"Biblically Correct" Museum Tours?

[Tobuoi]

Yeah, you're right, the stastistics and polls were all made up. Where the frak do you get your logic?

And I honestly don't care if you say, "Oh, well, not ALL Christians are like that." And did I not mention that 25% PERCENT OF AMERICA shares the same beliefs as the church in the video? 25% call themselves Evangelical. And even IF people were opposed to it, not many of them are making an attempt rid the country of it. That, in itself is evil. Ignorance is evil. When you take on the name of a Christian, Catholic, Evangelical, or even an American, you take responsibility for everyone else who shares it. Thus, in my opinion, the first flaw in organized religion. And just because you're capable of rallying up a religious gang doesn't give you the right to try and debunk reality.

[dasperro]

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

What source would that be?

Of course I have. I go to a church. How is it brainwashing? It's just talking about the Bible in a way kids can understand, of course, I have no idea what kind of Sunday School YOU visited and decided to generalize the entire idea of Sunday School as "brainwashing", but it's just teaching the Bible to kids in a kids understanding. The only kids that go to Sunday School are kids that either want to, or their parents wanted them to, at which point their parents are just teaching their kids what they want them to be taught, just like you or anyone else will teach your kids whatever you think is right. If you are saying teaching Creationism in Sunday School is like brainwashing, then I simply say that teaching Evolution could be considered the same tactic in public school.

I have heard someone say in a prayer, "Thank you that these kids are at a young and impressionable age, Lord..." and so on. That's not evidence of brainwashing? And, yes, parents do have some right to teach their kids what they want them to know, but I have seen many parents take it much too far. My brother's friend is 19 and his parents still make him go to church. Not to mention all the crazy-over-protective Christian parents who shelter their kids from everything.

And Evolutionism is a scientific theory, not the doctrine of a religion. That makes it neutral among all the theories of how the world came about, and the best objective choice (it makes it so we don't have to teach kids every Creationist theory, which we would have to to teach any of them). And don't hide behind the fact that it's a theory. Gravity is a theory. You see its effects constantly.

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

Yes. Morality is sooo dangerous, mind you.
The religion is simply a bomb waiting to explode! What with radical ideas such as "love your neighbor and your enemy" and "don't steal/boast/lie/cheat/hate" and of course the most dangerous phrase of all, which Jesus said himself, "those who live by the sword die by the sword". That is so pro-violence.

Religion, not morality.
And that's what Christianity is about. How most people interpret it is something else entirely.

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

On behalf of the Christian faith, I apologize.
But please don't blame Christianity because some radical Catholics years ago told everyone you either believe in Jesus or get killed. Do you think that because some crazy Catholic vendetta priests killed people, that's what Christianity's all about? The Bible itself said people would come in the name of God and would yet be totally false.

Apologize to the victims.
I don't blame the concept, I blame the hold it has had over most of humanity for the past 2000 years. Although, I suppose you could blame just about any religion with a decent following (the numbers, not the people) for its fair share of trouble, so it was rude of me to single out Christianity.

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

No.

I've given it some more thought, and I suppose you're right. Christianity isn't a cult. It's damn close, though.

[Forever Atlas]

well once again i must say I believe in a lot of science that has been proved fact, but then I also have studied both and Believe Bible truths over certain scientific theories. Now I dont know about a lot of you if you know of a scientist one of the many who have stepped up... but this guy here:

Professor Michael J. Behe, wrote a book "Darwin's Black Box - The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" its an interesting read, though i have not finished it.

Think science is seperate from the religious "forcing?" think again..... the science community also has its dark secrets that if people who dont follow the science "rules" they are thrown out mostly. Its like this... you have to believe THIS or THAT or you arent really a scientist.

also there is a film by Ben Stein coming out that is interesting also:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

[Phoenix]

Professor Michael J. Behe, wrote a book "Darwin's Black Box - The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" its an interesting read, though i have not finished it.

Everything Behe has said has been killed, constantly. He even admitted in court that since ID rests on a deity, it is not science.

This is why I accuse you of not researching like you claim. If you had researched, you know that bullshit like irreducible complexity has been debunked.

[Forever Atlas]

^ okay i'll let you say that though I think otherwise, but what I state wont make a difference.... but let me ask something...

Science is supposed to be about looking into things, taking in consideration of all factors... right? to come to a conclusion WHEREVER the EVIDENCE leads you. Right?

So many many scientists have confessed that their evidence in looking into science and everything makes them go to the conclusion that there HAS to be intelligent design. However just because there is this unwritten code that science and a higher being or God can not be integrated with each other, they scurry to disprove the evidence that they were led to. Is that right? all in the name of? science? and human accomplishment?

Many scientists have agreed, even evolutionists, that because intelligent design brings into the picture an ID of a god and there are billions out there all linked to billions of religions, they will not say that Evolution is wrong but they try find other things to just disprove the proofs they themselves have found about intelligent design just so they dont have the issue of who is God etc. keeping science and religions apart. And i understand that part... but cant they go as far as to acknowledge that there is intelligent design and stop there if they dont want to get into an ID of a god or religion?

[Phoenix]

So many many scientists have confessed that their evidence in looking into science and everything makes them go to the conclusion that there HAS to be intelligent design.

You got a source for this?

However just because there is this unwritten code that science and a higher being or God can not be integrated with each other, they scurry to disprove the evidence that they were led to. Is that right? all in the name of? science? and human accomplishment?

"# This claim is easily disproved by the fact that many scientists are strongly religious, having adopted nonnaturalistic ideas in their private lives.

"# Although motives in any large group are going to differ from person to person, the most common motive that makes people become scientists is curiosity. It has nothing to do with supporting naturalism.

# Within the practice of science, there is not anything suggesting naturalism as a goal. The main motives are curiosity, professional pride, and material rewards. Pride enters because scientists must make their work available for all to see, so they want it to look good, and in particular they are motivated to do work that can withstand challenges. Material awards come mainly in the form of applying for funding, which means satisfying the funding agencies, which usually means the research must have some promise for practical value.

# Although naturalism is not a motive for most scientists, its rejection is an explicit motive for most science pursued by antievolutionists. For example, the faculty and students of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School subscribe to a statement of faith in biblical inerrancy and antievolution (ICR 2000). Jonathan Wells pursued a biology degree in order to discredit evolution (Wells n.d.). He did so at the urging of Reverend Moon, whom Wells sees as the second coming of Christ (Wells 1991). William Dembski also sees religious motivation as paramount (Dembski and Richards 2001). The "overthrow of materialism" is the motivating basis for the Wedge Strategy, which is the operating principle for the intelligent design movement (CRSC 1998). "

Also:

" 1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution -- quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.

2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists. "

Got anything else?

Many scientists have agreed, even evolutionists, that because intelligent design brings into the picture an ID of a god and there are billions out there all linked to billions of religions, they will not say that Evolution is wrong but they try find other things to just disprove the proofs they themselves have found about intelligent design just so they dont have the issue of who is God etc. keeping science and religions apart. And i understand that part... but cant they go as far as to acknowledge that there is intelligent design and stop there if they dont want to get into an ID of a god or religion?

Again, bring me a noticeable number of people within the scientific community that claim this.