sgallan

I agree with you Pam....and this Church does not tell us which party to vote forI agree, too. And, I know there are many Democrats in my current ward. True, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a more Republican state than Utah.

PS...as a percentage of GDP (how most economists measure the national debt) we are nowhere near a high point. Recall Truman had us to nearly 95%. Also in reality our debt has very little effect on our economy or our standing as a nation. It serves mainly as a pole of politicians to dance around during election time, trying to ramp up fear and intimidation in the uneducated masses. Uhh.... I am very educated. I have been following the political process for decades now. You are just "spinning". And FWIW, you are being haughty, superior than thou, and even insulting, in doing so. Are you really that special? Shall I bow before you as some sort of God? Get over yourself..... politics is not religion. Though for people such as yourself I suspect you politics is more important than your general humanity, and even your relationship with God. Disclaimer: This is obviously hyperbole, and I can do hyperbole in a personal way. Is politics so important to you that you want to go there? Just curious....

For your information I am LDS who are also Christians and I don't like being stereotyped that I hate Muslims. That is so far from the truth. So what's the big deal then. What I said doesn't apply to you. FWIW, as a non-believer I have been sterotyped so many times I just call myself a godless heathen from the get go. It just saves time.

As far as man tampering with the human genetic code, I remember an article suggesting that the gene that allows sturgeon to survive at 50 degrees below zero, might be very handy spliced into the human genetic code during the next glaciation period I want one of gene's that will allow me to be comfortable when it is 120 around here in the summertime!

I say ask the real Doctor- Heavenly Father. Okay, say I have cancer and it has spread to the lymph nodes. My doctor says I should do radiation and chemo and I have about a 70% chance to live. So I pray about it, and my answer is "I don't need those things to survive". What is your opinion on this senario? What would be your opinion on this same senario if it were your child who was diagnosed with the same sort of thing, and the answer to your prayer was, "forgo the radiation and chemo"? Just curious as to how far you would take this religious edict. It has come up before and even made the national news.

When I think of "good Christians" I think of situations like that. I have been helped by good Christians in a similar way many times. When I was younger this was my general impression of Christians, and Chritianity. Sadly, so much of what I see from Christians and Christianity now is (generalizing here)..... bow or burn. Vote conservative Republican. Wear these kinds of clothes. Have your hair cut this way. Hate Democrats, liberals, Muslims, secularists, and well..... anybody who doesn't believe as you do. My way or the highway or you are evil. There is often a disconnect between this wonderful story, and the "other part" of the religion.

Moksha - I know I was being civil (but insistant) for a change. But it is easy for me on this issue. People can believe what they want, but when it comes to this issue in the science arena, my side already won. Oh, and as far as the specifics of FSMism..... I just spent a 16 hour day getting to, coaching, and getting back from, a wrestling tournament. I am even more dingy than usual. All those questions made my brain hurt. PS - Reni is 30-2 as a Middle School/Junior High wrestler at 68 this year. She's lost twice to the same kid, but has beaten him too. Other than him she has been pretty dominant. She is on track to become the first girl to win the Middle School/Junior High State Championships in Arizona. There are two MS/JH state tournaments in this state, and the kid who beats her occasionally (an elite type club wrestler) is going to the other one (one allows the all-star club teams the other doesn't). All of the top tier kids are good friends and we'll probably spend the weekened before state wrestling with the two Tristians (both national studs), to get ready for our respective state tournaments.

LOL.... you got my point. Statistics are fun, but can neither prove, nor disprove, a God. About the only thing that could prove a God would be God - using infinate powers in such a way there is no doubt That God is God. Surely a God can pull this off. People will say.... where is there freewill and faith. Faith given the varieties and variety of consequences is anything from silly to brutal to cruel to vicious to very nice. Freewill.... well that still exists.. For example; I am on record as to being not interested in virtually all of the posited Gods.... even if they were entirely provable. They can kill me. Send me somewhere else. But I have no interest in most of those Gods.

What I can tell you is that it is extremely improbable that the earth's orbit around the sun happened by chance, let alone all the other factors necessary to support the diversity of life currently inhabiting our planet. I can have fun with statistics too (or sadistics as I called it in college). Today at an exact time of the day, I hit a bug. The odds of my hitting that bug, in that exact place, at that exact time, given everything that could have happened to put me, or the bug, somewhere else at that exact time, before it actually happened are basically incalculable. Yet it did. Was God directly responsible for that unfortunate end of that particular bug?

2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. This is what's known as the "God of the gaps" argumentation. Basically it says that because we do not know causation it therefore must be a God who did it. That is a logical fallacy. I could just as easily say that the Flying Spagheti Monster did it and I would have the same validation. Sure I cannot disprove any possible God. But then again you cannot disprove the Invisible Dragon I have living under my house either. I see no particular reason to believe in any of the thousands of god variations anymore than you see any particular reason to believe in the Hindu religion, or to believe in the Dragon under my house. But again, if you have value in your beliefs, and they help you to be a better person, and to get through this thing called life, then I would suggest you keep them. They don't work for me - and I just don't believe - but I am not you.

Like I said, you can believe what you want. And if your beliefs help you get through life than I am all for them. I'm not looking for converts. As long as it doesn't directly harm me I don't really care what anybody believes. I have no particular use for these beliefs, nor do I see any value in said beliefs.....and I am raising another little heathen (best described at the moment as a 12 year old diest) as well. It is the various religious views on science (she very much like science and math) are sort of what helps me keep her from being interested in any specific religion. All of that is neither here nor there as far as the real world educational system goes. The courts have ruled. The voters have voted. The scientists and scientific community and people who fund and accredidate these institutions have spoken as well. Within the real world of science and education, ID has been determined to be psudeoscience and religious in nature, and thusly has no place in the educational science world as determined by the scientists and the courts. As long as that is the case y'all can believe whatever you want.

There will always be proponents of alternative sciences...... often called psudeoscience. But like the atrology mentioned, or even Flying Spaghetti Monster theory, ID is pretty much relegated to that category. I don't have any issues with that. People can believe what they want as long as they don't screw around with legitimate science education. The future well being of our country in an increasingly technologically based world depends on it.

From the actual ruling (this ruling was NOT appealed AND the School District had to pay over 1,000,000 dollars in legal fees and damages).... "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24) "A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26) "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31) "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) "Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46) "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64) "[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87) "ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89) "Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132) Some after the ruling responses and communitary...... Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that: Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."[19] Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer."[

More tibbits; even Behe - a huge proponent of creeationalism - had to conceed the below under oath.... "As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",[14] and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[15]" To put it another way: The scientific community rejected Creationism and said, you don't play be the rules. So, I.D. came along, and followed the rules. Nevertheless, it was dismissed out of hand as religion, not science. Seems to me that there is some non-theistic doctrine at play--not a pure desire to protect science from religion. As you can see by what I posted above.... it clearly did not play by the rules. There is 139 pages saying exactly that.

It's a vicous circle, sqallan. We're right back to the beginning of the argument. You have faith that there is no God and therefore the scientific evidence collected thus far must point to the TOE, we evolved slowly over millions of years. There is no proof and yet it is taught as fact. That's not what many brilliant scientists say with their lifes work... many of whom believe in God. The people who accredidate them agree as does the judicial system. You can believe what you want but this has been settled within the real world of education. If I didn't, and they didn't, then every crackpot creationalist theory, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster, should get equal billing. But of course you are not interested in those.... just your version. Which is just a way of saying you want your supernatural theology taught as science. They do that in some countries (many in the Middle East) and frankly it doesn't work real well. There is a reason our Secondary educational system is the best in the world.... it is because they are very strict as to what they accept as legitimate education. And it isn't because we are rich and wealthy because our Primary educational system lags behind many nations. I say that the scientific evidence collected thus far points to a creator, an intelligent designer with a plan, there is no proof and yet it is not even entertained as a plausible possibility because it would infringe upon your faith that there is no God. That's the point I'm trying to make. Creationists don't want to change the facts, we just want to suggest an alternative possibility. As far as this spagetti monster thing, it is absurb because its only purpose is to make ID look foolish. It is a mockery not science, and it's meant to be a mockery and not science. If you get your creationalist theory put into science curricullm then I say ALL the various creationalist theories should be part of science curricullum. Which of course then become just the study of the supernatural and not really science. And it just isn't the non-believers who say this (though you do seem to be obsessed with this part of the debate - you probably think I am some kind of heathen too)... it is the judicial system and the educational system. Are you suggesting that all of these folks are non-believers? Last I checked the percentage of people who believe in God in this country is over 90%. So, IMHO, Intelligent Design is rejected by the majority of scientists out of hand. They assume, as you imply, that I.D. is just Young Earth Creationism repackaged. The prejudice is so strong--perhaps the fear of letting theism get a foot in the door of the scientific discussion. Not just the scientists. This was ajudicated in the Dover Pennsylvania case. The Judges ruling - a conservative Bush appointed Judge - was quite long and very comprehensive. Here was the bottom line; " On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[2] " You can find out more about it here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v....School_District

No. But as I said before, it is not germaine to this particular discussion. The Judge who ruled in the case in Pennsylvania, as well as those people who voted out the creationalists in that same Pennsylvania town, as well as Kansas (twice) very much do believe in God. They just understand the difference between 'faith' and legitimate science and/or realized that they were jeopardizing the educational future of their children.

Scott, I was wondering if you could present to us the basics of the Creation Story as related by the FSM? Ask and ye shall receive..... http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design. Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith. Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t. You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. Sincerely Yours, Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen. Oh, and here is a link with some academic endorcements for FSMism.... http://www.venganza.org/evidence/endorsements1 Oh and here is an endorcement with an atronomical link embedded for some solid proof of the FSM theory..... “A colleague told me of the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. At first, frankly, as a professional astronomer, I was skeptical. What scientific proof does Bobby have of the existence of His Noodlyness, or must I take it on faith alone (as, of course, I do with the theory of evolution). But then I thought back to one of our pictures taken with the Hubble Space Telescope; you can see it at: http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/14/big.html This picture shows the nebula IC 4406, which as you can see is filled with Noodly structures! Not only does this image scientifically PROVE the existence of the FSM, I believe it shows His home in space.”

It doesn't really matter what you think on this issue. The people who are the scientific, and educational leaders, have already won the day so to speak. Now when making a choice as to whom I am to believe - religious folks for whom evolutionary theory somehow threatens their beliefs - or some of the most brilliant minds on the planet for whom this sort of thing is their lifes work and who have also come up with a broad scientific concensus (as I have already illustrated) - I think I will go for the broad concensus of the scientific folks. It is actually a pretty easy decision for me to make. I regret that the position of the scientists, educators, and judicial system, seems to threaten you. But it is done within the world of science. Basically you can believe what you want. But when it comes to science education I think I'll stick with the experts. Apparently science education and the american judicial system has taken the same position. It is a reason I am glad I live in a Democratic Republic and not a theocracy.

One more thing on this issue....... and to show you how much of a "slam dunk" this issue is with regards to creationalism..... there are many hundreds of fully accredidated Colleges and Universities in this nation. Not a single one of them teaches anything remotely akin to creationalism within their science departments. Not a single one. We are talking about hundreds of institutions, with thousands of Professors and Scientistis, teaching millions of students..... and yet not a single one teaches creationalism within it's science department. Which says to me that creationalism within that venue is about as credible as is Voodoo or the Occult within the same Venue. It has it's place.... within humanities or the social sciences.... but has been determined - by the best minds in those fields in the whole world - not to belong in legitimate science. It is considered psudeoscience. Apparently you mock me. And apparently you mock all of those who do not believe as you do. My religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are not germaine to legitimate science. I know many a true believing scientist who believe exactly as I do on this issue. Including many LDS scientists, as I learned when I used to lurk (I lurked because they were real scientists and I just enjoyed learning from them) on a discussion board they had. One more important addition..... that Judge in Pennsylvania who all but killed any chance for Creationalism being taught in Primary education was very conservative, and very Christian. But he wrote a very comprehensive and thorough decision against Creationalism nonetheless. Whether God created the world or we climbed out of a bucket of slop, physics will not stop being physics and math will not change due to it. That's my whole point. God created physics and botany and biology. All the laws of nature are His. Creationists don't deny science, we embrace it. We are simply saying that people should open up their eyes and look at what we are saying the science points to. Why is the religion of Evolution given that consideration but the religious people who believe in Creation aren't given that same respect. As I said, Evolution has not contributed AT ALL to our educational institutions. The pursuit of knowledge was in full swing long before Darwin came on board. That would be theocracy. That would be bringing the "supernatural" into the field of science. The reason the Judge ruled against the Pennsylvania board - in such a strident way - is that theocratic views have no place in a Democratic Republic. And trust me on this one..... you don't want it that way either. Because most of the people who share your views on this issue would, if they could in a theocracy, outlaw your religion as a cult.

Well if you get your creationalist theory than I want all of mine. Or is your Christian based one the only one that counts. Oh, education and especially science education has changed a great deal since Scopes. If it hadn't our life spans (medicine and evolutionary based biology is very much science) would not have increased a great deal since Scopes. Finally, to teach Creationalism with a science department in a Secondary Institution means you lose your job. The school has a chance to lose it's accredidation. For a State to attempt to foist these standards in their Priimary educational system means those kids within that system have the odds stacked against them as far as getting very competitive slots in the better academic institutions..... especially if we are talking about science issues (trust me on this one I used to do that job). Bottom line..... the best and the brightest within the best educational system in the world have already dsecided this issue. As have the judicial system in that country - see the Pennsylvania decision. You have lost this issue because what you espeouse has been determined by the vast majority of scientists to be nothing more than religious dogma.... and not science. You can bemoan it all you want. But to belabor it - if you are in the science field - means your career is in jeopardy. To teach it within a primary educational system, or as a homeschooler, means you are risking the academic future - with regards to science fields - of those kids. Like it or not this is the real world and has been for way more than a generation.

To be fair here is some more creationalist theories that should get equal time in a fair world PS - I can come up with a lot of these - all of which if one has at least a rudimentry knowledge of science - can be made to look sciencetifically and historically palusble)..... The term 'Ancient Astronauts' generally refers to extraterrestrials who came to Earth and were in some way responsible for seeding the human race. There are references to these entities in the bible, in ancient art and other texts. They are all linked with myths about creation found in all ancient civilizations. As we search to find the truth behind the illusion, who created the human race, or biogenetic experiment, we look to those who came from the stars, ancient astronauts, creational gods, for our answers. All is theory, virtual reality, consciousness, and for the most part not provable, subject to the interpretation of the researcher or experiencer. Most of us would love to find evidence of ancient astronauts, be visited by friendly aliens who could enlighten us to our true creational blueprint. Throughout the history of the human drama, we find all sorts of evidence that makes us think, believe, and quest for the greater truth. They are all just myths, legends, and theories... Theories about Atlantis often link sightings of ancient astronauts to Atlantean space ships. This goes to the ancient gods called the Zep Tepi. In China we find theories about an alien race called the Dropa who left behind fascinating discs. The Popol Vuh, sacred to the Mayans, unequivocally states, "Men came from the stars, knowing everything, and they examined the four corners of the sky and the Earth's round surface." Brazilian UFO researcher Jean Alencar has noted that the mythology of this country is replete with descriptions and statuettes of beings endowed with the power of flight. The legends of Brazilian natives, like those of other countries, detail experiences of gods or travelers from the sky who descended to earth when humans were little more that animals to instruct them in the arts of agriculture, astronomy, medicine, and other disciplines. Alencar points out one figure in particular, Bep-Kororoti, a space warrior worshipped by the tribes of the upper reaches of the Xing River. Not unlike the heroes of India's Mahabarata, Bep-Kororoti possessed a flying vehicle capable of destroying anything in its path. His aspect terrified the primitive natives, until he stepped out of his "raiment" and revealed himself to be fair-skinned, handsome, and kind. He amused the natives with his "magic" until he grew restless for his land in the sky and returned there. The Chilam Balaam, is even more explicit and states "Beings descended from the sky in flying vessels...white men in flying rings, who can touch the sky." There are indications that something very strange took place on our very own continent hundreds of thousands of years ago, before humans arrived on this continent (according to the canon of anthropology). Santa Maria Canyon holds evidence pointing toward the existence of a culture of intelligent beings who raised cattle, built weapons, and practiced funeral