What to take figuratively, and what to take metaphorically.

[wimpkin]

i have been reading the bible since second grade, and now I'm starting to question certain aspects of it..Did the five hundred loaves of bread really took place? (meaning did Jesus really conjure up that mass amount of bread by means of rpaying, or were the loaves there originally and the genereous act of the little boy spurred actions of sharing from the people?) What makes more sense, creation vs. Darwin? For me, Darwin makes more sense because evolution really took place in the other creatures, we can't be stubborn enough to think it didn't happen to us...
help...dazed and confused. :(

[Shea]

From my experience, a person can know the Bible inside and out, but if they don't believe it's the actual Word of God, it can just be a lot of confusing stories.

If you are going to believe in any of the miracles of Christ, then it stands to reason that you should believe that they all happened in the way the Bible says. Look at 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17,

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And if you accept the creation story, think of this... say you had a time machine. You went back in time to five minutes after Adam was created. God created a man right? The Bible dosen't say that he created a child. So, you can see Adam. He appears to be say, 25 years old. But he is actually only five minutes old. Couldn't it stand to reason that God could create an earth and everything in it as if it was several years old?

Sometimes, if I get confused I research something instead of taking someone's word for it. A lot of the Bible, especially the new testament, was originally written in Greek. I have a program on my computer that shows me each word in the original Greek, and what the translation of the Greek word means. Many times, there might be several words in Greek for one of our words. For instance, there four ways to say love, and several ways to say prayer.

Hope this helps!

[imthefoolonthehill]

I think the Bible is mostly literal. There is a lot of symbolism (especially in Revelations), but most of the Bible is Literal. As for Darwinism... or Evolution... I am no theologian...

The main question I have about Evolution is... where did anything come from? Why is there anything? Did something always exist, or did it just appear out of nowhere? I believe that God created the Earth in 6 days... The Bible talks about that as a fact... not figuratively... You may not think it is true... but that is how the Bible presents it.

Another problem I have with Evolution is: where is the fossile evidence? I ran into a guy the other day (more like 4 months ago) who was saying that bats evolved from rats... If that isn't accepted by the scientific community currently, then bare with me while I make an example out of it. From what I understand, this would have to happen very slowly... over thousands to millions of generations. First, it might get webbed toes or something... it would have to become a new species and have a halfway large population. If it didn't, the mutation would die right off... so after their becomes many rat-with-webbed-toes, the feet become winglike... but it can't really fly yet... so now you have a rat with long, bony arms. It would have to populate the world... so far these two steps would have to take at least 100 years... more likely 300-500 years. I don't want to go through every difference between rats and bats... for there are many... so lets say, over 100,000 years (a very very very short time) A species of rats mutates into a species of bats. Where is all the fossile evidence? People talk about a missing link, when really there should be hundreds... You would think that for every thousand years, we should be able to find a fossile of a rat from that era... But we don't... we see rats, bats, and nothing in between... It is the same way with humans... Historically, all 'missing links' as far as man is concerned either have been proven a hoax or ahve insufficient data to prove anything. Java man, Peking man, Gigantopithecus all have one to four bones. Zinjanthropus, Homo Habilis, and Lucy all used to be scientificly accepted missing links, but are now considered extinct rare apes or monkeys - not steps between apes and humans.

Now, I could be very wrong about this... perhaps someone has a good missing link between Humans and Monkeys with more than ten bones to back it up.

However, I think that within twenty years all the currently acceptable missing links will be proven as hoaxes or mistakes.

I also wonder where life came from if God didn't create it. Where could it have come from? Do people still believe in spontaneous generation? Were did the primordal soup come from?

another problem I have with Fossil evidence: Why is it that humans go down just as far as bacteria? If evolution were true, wouldn't all the more complex organisms be on top and all the simple organisms be on the very bottom layer? This isn't the way it is... the simple organisms that theoretically evolved before the more complex organisms are never isolated... they are always mixed in with complex organisms.

I know this will spark a bunch of controversy and probably either get deleted or locked, but I think I will post it anyways. I do this only because I think it is an important issue, not because I want to start some huge argument.

[Shea]

To me, it's easier to believe the Word than just theories. If you have a pack of cards sitting on a window sill, and the wind blows them off, they scatter. But they will never come to the right order again unless someone does it. When I was taking Anatomy and Physiology, it astounded me just how complex the human body is. Even my teacher had to admit from time to time we were truly created by a higher power. Even we humans can't truly duplicate God's creation. I heard a joke once...

