Good for Nicole, but part of me wonders if she is just doing this for the publicity.

Awesome!

Still miffed, Erin?

Nicole looks so pretty because she has TRIED to gain weight during pregnancy. She looks so much healthier. Whether she did it for publicity or not..she made a bunch of expectant moms really happy which is really all that matters. These moms were probably very worried about having all the basic things for their babies to come into the world like a crib or a carseat..at least they won't have to worry for a little bit. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. hehe.

Still don't like her. Plenty of people give to charity. That's fine. Giving money to something doesn't make you a good parent.

Sorry.

Nobody ever said it did Erin...but doing good for other people at least contributes to the good of humanity. I guarantee you it made those EXPECTANT MOMS feel good. Can you AT LEAST admit to that?

Elizabeth- happily. I'm glad that these women got things they needed. It's wonderful.

Aw that's nice of her.

And she doesn't look as strung out as she did before she was pregnant. That's a positive step.

I wish they would get married already. You know, at least try to make a real "family."

They're a Hollywood couple, for crying out loud! Have some realistic expectations! There are other celebreties for whom every occasion is an appropriate one to try to encourage more abortions. Here they're looking at what the moms really want -- help -- and they're giving it.

As for being hogs for attention, you can't exactly publicize a charity and get people to participate by saying nothing about it. Nobody thought ill of Danny Thomas for plugging St. Jude's at every opportunity.

Christina, I guess I need to clarify what "good for nicole" means.

Good For Nicole means I think its great what she did. Good for her for stepping it up and doing what she needs to and what she WANTS to do.

I wish they would get married already. You know, at least try to make a real "family."

--------------------------------------------------

Why do people always have to say a "real family" has to be a husband and wife? I know plenty of people who had one parent and turned out JUST FINE!

If you combine Richie's and Madden's faces, you get Kid Rock.

It's got nothing to do with anything, but my daughter, 10, wrote these two poems for school. One made me think of the abortion issue and the other of the Terri Schiavo scenarios...out of the mouth of babes.

Life is a Journey.
Sometimes you get lost.
Sometimes you find your way.
When there is a hungry tiger in the way, find another path...

and

Grandpa, when you got sick I was very sad.
I miss your pleasant smile.
You can't move your arms, legs or mouth.
I know I never knew you.
I know you never knew me.
But I love you.
And that is how it should be.

Doug, Pip,

If evolution is about adapting to conditions, how come we don't drink salt water?

The 10 year old also informed me that 97% of the earths water is salty. Wouldn't it have been "smarter", evolutionly speaking, to have evolved into creatures that can drink salt water? I mean, the fresh water is going to dry up and then where will we be?

"If evolution is about adapting to conditions, how come we don't drink salt water?"

Because there was no effective selective pressure to drink salt water. Western and Central Africa got plenty of rain. I think the Nile river (like a lot of rivers, streams, lakes, etc) was a freshwater river. Most animals live in freshwater ecosystems, so they require rivers and streams to survive. When we branched out we stayed close to freshwater resources.

"Wouldn't it have been "smarter", evolutionly speaking, to have evolved into creatures that can drink salt water?"
Evolution doesn't have a direction or goal. It is simply a shift in allele frequencies over time.

"I mean, the fresh water is going to dry up and then where will we be?"
If *all* the freshwater resources dry up, we have desalinization plants, technology, etc.

MK

We as humans evolved away from the Salt water. inland in africa where the water is NOT salty. and who knows what we will evolve into if we stop holding ourselves back with Medicines, and useless technology and laziness?

I would just like to add that if something where to happen that dried up all the fresh water on Earth, it would have to also be stopping rain fall, and anything that catastrophic would most likely wipe out all life on the planet anyway.

Good point, Liam.

PIP,

I didn't mean, oh no what will we do then...

Just saying that speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, wouldn't it have made more sense for us to have adapted to drinking salt water.

I'm not even saying I don't believe in Evolution. I do think that evolution has taken place. I just don't think we skipped species...

My point tho, is that it makes more sense to have adapted to what there was most of...

MK - Thats what we did. if we evolved beside an ocean, i wouldnt be surprised if we COULD drink saltwater.... but we evolved inland, surrounded by Fresh Water.

"Just saying that speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, wouldn't it have made more sense for us to have adapted to drinking salt water."
No, we did not have the selective pressure to. Evolution doesn't have direction, or a "sense." We could have adapted to a lot of things, but there was no need to.

