _know_ dark matter exists? Is the belief in
the existance of dark matter faith or science?" (Google this one.)
Or, "So, could you tell me of an example of a mutation that increases
genetic information (a requirement for evolution)?"
Or my favorite, "How are fossils made?" (Try carefully examining the
answer you receive. Upon examination is won't make even common sense.
Slowly buried ... no ... never dacayed for millions of years ... no ... 
fossils we
know are formed under what type of conditions?)

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

>The #1 reason I've gotten for why people intentionally reject the bible 
>despite knowing its true:
>- They don't want to have to worry about consequences of their actions in life
>-- Forgiveness is available to anyone willing to repent and accept Jesus.
>
>Obviously people reject God and the Bible because they want to, not because 
>they've actually been able to turn up any evidence against it. In fact if you 
>know where to look you can find lots of books and resources that not only 
>state the amazing amounts of evidence for the bible but also back up those 
>statements with evidence that you could verify for yourself if you wanted to.
>  
>
You hit the nail on the head. The reason they don't believe is because 
they WANT to deny
the Bible, God and His authority. Any close examination of the facts 
inevidably leads to one
conclusion.

(An exerpt from an interview with a genetic scientist who is a Christian)

"Francis Collins is the director of the National Human Genome 
<http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/biogloss/genom-body.html> Research 
Institute. He is both a medical doctor and a leading gene scientist who 
was part of the team which discovered the genes for cystic fibrosis 
<http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/biogloss/cystic-body.html> and 
Huntington’s disease.

QUESTION: Richard Dawkins 
<http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/bio/dawk-body.html> has raised the 
question that if God created the universe, then how come he seems to 
have disappeared from the universe?

MR. COLLINS: I'm sorry that God has disappeared for Richard Dawkins. 
He's not disappeared for me. I think you can make an argument that if 
God made himself so obvious, so known, so easily interpretable in daily 
events, then the whole concept of faith and of making a personal 
decision about where you stand would be pretty meaningless. You can look 
at many examples down through the history of faith where this lack of 
certainty is a critical part of how the whole enterprise operates.

QUESTION: Physicist Steven Weinberg has made a famous statement that the 
more we know about the universe, the more it seems pointless. As a final 
question, how would you, as a person of faith, respond to Weinberg's 
statement?

MR. COLLINS: I think it is difficult for anybody to argue pointlessness 
based upon scientific data. The facts are the facts. I don't think 
science is ever going to answer the question, why are we here? Why is 
there a universe? It will answer questions of a more derivative sort. 
So, whether you're talking about cosmology or molecular biology, I don't 
think that science is the place to look to get those answers."