rites -- one million years ago. If we decide to stick with what academia has to say, in no way could these beings have been humans. Were they survivors of a Race of Aliens? This brings to mind theories of marooned spacemen, or colonists trying to tame a new planet? During the Prehistory Conference held during 1962 in Rome, Dr. W. Matthes presented the oldest carvings known to exist, created by a forgotten artist two hundred thousand years ago, when humans had allegedly just discovered the use of fire. Discovered by the 19th century French explorer Henri Lhote, these figures were so unusual he dubbed them Martians, explaining their contour is simple, unartistic, and with rounded heads; their only detail is the double oval at the figure's center, which evokes the image we currently have of Martians. In 1989, years just before I met Zecharia Sitchen, I did not knew about his theories about an alien race called the Anunnaki, and an ancient civilization called Sumer As a psychic medium, I talked with a Reptilian alien who called himself Dilmun. I also did not realize at the time that Dilmun is associated with ancient sites on the islands of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. Reptilians, snakes, dragons, are all metaphors for human DNA, as a biogenetic experiment. Dilmun told me about a civilization that was destroyed, its inhabitants leaving on a planetoid named Nibiru and coming to Earth. [Tales of destruction of an alien planet, whose inhabitants came to Earth and seed a race, are common in the grid program of our reality. They are just myths and metaphors.] Dilmun said he was six hundred years old as we measure time. [6=flower of life metaphor] His people were warriors, conquering planets for gold and riches. [gold, alchemy of time and consciousness] He did say he would return one day, as all myths speculate. It was years later that I would discover that I was connecting with the grid system, matrix, akashic records, hall of records through which we virtually experience in linear time.

They simply looked at whether it was legal to introduce a theory that supports a religion and since somehow we have become a nation that refuses to even discuss God, we can't look at the science that might actually support the theory that there is one. And oh, does the science ever support the Creation theory. If you get your Christian based creation theory then I get my Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. And I have about 11 other religious creation theories I can throw out there as well. There is a reason the absolute best secondary educational system in the world doesn't have even one accredited institution of higher learning teaching any kind of creationalism in it's science departments..... it's not considered science, it is considered humanities. That kind of academic discipline is what keeps us number one. Now if you want it as a humanities, or you want to believe in it as part of your religious beliefs, then knock yourself out. But luckily we live in a nation where psudeoscience and religious beliefs is kept out of legitimate education..... as has been illustrated by the ruling of a very conservative Judge, and has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and has been decided by the voters (like the ones in Kansas who came to their senses when the educational future of their children became in jeopardy). Otherwise we may be just like those religious schools in some Islamic nations. And that part of the world is hardly on the forefront of learning nor technology.

If someone believes in evolution and genetics is more reliable than religion – what is the answer? If I believe in a better place, why would I bother to be careful? Shouldn't I just live life on the edge and take chances? If I die, so what? I get to go to a better place.

But two things. First: just because someone can understand a thing does not mean that G-d could not have been involved. And Two: Just because someone does not yet understand a thing does not prove that G-d must have done it. I could say the samething about the invisible Dragon living underneath my house and it would be equally as valid.

I would have no problem with the evolutionary theories, as long as they do not descend to an enforcing of one metaphysical world veiw or denigrate other feilds and ways of knowing. I don't get this. I sub all grades and evolution is taught as the accepted theory.... without a mention of God or religion. I have seen countless course descriptions, have taken college coursework, as have countless of my friends and peers, and it is just science. The whole religion thing never comes up good or bad. It is a non-issue. And why should it? That is humanities and/or social science.