A group of scientist challenged God that they could create a man just as he did. God accepted, so the scientists gathered together in meetings and were finally ready to present to God their plan on how they would create a man. They had decided to follow God's pattern by using a lump of dirt. But God stopped them there and said that first they had to create their own dirt.

I don't know, I read it a long time ago, maybe I drowned the punchline by wording it wrong. :-?

[wimpkin]

interesting..thank you. :)

[SirStefan32]

Don't have much time, but I am acctually studying evolution/ creationism very intenslly right now. I will post my thought soon, when I have more time.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for evolution at all. It's just a bunch of words like "perhaps," "theorize," extrapolate," "could have" etc.

I think the Bible ought to be taken literaly.

Stefan

[Koa]

when i was at school, in religion class we learned that the things in the bible don't match with the scientific theories because they were written practically as a metaphor... using the knowledges and the ideas of the time...so maybe if it was written today, they would use different examples for the same concepts... (example: if i remember, there's a point where people (in their way from egypt to the promise land maybe? i'm not a bible reader, i just had a catholic education, and i have good memory) build an idol to worship...maybe nowadays the same episode with the same meaning would be about people worshipping the newest car or something...). Basically, God inspired the writers to write all that, but he gave them only the main concepts, the way the concepts were developed is due to the writers.
Hope this kind of point of view can offer other ideas to your thoughts.

[RoseBud]

The original poste asks a good question.

I use this standard: Take everything literally, unless something in the context tells you it is meant figuratively.

I suggest that evolution is a scientifically bankrupt idea. It was a very good innovation when Darwin first presented it, and provoked a great deal of careful examination. However, it has since washed out for lack of evidence.

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence supporting the Genesis account. For instance, the timeline is right on. Each thing appears in the correct order. Plants before animals, light before plants, etc. How would people have known that in the time of Moses?

Many people seem unaware that science owes a great debt to Judeo-Christian doctrine. To be sure, the Greeks made some progress in science. However, they also made a great many errors. The Judeo-Christian doctrine of a creation made by a law-giver provided the foundation for a coherent approach -- since what is was made by a law-giver, what is can be analysed and the laws of nature can be discerned.

Do you know that evolution would defy natural law? Most pointedly, it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

[Shea]

I thought is was interesting that God commanded men not to eat strangled meat or drink blood, etc... If an animal is strangled, adrenaline goes through it's system and still remains in the meat after it's dead. I can't remember, but I think it's poisonous if you eat it. I don't remember what blood does if you drink it. I don't think people would have known much about adrenaline at that time.

[SirStefan32]

The original poste asks a good question.

Do you know that evolution would defy natural law? Most pointedly, it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

... and the first law of thermodynamics, and the law of biogenesis, as well as the law of the preservation of angular momentum.

Stefan

[RoseBud]

Thankyou, sir, SirStefan32!

Also, statistical probability.

Then, there is the myth that small organisms are simple. Sure, they look simple to the naked eye, but they tell a different story when examined microscopically, especially under the electron microscope.

The smallest (known) organism is a virus. Even that has a lot of component parts, not to mention the huge amount of information packed in the DNA. I could tell you about the many parts of a virus, but instead, I'll point out evidence known to everyone -- the multitude of viral organisms.

If you've been reading the news about SARS, you may have noticed that researchers chose to identify the virus causing SARS by examining it's DNA. Why? Well, that's the best way to tell them apart. On the outside, deceptively simple, and inside, very complicated.

Do you know that tomato plants can communicate with each other? They can. When one tomato plant is attacked by an insect, let's say the tomato hornworm, it starts producing a substance that makes it less tasty to insects. This also warns other tomato plants nearby to produce the same substance.

[thalia]

Any assertion that the theory of evolution contradicts the laws of physics is a product of serious misunderstandings of either evolution or the laws of physics.

Interesting point about the Kosher laws. Actually, one widely agreed-upon view is that the men who wrote them down were putting down the newest and most current health tips, and calling them God's word so that people would actually listen.
(Unfortunately, modern doctors and nutritionists have no such recourse.)
Blood doesn't do anything to you if you drink it, though. In fact, I think was historically widely consumed by the Masai, in combination with milk.

