Doobious-
i am confused-you say you are Catholic but yet hold to Eastern philosophy? Would u mind explaining how that intermingles? Catholicism holds to the belief in one God-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-and no working your way out.
Just looking for clarification here. Thanks!
Thank you, MKM, Lauralee, and others who responded to my post. On Issue #1, honestly, that’s not really much of an answer. Basically, what you are saying is “Yeah, it’s hard, but you learn to live with it.” I’m sorry, but I personally find that very cold - the phrase ‘harden your hearts’ comes to mind.
My beloved older brother died of a brain tumor at the age of 34 (nearly 25 years ago), and I think of him daily. Although he was not a Christian, he did many good things in his life, including preventing at least two young people from committing suicide. He died a slow and painful death, and there is no way that I could even entertain the thought that he is suffering further agony for all eternity in the place you call Hell. And there is no way that I could ever accept, much less love, a god that would do that to him. So I guess there is no point in debating that issue.
I’m afraid my post on evolution/creation will be rather long, so I’ll break this here and continue with a separate post.
Carpe diem - Seize the day
Carpe noctem - Seize the night
Carpe cerevisi - Seize the beer
First, I’d like to say that my objection is not to your belief in creationism as part of your religion, but to the expectation that it be accepted as a valid scientific theory in the ‘real world’.
I have seen many creationists say that there is scientific evidence to support it, but have not yet seen anyone, anywhere, provide any of this evidence. What I do see are people picking holes in the theory of evolution, using that as an excuse to invalidate the theory, but presenting no scientifically valid theory to replace it.
Most debaters seem to take one of two views: that science is a matter of ‘faith’, just as their religion is, or that because we don’t yet know everything there is to know about how evolution works, the entire theory must be wrong and should be disregarded.
I think part of the problem is a misperception on the part of non-scientists about how the scientific method works, what a ‘theory’ is, etc. I thought it might be helpful to post some of the definitions and explanations from some of my early college textbooks.
Science: a systemized knowledge derived from observation and experiment carried on to determine the principles underlying what is being studied.
Hypothesis: a tentative explanation of certain facts that provides a basis for further experimentation. Contrary to the belief of many, experiments are not conducted in a manner designed to PROVE a hypothesis, but rather to DISPROVE it. In order to test the accuracy of a hypothesis, it is necessary to show that it 1)occurs in all situations that can possibly be tested, no matter what other variables are present and 2) is repeatable; that is, it occurs every time the same experiment is conducted, no matter who does it and when or where it is done as long as the exact circumstances of the original experiment are maintained.
“The scientific process involves the rejection of hypotheses that are not consistent with experimental results or observations. Hypotheses consistent with available data are conditionally accepted.”(1)
Theory: a hypothesis that is supported by a great deal of evidence.
“Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain. There is no absolute truth in science, however - only varying degrees of uncertainty. The possibility always remains that future evidence will cause a theory to be revised. A scientist’s acceptance of a theory is always provisional. Thus scientists use the word “theory” in a very different sense than the general public.” (1)
Scientific method: the experimental testing of a hypothesis formulated after the systematic, objective collection of data. First, facts relevant to the question at hand are collected by observation and experimentation. These facts are analyzed for regularities that are pertinent to the question, and hypothesis is formed that accounts for all of this data and is testable by expermentation. Additional experiments are conducted involving different variables that may or may not affect the outcome of the experiments. The data gained from these experiments is analyzed, and the hypothesis is modified (including discarding completely!) to fit this data. Further experimentation, analysis, and modification is performed, to the limits of the experimenters’ abilities.
A hypothesis that holds true throughout this rigorous process becomes a theory. Not an incontrovertible fact, but a theory, subject to modification as further data becomes available.
Evolution is a theory - a hypothesis for which there is a great deal of supporting evidence. It is also a very difficult field to study, and there is a lot that is not yet known and many aspects of the theory that are still under debate. It is very hard to conduct experiments that may take several thousand years to complete!
‘Darwin’s Theory of Evolution’ is actually not an accurate phrase. More precisely, Darwin offered the ‘hypothesis’ of evolution in 1859, and scientist have been collecting and analyzing data and performing experiments to test this hypothesis for 140 years. So far, the results have indicated that, in general, Darwin’s hypothesis is correct - none of the data so far has contradicted it.
