Is this wise to take away the name of God from our school teachings?

I guess we can be here an eternity and don't agree. Scientists found what you call "simple" forms of fossils many times in layers above more complicated forms of living creatures now fossils. How is that possible? Only the Bible "big flood" can explain this. Want an article about it or you guys don't care? By the way... Those so called "simple" forms of life are much much more sophisticated than the space shuttle made by intelligent brains. Duh!

TTMELS. The Grand Canyon,

Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid Author: John Hinton

Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid. I spent a couple of weeks wandering through the Grand Canyon when I was in my early twenties. I was alone and was not given one of the government sponsored propaganda tours, but I had been told the same pseudo-science concerning the Canyon and its origin clear throughout my government school indoctrination program, beginning in elementary school. I was puzzled by it then, but far more puzzled when I looked at it in person.

The line that �it had been carved out by a river� made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon. Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them. It actually looked like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood, although at the time, I erroneously considered the possibility of more than one flood having been involved.

Being an agnostic at the time, I did not look at it as an argument for or against God, it was simply an observation based on common sense. The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors, and without erosion lines, was just plain dumb. If all of the earth looked like the Snake River Canyon their theory might have fooled me, but it does not, so I did see through it. I was puzzled at the time as to why they so many scientists were so gullible, but I just figured that they were morons and left it at that.

Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.

How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth.

SGC P.S. - I like to have a friend like the God that I worship. If he wasn't in control of this planet traveling in space at incredible speed we were doomed and was reason to panic. But He is... For your own good. He is also beside the Creator the one that supports life. The energy that everything is made of was going to vanish without His super power support. Not melt down and change shape. I mean... puff vanish.

So guys have fun while you can. I believe He is coming back soon (as The Bible says) in the person of Jesus, the divine made flesh to "fix" a lot of problems. I know you don't believe on this. Too bad... I prefer to be on His side. I'm not as brave as you guys are (and I was before a green beret)... No Thanks! God is the Master of the Universe and I respect and admire Him for that.

"I prefer to be on His side. I'm not as brave as you guys are"

Does that mean that you believe because you are too scared not to - just in case he is real it's better to believe than not to because if he doesn't exist - what's there to lose BUT if he does, I'd better believe just in case?

What a stupid idea. Fact is fact. Faith is not fact.

Think about this - there's an invisible man somewhere - we know it's not UP THERE because there's no such thing as up or down in an infinite, expanding universe - who made everything, who predetermines everything, BUT who gave us freedom of choice (?). He even came down to earth in human form and got himself crucified so that if I believe in him I can go to heaven no matter what I've done because all I have to do is believe. If I do wrong he's going to send me to a pit of fire where I'll burn in hell for eternity and beyond. AND HE LOVES ME!!! BUT NOT WOMEN!!! And this guy paints stripes on the grand canyon? Why?

There was no creation, no divine intervention, no intelligent design, there's no invisible man who hates women (read your bible - plenty to say against women), no messiah, no salvation, no heaven, no hell, no being scared good.

Your god is a small god, a childish, infantile god, full of bitterness and spite. An evil god, a god of terrible vengance, a god of genocides.

Do you really want to follow that god?

If you want to follow a god, try Ganesh. He's no more real, but he's an awful lot nicer AND he's an elephant!

Trahlob

Where did your post go? I wanted to check out the sites you quoted

The christian god, if he exists, is a tyrant, fascist, a murdering $%!@ and altogether a downright nasty individual. I would never submit to the authority such a disgusting being. I would rather go to the popularized version of hell, knowing I had lived a good life, than go to his heaven through following his foul, disgusting teachings.

It goes against my moral principles to allow a fascist, genocidal exploiter to rule over my life, be it a person or your invisible sky daddy.

However, we are fortunate in that your god does not exist. Therefore rational indivduals can concentrate on living a full, productive and good life, while always learning more about the wonders of an entirely natural universe full of life and diversity.

While I'm at it, a comparison of fascism and christianity:

Fascism is assosiated with anti-rationalism, since it does not stand up to rational scrutiny. Thus it denounces rationality. The same is true of christianity, which frequently disregards the efforts of rational scientists in favour of 'the truth'

Fascism makes extensive use of mythology to instill a sense of pride and superiority. For example, the aryan myth created by Hitler, and Mussolini's emphasis on the roman empire. Christianity is based entirely on mythology, valuing it above scientific research. You will often see christians trying to lord themselves over all others, in a similar, mistaken belief that they are superior.

Fascists value struggle and war. Mussolini wanted to rebuild the holy roman empire, while Hitler wanted to provide the supposedly superior Aryan 'race' with their rightful lebensraum (living space) even if that meant oppressing or killing other, supposedly inferior peoples. This sort of thing is well documented in the bible. As a side note, the muslim concepts of Jihad and death to non-believers are also inherently fascist.

Fascism embodies an all-powerful state and leader, who acts according to the 'general will' of the people. Individuals are required to submit totally to the authority of the state. The bible demands submission to the authority and commandments of god.

It can be concluded, therefore, that christianity is inherently fascist in all respects. If you are a Christian, you thus support fascism to some extent (depending on the extent to which you follow the bible.) How does it feel to follow fascism?

Pete

I love it. The book is entitled "Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid." The guys argument is essentially, 'I have no idea how these colored stripes got here! Guess God musta done it! PRAISE HIS NAME!'

That's called the argument form ignorance, and it is a logical fallacy. Just because you, or John Hinton, lack the intellectual curiosity to even look for an answer, doesn't mean there is no answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

The title pretty much sums up creationism in a nutshell. It's not just the appalling ignorance. It's the silly, smug, know-it-all attitude. The defining trait of the creationist is this huge gap between what they actually know, and what they act like they know. It's surreal.

As for me, I spent about 5 seconds on google and I believe I have found a plausible answer: hydrothermal alteration.

http://www.dmtcalaska.org/course_dev/explogeo/class08/notes08.html#Hydrothermal

"The colors in the canyon are also a result of hydrothermal alteration. The rhyolite in the canyon contains a variety of different iron compounds. When the old geyser basin was active, the "cooking" of the rock caused chemical alterations in these iron compounds. Exposure to the elements caused the rocks to change colors. The rocks are oxidizing; in effect, the canyon is rusting. The colors indicate the presence or absence of water in the individual iron compounds. Most of the yellows in the canyon are the result of iron present in the rock rather than sulfur, as many people think."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon_of_the_Yellowstone

This article is about a different "Grand Canyon" than THE Grand Canyon, so I don't know if it applies to THE Grand Canyon; the point is, it is a possible explanation. Maybe DanH52 (a geologist) can confirm or deny this.

By the way, they geology of the Grand Canyon is totally incompatible with a global Flood:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

http://www.jwoolfden.com/gc_intro.html

That entire six-paragraph segment from TTMELS did not contain a single scientific argument. All it is is a declaration of the author's inability to understand something, and his lack of interest in investigating, combined with cheap, unsubstantiated insults. Hardly compelling evidence.

BJake: sorry about that.