SirStefan: the reason that science uses all those words to which you object is because it doesn't ever pretend to have the final answer. Truth's accuracy is constantly improving as its frontiers expand. Only in an ancient, tribal, and small-scope worldview can one avoid the words "perhaps", "theorize", "extrapolate", and "could have".

Just the two cents of a student who's been studying the creation/evolution debate since about age 9...

[imthefoolonthehill]

Any assertion that the theory of evolution contradicts the laws of physics is a product of serious misunderstandings of either evolution or the laws of physics.

Interesting point about the Kosher laws. Actually, one widely agreed-upon view is that the men who wrote them down were putting down the newest and most current health tips, and calling them God's word so that people would actually listen.
(Unfortunately, modern doctors and nutritionists have no such recourse.)
Blood doesn't do anything to you if you drink it, though. In fact, I think was historically widely consumed by the Masai, in combination with milk.



I don't know anything about physics... yet... so I won't comment on that... but About blood not doing anything to you if you drink it... well... it is a very easy way to contract diseases... it is about as smart as shoving a rusty nail into your foot... It doesn't do anything UNLESS....

And about 'widely agreed upon'... I would like to know who you are talking about. I could just as easily say that it is 'widely agreed upon' that it was Devine Inspiration.

[Chardata]

why don't you check out www.probe.com They have alot of Christian theological stuff. They have a confrence out called Mind Games. It is really good. The book, Darwin on Trial and Defeting Darwinism. Those have some good stuff in it. Second thing, there is no in-between evedence of evolution. I'll post some other stuff...just wait a sec...

[Chardata]

Mind Games Notes
www.probe.org

Defense of Faith:
1 Peter 3:15- always be ready to make a defense but with gentleness and reverence

Apologetics is “the science and art of defending the Christian faith.”

I. Does God Exist?
A.Cosmological Argument
1.origins of the universe
2.first cause of the universe is assumed to be God
B.Design Argument
1.order and purpose of the universe indicates intelligent design
2.the designer is taken to be God
3.design => designer
C.Moral Argument
1. argument of right and wrong => absolute moral authority
2. authority is understood to be God

II. Why believe in Bible: another ancient “holy book”?
A. Internal evidence-what the document claims for itself
1. “Thus saith the Lord”
2. Jesus’ words => God’s words
B. Bibliographic evidence- from the original document to the copies of today
1.number of copies
2.how close are copies to the original document
C.External evidence (evidence by Joshua Galow)
1.Archeological evidence
2.Historic
a)New Testament
(1) over 5,600 Greek manuscripts in existent
(2) over 10,000 manuscripts in Latin Vulgate (8,000 use to be)
(3) over 9,200 other translations
(4) 24,970 in total
b)other Documents
(1) Homer ect. 5,000 and less

Written Copied Years Difference
New Test. 90 A.D. 125 A.D. 30
Iliad 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500
Tactitus 100 A.D. 1000 A.D. 1000
Galactic Wars 44 B.C. 900A.D. 1000
Plato 447 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200
Aristotle 384 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400

(2) Plato 7

Why wasn’t Jesus another Great Religious Figure?

A.Jesus’ life recorded as history
B.Extra Biblical sources
1.Jewish
2.Roman
C.Works and Claims of Christ
1.Forgave sins
2.performed miracles over nature
3.fulfilled messianic prophecies
a)Seen in Dead Sea scrolls
4.claims to be God
5.healed people
6.allowed people to call on him and God
7.allowed others to worship him
8.absolute moral authority
D.Resurrection of Jesus Christ
1.Disciples stole body?! (tomb empty)
2.disciples deceived
a)1 Cor. 15
3.Jewish leaders took body
4.Jesus really didn’t die
a)beat 39 times, theory: 40x => person dies
5.Jesus raised from dead
a)Romans 1:4
6.Old Test. And New Test. 100% accurate

Helen Keller knew God but didn’t know his name.

Origin of the Universe:
Matter, energy, space => time (no God)

I.Origin of the Universe
1.“Just Right Universe”
a)number of aspects to Universe
b)29 fine-tuned parameters to universe
c)numeral constants in equation of gravity electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces
d)ratio of proton to electron mass (change mass just a little bit will mess everything up)
e)51 fine tuned parameter to Galaxy, Solar system and Planet
(1)distance from sun
(2)size, temperature and type of sun
(3)size, axis, tilt, rotation, speed, moon, and composition of earth
(4)stability of Jupiter and Saturn
f)10-161 probability of all 123 fine-tuned parameters occurring by chance
(1)number of planets for life
(2)1022 upper limit for number of stars in the universe
(a)assume 1 planet per star
(b)therefore 1022 planets in universe
(c)Number for life?
g)10^161 x 1022 = 10^139 planets suitable for life

George Greenstein “May have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being.”

I.The Big Bang Theory
1.“The universe began as a ‘particle’ that was infinitely dense and occupied no space.”
a)suddenly explodes after popping into existence
2.Something must be eternal
a)material of universe had a beginning => not eternal
b)something immaterial, spiritual or supernatural must be Eternal
God is loving, caring and omnipotent Ps. 90:2

I.Origin of Life
A.O2 messes up early Earth’s atmosphere
1.2NH –ammonia
2.CH1 – methane
3.two gasses had nothing to do with early atmosphere
a)break-up of early Earth gases
b)too low of energy source (the “sparks” vs. lightning)
c)products broken down before reaching ocean
d)Prebiotic soup mixes =>building blocks mixed together
(1) Reducing atmosphere has been replaced
4.presence of O2 in atmosphere
2H2O => 2H2 + O2
water Hydrogen + Oxygen
5.no evidence of prebiotic soup
a)randomness => matchine => order
b)randomness => cells => order
c)randomness => energy => randomness
6.Earth => open system & Universe => closed system
a)Klaus Dose found more problems to origin of life…stalemate or argumentation
7.DNA into code requires intulectial minds
a)Psalms 139:17-18
b)S.J. Gould quoted in Natural Limits pg. 97
(1) Natural selection doesn’t change anything just works off of something that already has been
B.Rambrian Explosion
1.Time 1995…creation…almost over night
2.Episode 2 PBS Evolution movie (most recent)
a)animals appeared all at once on Earth…Rambrian Explosion
(1) 1913 John Waket found fish fossils in mountians
(2) Burdgas Shale
(a) Bakia-earliest vertebrate animal
3.Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life
a)simple animals became complex QUICKLY
Psalms 104:24; God is immaginative

New Evidence of Existance of God:

Romans 1:18-19
Romans 1:20

• Just Right Universe
• 29 fine parameters
• 51 fine-tuned parameters of planets
• constant equations
• ratio of porportion

-distance of sun
-size, temp, etc.
-Jupiter and Saturn
-composition of the Earth

A.Jupiter
1.act as a comet and asteroid magnet shielding the Earth from catastrophic collisions 1,000 fold
2. 1 to 100 million years w/Jupiter (collisions of asteriods on the Earth)
3. 1 to 100 thousand years w/out Jupiter (collisions of asteriods on the Earth)
B.the Sun
1.located between spiral arms of Milky Way
2.fewer stars => less radiation and disruptive gravity
3.less gass and dust => can see more of rest of galaxy…universe
C.The solar system
1. 1996…80 planets outside solar system found
2. 5% of stars have planet; 1 of 20
3.planets found to be either too large, too close to their star, too erratic of an orbit to harbor life
D.GHZ- Galactic Habitable Zone
1.there is a CHZ (celestial), narrow habitable zone
2.planets don’t have chance for life
Possibility:
a)move earth 41 million miles passing by 62 mile diameter asteriod with in 100,000 miles of Earth every million or so years
(1) too close…asteroid breaks up => into Earth
(a) rotation altered
(b) moon thrown from orbit

Last Universal Common Ancester:

I. life so improvable only evolve once
A.origin of life “almost” mericle
B.LUCA-scientist embark to find this
1.compare gene frequencies
a)arche bacteria genes found in bacteria and visa versa
b)multiple gene transfurs between numeral ancesters required
c)evolutionary tree and common ancester idea confused and abandoned

Suggested reading: William Dembski Intelligent Design, Icons of Evolution

Idea: Intelligent Design

Irridusable Commplexity:

I.Mike Behe- irreducable complexity Darwin’s Black Box
A.Can’t build something by natural selection
B.builds off of what already has been
C.all pieces of cell needs to be present at one time inorder to work
D. 100 million molecular motors in existance
1.like Fork motor

II.Cellular High Tech. Factory
A.artificial language and decoding
B.ceteral memory banks
C.control of automatic assembally
D.proof reeding and quality control
E.prefrabrication and molular costruction
F.rep. system
G.10^+3 x smaller than comp.

Hackle’s drawings of embryo’s => fraud
Science pg.227
Romans 1:21-23
Phylisophical Bias of Science

Christian Views of Science and Earth History:
Genisis-no conflict because no historical conflict

I.Three basic views of Science and History
A.recent or Literal View
B.progressive creation
C.theistic evolution or Evolutionary creation
a)Biblical and theological found
b)Scientific perspective
c)Strength as precieved from within
d)Weakness as percied outside

II.Biblical Foundations
A.simple plain reading of text
B. 6 consecutive 24-hour days
C.all God’s work created in 6 days
D.pain, suffering and death enter AFTER the fall
E.Progressive Creation
a)Days of Genisis are indefinate periods of time…millions  billions of years
b)God’s creative acts intervine throughout history…evolution occures
c)Genisis 1 describes God’s main activity
d)Structural history

Genisis 1:1
Formless Void
Day 1 Light/Dark Day 4 Planets
Day 2 Land/water Day 5 Water animals
Day 3 Land and people Day 6 Land animals


F.Theistic Foundations
a)Not a narrative of natural history
b)What happened when God created (how)
c)Anti-pagen…surounding cultures
G.Recent Creation
a)Earth and universe are 6,000-30,000 years old
b)Flood was universal and catastrophic  sedimintary strata
c)“Evolution” within kinds not between kinds
H. Progressive Creation
d)universe and earth billions of years old
e)God directly interviened in national history
f)Local small foods
g)Macro evolution…yes
h)Micro evolution…no
H.Thiestic Evolution
a)Earth and Universe are billions of years old
b)God used evolution to intervine…to help create
c)No direct intervention
d)Flood was local, tranqual
e)Micro and macro evolution
I.Recent Creation Strength
a)Most common reading of text
b)Explain fossil anomalies
c)Testable flood model
d)Provides clear understanding for pain ect…after fall
J.Recent Creation Weakness
a)A lot of work to do
b)Makes science the measure of truth
c)Often a text of orthodoxy
d)Must have all organisims in fossil recor alive at once prior to flood
K.Progressive Creation Strength
a)Accept data of science except evolution trasitions and mech.
b)Gen. 1 historical
c)Gaps in fossil
d)No quarrel in standard geology
L.Progressive Creation Weakness
a)Pain, suffering ect. Prior to fall of Adam
b)Descrepancies between days of Gen. and order of the evolution of the universe
M.Theistiv Strength
a)Evolution widly accepted
b)Acknologement of God’s role in Universe through national laws
c)Evolution gread unifying thing
N.Theistic Weakness
a)Pain etc. before Adam
(1)Historical Adam and Eve?
b)Origin of life and Phyla are chemistry proof
c)Scientifically indistinguishiable from naturalism, diesm and panthiestim


III.Appearant Age
A.if creation of nehilo,ther must be appearance of age
a)because creation out of nothing

IV.Dinosaurs
A.Job 40:15-24 Dinosaur?
a)Fits description better than hippo.
B.Job 41:18-21 Laviathan-breathed fire
a)Dragon or alligator?
Adam>Abraham>Noah genetically perfect

Suggested reading:
Russel Humpheries “Star Light in Time”

Measuring Morality:
Ethics- ethos Greek “what ought to be” for good behavior
Theism- God centered
Naturalism- man-centered
Pantheism- world-centered
“Everybody has an absolute”

A.Natural Ethic
a) whatever is right
Ex: behaviorism
~humans all controled in some way
~no human dignity
B. Consensus Ethic
a) ethic by opinion poll
Ex: Utilitarianism
~Leads to culture relativism and majority rule (51% make it right)
- nothing right or wrong but collectively decitions made
- no moral conviction
C.Emotive Ethics
a) true to one’s self
~no stability/no rules
~whatever feels right
D.Arbitary Ethics
a) ethics based on power
Ex: marxism
~enforces based upon power/the arbiter power
E.Transcendent Ethic
a) ethic based on transcendent
~if not based on God’s revelation, it leads to subjective foundation
Ex: New Age Ethics
~ ppl looking for spirituality but don’t look for spirituality in Bible

[Chardata]

sorry...it's an outline. I know it's really long but it's worth looking into and reading. It is part of the notes i have from the Mind Game confrence. I havn't had time to type up any more...but there is MORE! MUCH MUCH MORE! Have fun! 8)

[SirStefan32]

Any assertion that the theory of evolution contradicts the laws of physics is a product of serious misunderstandings of either evolution or the laws of physics.

Interesting point about the Kosher laws. Actually, one widely agreed-upon view is that the men who wrote them down were putting down the newest and most current health tips, and calling them God's word so that people would actually listen.
(Unfortunately, modern doctors and nutritionists have no such recourse.)
Blood doesn't do anything to you if you drink it, though. In fact, I think was historically widely consumed by the Masai, in combination with milk.

SirStefan: the reason that science uses all those words to which you object is because it doesn't ever pretend to have the final answer. Truth's accuracy is constantly improving as its frontiers expand. Only in an ancient, tribal, and small-scope worldview can one avoid the words "perhaps", "theorize", "extrapolate", and "could have".

Just the two cents of a student who's been studying the creation/evolution debate since about age 9...


Evolution/ Creation has been an active study of mine as well.
I have stidied both sides, and I think that everyone who is honest has to admit that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a
weak theory.

Evolution acctually has six different parts:

1. Cosmic Evolution
- Origin of the Universe

2. Chemical Evolution
- Origin of different chemical elements

3. Stellar Evolution
- Origin of stars and planets

4. Organic Evolution
- Origins of life

5. Macro- Evolution
-One kind of animal changing into a different kind

6. Micro- evolution
- Animals changing within their kind.

Only Micro-evolution can be observed. Nobody argues that there are variations within species. That's why we have mustiffs, poodles, labs, bulldogs, etc.

Other five parts of evolution have never been observed.

I've been very busy lately, but if anybody would like to discuss this issue further, let me know, and I should be able to find some time to discuss it here in more detail.

I highly recommend following books:

Non- Christian Authors

1. "Darwin's Black Box," by M. Behe.

2. "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis," by Dr. Denton

3. "Icons of Evolution" by Johnathan Wells (rips appart every evolutionary lie, such as Lucy, Dr. E. Heckel's fraud in Embryology, etc)

4. "Bones of Contention," by Roger Lewin.

5. "Darwin Retired" by Norman Macbeth

Christian (Creationists)

I would highly recomend Dr. Kent Hovind's seminars.
You can get them through his web site: drdino.com


Let me know if you want to continue the discussion.

Stefan

[Ickmeister]

I think that God created everything and gave it the ability to adapt to it's suroundings, but not to change completely into another creature. Like in people, (I am not pollitically correct) blacks got there color from places like Africa and Australia where there isn't much cloud cover and the sun beats down on you all day so they developed dark skin so as not to burn their skin. and some rabbits in winter change from brown or whatever their normal color is to pure white so that they blend in with the snow.

[Chardata]

i agree...adaptation was created for survival and by God...evolution was created by man inorder to explain things that they don't understand. Shows how our society is going down the drain. 8)

[nome1486]

I don't know about all the scientific evidence for or against evolution, but I don't see why evolution can't have been a natural scientific process put in place by God. After all, there are many scientific processes that we can witness everyday that make up the natural world and that also seem to reaffirm God's existence (for how else could such perfect order exist?). As for the five forms of evolution other than micro-evolution, the reason we can't observe them happening is because they would take thousands or even millions of years to happen, if they do at all. I think the only danger in the theory of evolution is when people try to use it to prove God doesn't exist, and when people believed in "Social Darwinism" in the 1800s; that is, the belief that only the strong survive, and people who couldn't help themselves should be left alone to die so that their genes wouldn't be passed on. That was just a sad social attitude at the time, though, and had nothing to do with Darwin's original intentions in publishing his scientific theory.

[qxdc]

Kent Hovind?

I'd be skeptical of him, he's quite dishonest.


Kent Hovind ( drdino.com ) has video seminars of him 'debuking' evolution. I pointed out some distortions in the process.

http://true.wxcs.com/multimedia/video/kenthovind_critical-look_tape5-pt1.wmv