Since the same rigorous processes have produced the scientific and technological advances that we all live with and benefit from on a daily basis, it seems hypocritical to me to accept all of that while rejecting the one scientific theory that conflicts with a religious belief.
IMO, it is also dangerous - teach your children to disregard the scientific method, and where will our future doctors, chemists, computer engineers, nuclear physicists, etc. come from?
I would like to end with a story from my first college biology teacher. One of his first teaching jobs was at a Catholic school, and he was concerned about teaching evolution to his students. So he approached the monsignor and asked what he was expected to do. The reply? “Even Christ was once a baby, and had to grow up.” The teacher taught the theory of evolution to his students.
(1)Biology, 3rd Edition, Raven & Johnson, Mosby 1992
(2)Foundations of College Chemistry, 7th Edition, Hein, Brooks/Cole Publishing,1990
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Indeed, if the first round of posts from people from the LB board had been like those on this thread, methinks that there would have been no conflict about LB’ers presence here. Thoughtful, respectful, intelligent posters are always a delight! Welcome!
-Melin
MKM said:
Sure, there are “many” who would say that. Unfortunately, those “many” seem unable to produce actual evidence to back their claims. Funny, that.
To keep folks like you from undermining our school system, mostly. And to counter the claims of folks like you who walk around claiming that creationism is scientific and/or that evolution is not.
Re: Earth is flat, according to Bible
I remember somebody responding, but I certainly don’t remember him “handling” it (other than maybe for those who wanted an excuse to rationalize it away). Maybe we could take another look at it, but that thread is probably long-gone by now.
Hmmm. Well, then I guess Fuzzy will have to explain it for himself if present it to him.
Thanks David!! Glad to be here. (For those who might get confused… I don’t call David Soulfrost. I don’t like that name. Just assume I’m talking to him when I say David.)
Coosa, I know it wasn’t much of an answer. And, yes, it does sound hard-hearted. In my experience, faith follows a great personal battle. We, as logical thinking humans, don’t want to just accept something that we can’t see, feel, taste, smell, or hear. The idea of completely giving yourself over to some all-knowing God that you’ve never physically seen or laid your hands on tears you up and leaves you doubting and troubled, to say the least. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done. Nothing, icluding being in labor for 12+ hours, has ever compared to it. It had me up all night, crying, yelling, screaming at times. And finally I just decided to accept it. I had never felt such peace like I did that night. Then, I cried some more. Faith is never a “suitable” answer for those who are asking questions. Unfortunately, it’s the only real answer.
Coosa said:
Oh, sure, snub me.
But seriously, unless you make this disclaimer every time you post, things are gonna get confusing. You can call him, “The Other David,” though.
Coosa didn’t say that honey. I did. But that’s ok. You can snub me too! 
D’oh! I wish I could say I did that on purpose to snub you back, but I didn’t. Must have seen Coosa’s name in your message and transposed it in my brain. Sorry, Coosa!
Of course, I’m not meaning to snub you anyway. I just recently realized who you were in comparison to the LBBB. But I have been calling David David for quite a while now. He gave me permission, and I really don’t like his username. I will try to always make the difference when I’m talking to y’all though.
Feel free to call me “Charles” (although others may get confused).
Well, now I’m confused. Either you’re NOT who I thought you were, or I’m being blonde. Which??? I hate being confused… 
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
Lauralee, sorry, I figured everybody knew about the anagram by now. Take “Charles Darwin.” Rearrange the letters and come up with a new name that begins with “Daniel.”
Ahhhhh! Ok, so you are who I thought! I just didn’t get that anagram. I don’t usually go aroung looking for them. I did wonder what Daniel and David had to do with each other though! Thanks for the clarification!
David B - any good anagrams for the oft-overlooked Alfred Russel Wallace? 
Dare I pop this up to the top???
I hope to be able to add some miniscule peice of wisdom to MKM’s threads, but will only answer questions when asked…
Although… I may participate in other threads with my Bible kept in my pocket and my mind engaged (it always is BTW ;))
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Rufus:
How 'bout “Called El, Fears Walrus”?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Not half bad, Lib!
Lauralee, thank you for being so open and honest - your experience certainly sounds more realistic than most of what I hear. Usually all people talk about is the wonderful feeling of being ‘filled with the spirit of God’ and such, and never mention any personal struggle or agony associated with the decision.
I can’t say that I’ll never become a Christian or a member of any other religion - who knows what might happen in the future? - but if I ever do, I imagine my experience will be very similar to yours!
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley