Jeshua

Umm, Is the bible fact?

No matter what religion you are today, there is a common underlying source of ideas and these ideas are what have come down through history. Therefore all religions have certain things in common and have all borrowed their current ideas and doctrines from older religions.

Ancient lore general worshipped the sun. If the sun, which is the source of all life failed to come up the next morning people would not have lived long and ancient people knew this. The Sun invigorates you with it's energy and causes crops to grow. The Sun gives up it's life force to provide warmth and food etc. So it could be said that the Sun of God gives it's life up for US and it is the TRUE SAVIOR for it has risen-"Risen Savior". Ancient people would track the Sun on the "Sun dial", and as it still does today, the Sun travels South until the Winter Solstice when it cold and harsh, representing death and the Sun would stop "ON THE SUN DIAL FOR THREE DAYS” and on December 25th, the Sun would be said "To be BORN AGAIN" on the CROSS OF THE ZODIAC" after having died for three days. This is when the Sun begins it's annual journey back to the Northern Hemisphere.

The Ancient calender also started at a different time. It began in Virgo and ended in leo, (Sphynx has the head of a Virgin and the Body of a Lion). When the Sun of God was re-born, it was in the Constellation of Virgo, so it was said "Born of a Virgin". The Sun is the "Eye of God" or "Eye of Horus". Ra was the Sun God in Egypt. His full name was Amen Ra. That is why we say "A-men" after our prayers. The Egyptians knew this and all of the Egyptian beliefs and customs are built into our society secretly by the Freemasons.

ITS NOT EASY BEING....

your positive comments are appreciated. I wish to underline a few things though.

While I accept Science to be taught in Science class-rooms, I emphasize that it should not speculate on origins unless it also includes 'other' speculations. Its fair to use the observation/experimentation/conclusion method, but this cannot be applied (unless I'm mistaken) to show the actual verification of new species emerging. Observation thus far, shows only adaptation within species.(some1 correct me if wrong here)

The point made by Taffy on this is actually quite speculative. It projects from the known to the assumed/unkown.

So, I would accept "Science" being taught as Science and not speculation on origins. (unless ID is also mentioned)

I accept 'ID' to be taught in a more social studies/philosophy/civics class, (but in that context, may as well go the whole hog and teach Creation). where I again emphasize that the moral implications of belief/non-belief should be clearly spelt out, citing various influential philosophers such as Neitchze,Sartre, Locke, Hume, even Marx etc along the way.
I would add on more, (The late and very great) Francis Schaeffer, probably not well known by many, but very good in my opinion.

...and I thought I'd summed up :)

ooops, sorry boaz, must have missread your earlier post. i assumed that 'But in a Christian school, we will teach that God created, and teach science only as far as it has gone, not in an adversarial way' meant that you were proposing ID be taught as science at christian schools. my bad, got a bit carried away.

Surely we’ve heard enough of Grey’s complaint that nobody else is properly arguing. Let’s put an end to it:

Sylvia says: “What can I do with ID? It appears to make no predictions that I can use, or test” (16/10). Grey replies: “if making successful predictions is ALL THAT YOU NEED to be science, then creation theory is science too. Predictions such as plate techtonics, magnetic field strength of other planets and that the universe had a beginning are all predictions of creation science”.

Several posters then explain the importance of prediction in science: Philo (21/10), Justin86 (22/10) and Scout (22/10). Grey’s follow up (24/10) ironically says the point about prediction is “a self-serving effort that would be discarded when it wasn't convenient”.

But this was not discarded. “[What are] some of the predictions of 'creation science'? asked Itsnoteasybeing (24/10) and so did Deuc. I explain how predictions help validate theories as science (24/10). Grey’s response is ‘Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions that have been successfully made?’ (25/10)

Yes, Grey. It would matter.

As Sylvia says “Science is a search for precise and predictive descriptions” (26/10). Taffy also refers to “prediction” (26/10) and Itsnotseasybeing wonders why Grey is “refusing to qualify [his] claims about the predictions”(26/10)

So what’s Grey referring to? It’s probably this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp. In summary, God turned water into planets (Genesis 1:1-11) and this generated planetary magnetic fields. Tracking the decline of these fields suggests a universe <10,000 years old and certain predictions for the magnetic fields of other planet are said to be confirmed by later Voyager missions. Evolution proved impossible?

But theories should also be tested: A universe where light is created on the first day, would make only those stars within 10,000 light years visible. Creationists have theories around this too. Hence if we accept creationism in the classroom, we’d also need to teach creationist astronomy and/or creationist physics. Same for geology.

Conclusion: Grey is declining to argue and being a hypocrite about it. Now we know why. ID would be exposed as the virus to rip apart school science.

Well said David Boaz,you're a man of uncommon sense.

If there is a God we will never have absolute proof in this existence,since to know for sure would not entail faith or courage; and thus life in a spiritual context would have no purpose.The best that believers can hope for is for unexplained anomilies in life that do point to a higher consciousness.Einstein alluded to this but not even he could say for sure.

Science explains the relationships and laws that govern interactions in our world; but cannot explain the essence of time,space or matter.

I'll just remain the skeptic and see how the puzzle fits together.

Arjay “Let's keep science and ID separate,since we will need the cold hard analysis of science to solve all the problems we have created for ourselves. “

Seems reasonable to me.

I tend to be more a sceptic, less a cynic about many things as I grow older.

When someone can “prove” ID then it will be a science… until then it should linger with the other “humanities”, eg. along law, theology,, accounting, philosophy (although Jose would disagree – but he is entitled to a subjective opinion – supposedly regardless of scientific fact).

I would observe, with regard to the realm of “science”, "Basket weaving" has a better claim than "ID" – at least the weaver can demonstrate the history, impact and prove the existence of his “art”.