"I just don't think we skipped species..."
You can believe that, but the fossil record and biology is against you. Don't worry, the Catholic Church thinks it is okay, so don't feel spiritually pressured to reject the evidence.

"My point tho, is that it makes more sense to have adapted to what there was most of..."
Science isn't really about common sense, it is about evidence.

Well the evidence points to a really dumb process then.

If evolution is about adapting to conditions, how come we don't drink salt water?

MK, good comments from PIP and Liam on this, and I'd just say that "we" did drink salt water way back when, but we ended up on land later on.

Anyway, I think that your blood pressure is high enough from arguing with us infernal pro-choicers, so it's for the best.

Doug (a Pisces but no gills...)

Just found another fresh photo of the family at the people.com website. They are filled with joy and, I believe, genuinely changed because of God's gift of this baby to them.
I also believe God saved Nicole from premature death due to self-starvation or seeking dangerous attention in all sorts of bizarre ways, such as drugs, alcohol and driving down the road the wrong way and potentially injuring herself or other innocent drivers.
God also appears to have given her the desire to want reconciliation and forgiveness with her parents. According to Nicole in a 11/27 interview, she said, "When I found out that I was pregnant, there was just something inside of me that felt a responsibility to mend any issues that I’ve had with my parents in the past, because, listen, I’ve put them through a lot.”
Wow, that's repentance and grace in action! The same privilege God affords daily to those of us in Christ.
LauraLoo

Actually MK,

The evidence points to an amazing process that has lead to the diversification and diversity of species. It has allowed organisms to change and adapt and live and grow. It's very beautiful. Without it we never would have survived. I thank God he chose to create us using this process, because the living and breathing biosphere is dynamic and changing and brilliant in every way.

"Just saying that speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, wouldn't it have made more sense for us to have adapted to drinking salt water."

Speaking from a religious standpoint, wouldn't it have made more sense for God to have made us able to drink salt water?

No JM,

According to creationists, God made us perfect in every way (I guess this includes drinking salt water?) but the "fall" made us imperfect (so I guess imperfection means we drink fresh water?). That's how they think that evolution didn't occur-- they don't think any death occurred until then. But when you believe in a literal day, I guess it wouldn't have been very long?

All this talk about evolution reminds me of a show i watched on the discovery channel the other day.

PIP said,
"Science isn't really about common sense, it is about evidence."

Very true, PIP..just why do you disregard any evidence found contrary to evolution? There's tons of it out there. And, to the best of my knowledge, evolution is still a theory, no?

PIP, you are probably right.

--------------------------------

I remember one time I when I was in Utah with my parents. We went to visit these Canyons... oh I can't remember the name of the national park. But anyway we went on a tour of these canyons. The tour guide was a little.... different. He told us that would were not going to get the "evolutionist theory" of how the canyons came to be, but the "creationist version" As we were driving around he keep making references to a "giant flood"

"I just don't think we skipped species..."
You can believe that, but the fossil record and biology is against you. Don't worry, the Catholic Church thinks it is okay, so don't feel spiritually pressured to reject the evidence.

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 4, 2007 7:03 PM

What fossil record? I don't think there's a fossil of us skipping from ape to human. That's what people call "the missing link."

The Catholic Church does not believe we evolved from apes so I don't understand why you're saying "the Catholic Church thinks it's okay..." Lower form of man, yes and there's proof. Men and women today are several inches taller (on average) than they were even 100 years ago. Evolution? Adaption? All those hormones in the chicken? Whatever you want to call it.

Let me know when they do find the "missing link" and I'll be the first to agree with evolution.

"just why do you disregard any evidence found contrary to evolution? "
Because its not.

"There's tons of it out there."
Where?

"And, to the best of my knowledge, evolution is still a theory, no?"
Sigh. A scientific theory is very important. It has to have predictive qualities, it has to be testable and/or falsifiable. It is not used like how we use it (when we use theory in the common vernacular it refers to a hypothesis.) It is based on facts. And evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science, and it is the central theory of biology.

Kristen - Let me know when you find something other then a 2000 year old fairytale and i will be the first to believe in God.

Also, there were no "leaps" in evolution. merely small changes over millions of years until the final product is completely different from the starting material.

"As we were driving around he keep making references to a "giant flood""
LOL I've heard that one before.

"What fossil record? I don't think there's a fossil of us skipping from ape to human. That's what people call "the missing link.""
There are TONS of fossils leading to such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8
here is a video that does a lot of explanation for me, but it is the second part. It starts with a (rather short) explanation of the fossil record.

"The Catholic Church does not believe we evolved from apes so I don't understand why you're saying "the Catholic Church thinks it's okay.."
http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
We've discussed this in theology.

"Let me know when they do find the "missing link" and I'll be the first to agree with evolution."
Check out that video. An start some reading about paleontology and what it says about evolution. It is very fun!

"As we were driving around he keep making references to a "giant flood""
LOL I've heard that one before.

"What fossil record? I don't think there's a fossil of us skipping from ape to human. That's what people call "the missing link.""
There are TONS of fossils leading to such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8
here is a video that does a lot of explanation for me, but it is the second part. It starts with a (rather short) explanation of the fossil record.

"Let me know when they do find the "missing link" and I'll be the first to agree with evolution."
Check out that video. An start some reading about paleontology and what it says about evolution. It is very fun!

"The Catholic Church does not believe we evolved from apes so I don't understand why you're saying "the Catholic Church thinks it's okay.."
http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
We've discussed this in theology.

Liam - I didn't ask you to believe in God. To me evolution is a fairytale in that I'm supposed to believe everything evolved from an amoeba. If there were different species to begin with then why not man?

We don't need our gallbladder anymore but we're still born with one. Obviously it takes time to evolve, but I'd say we are on our way from Cro-Magnon man - not from apes.

" skipping from ape to human. "

Btw, we are still classified as apes. A creationist classified homo sapiens sapiens as apes, too.

Kristen - There were not different species to begin with, we are all common. (hence why MICE and PEOPLE have such a similar genome)

"The Catholic Church does not believe we evolved from apes so I don't understand why you're saying "the Catholic Church thinks it's okay.."
http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
We've discussed this in theology.

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 4, 2007 7:43 PM

Sure, I guess the Church is okay with our souls being in fishes for say a millenium.

"We don't need our gallbladder anymore but we're still born with one. "
Actually the gallbladder is still pretty important. It's kind of like the tonsils. We can live without them, but they are important to immune system function.

"To me evolution is a fairytale in that I'm supposed to believe everything evolved from an amoeba."
LOL classic creationism fallacy.

"If there were different species to begin with then why not man?"
Huh?

"Sure, I guess the Church is okay with our souls being in fishes for say a millenium."

sigh. Did you read it?

""If there were different species to begin with then why not man?"
Huh?""

I think what she means is why didn't we just start with man instead of an amoeba.

"What fossil record? I don't think there's a fossil of us skipping from ape to human. That's what people call "the missing link.""
There are TONS of fossils leading to such.

There are tons of fossils leading to other species evolving over time. Sea creatures becomeing land based and the like, not the "missing link" that has scientists so frustrated. And no one has found fossils that prove all species, or even some species, have evolved from one organism.

Kirsten,

What is your theory... the bible?

"There are tons of fossils leading to other species evolving over time. Sea creatures becomeing land based and the like, not the "missing link" that has scientists so frustrated. And no one has found fossils that prove all species, or even some species, have evolved from one organism."

Kristen, watch the video I linked you to.

And read up on what conditions make a fossil, and eras before and during the cambrian era while you are at it.

LOL Doug

The amoeba was not the first organism.

PIP, I did read it. I'm also just disagreeing. I can't PROVE creationism. (And really I don't want to, I do believe we evolved, just not from what you believe we did.) And you can't PROVE evolution.

I can't PROVE God exists, but no one can prove the reverse. There are lots of people like me and lots like you. C'est la vie! We'll never change each others minds.

PIP, what are you going to school for?

"I can't PROVE creationism."
Because it is based on faith. So why try to make it a science?

"And you can't PROVE evolution."
Well nothing is "proven" in science, but it sure has tons of evidence to back it up.

"I can't PROVE God exists, but no one can prove the reverse."
That's why we don't include God in scientific inquiry.

"We'll never change each others minds."
I guess not; however, science does not have anything to say about theology. It is not a direct mindset. Things change all the time, and things are accepted when there is evidence for it. That is why over 80% of scientists are theists. You should never feel like you have to ignore science based on theological grounds.

JM,
biology/pre-PA

PIP - I used amoeba as a colloquial term, but I have no idea what the first organism was. I know how fossils are made thanks to the dinosaur dig/fossil expedition I went on in Wyoming (which, if you are interested in, I can give you a fabulous reference to) but this still doesn’t prove your point.

Again, I’m saying we just disagree. Not on all points but some.

And Kristen, if you could do me a huge favor, and watch that video, as well as the first part of it, then I think you can truly say you've looked at some of the "other side" of the debate.

Wow PIP, I bet that keeps you pretty busy...

"I have no idea what the first organism was."
We think it's a very primitive prokaryotic organism.

"this still doesn’t prove your point."
Then you should know that fossils themselves are relatively "rare" in that they need exact conditions. And that soft tissues do not generally fossilize.

JM

LOL of course, and yes this site is a big distraction. I like it though.

I'm kind of halfway doing a paper right now...so hard to get motivated for finals when you have a cold :/

I wish I had a second set of eyes to review this crappy paper, but my roommate is from China, so most grammatical distinctions escape her :/

PIP,

I'm just curious, but did you ever check out those sites I suggested you google? I thought they offered alternative, and very interesting opinions.

PIP,

I hate colds!! YUK! Where are you from?

PIP,
The geological time scale for one. Makes perfect sense, but NOWHERE on earth have geologists EVER found the fossils in that order.
Evolutionists will not acknowledge the flood, even though there has been mounting evidence to support it. Noah's flood couldn't have been more that 6000 yrs. ago, which blows the evolution theory "out of the water".

PIP, when a scientist has a theory, that theory is tested by trying to prove & disprove it by that same scientist. Evolutionists do not try to disprove their theory.

That being said, if you would like to believe that you evolved from an ape, then good for you! I, however, choose to believe that I am uniquely created by God & that He gave humans dominion over the animals on land and the fish in the sea.

I have seen you refer to bible verses in some of your posts before. You cannot pick & choose what you want to believe from God's word. If you think that one thing that God has said is not true, you are calling Him a liar.

When science jives with God's word, they go hand in hand and fit beautifully. Please, PIP, be very careful what professors you allow to train your thoughts. College is very important and I am so proud of you for being so young and so excited to learn as much as you can about such a wide variety of subjects. I think you'll do great!

Liam said, "Kristen - There were not different species to begin with, we are all common. (hence why MICE and PEOPLE have such a similar genome)"

Maybe it's because we have the same CREATOR!

"Please, PIP, be very careful what professors you allow to train your thoughts"

Are you kidding me? You make is seem like everyone is out to get christians... The best kind of professors are the ones that make you think and expand your mind.

Hey, PIP..
Another topic for you: You're a biology major & you have a cold? Question..I used to get colds & flu's alot. My doctor put me on Hydrochlorothiazide about 5 years ago (I had a "wierd" swelling of water in one of my legs). Anyway, haven't gotten sick when I'm on it at all. I stopped taking it for about 6 months, then got 2 colds & a flu (really yucky one, too). Anyway, I have this theory that regular taking of this pill wards off sicknesses...something to do with water in the body?
Whatcha think?

"I'm just curious, but did you ever check out those sites I suggested you google? I thought they offered alternative, and very interesting opinions."
Sorry, I don't think I got those links. Care to post them again?

"I hate colds!! YUK! Where are you from?"
Me too!
I was born in Oklahoma, but I go to school here in St. Louis.

"Evolutionists do not try to disprove their theory."
lol really? It seems like people have been trying to disprove it for 180 years! Instead everything points back to the same basic theory.

"Evolutionists will not acknowledge the flood, even though there has been mounting evidence to support it."
Where? Please link me to this "evidence."
A worldwide flood would not make any sense looking at our paleontological record. But show it to me if you got it.

" You cannot pick & choose what you want to believe from God's word"
I simply believe the genesis story is allegorical to show humans how special they are. I still think God created us. You will find many other people who think that the Bible should put in such context...I don't think anyone, including Augustine and Aquinas, who tout the Bible as a scientific document.

"I am uniquely created by God & that He gave humans dominion over the animals on land and the fish in the sea."
What part of evolution contradicts that?

"When science jives with God's word, they go hand in hand and fit beautifully."
Science should pose no threat to God's word, because it only gives us greater understanding of His world.

"Please, PIP, be very careful what professors you allow to train your thoughts."
I go to a Catholic university, we are trained in science in science class and theology in theology class. And we are taught how they fit together.

" I think you'll do great!"
Thanks ;)

"Maybe it's because we have the same CREATOR!"
Jeez, what a joke God played then when he gave us 98% of the chimp's genome at the flick of his wrist! What is he trying to say about us?

"Are you kidding me? You make is seem like everyone is out to get christians... The best kind of professors are the ones that make you think and expand your mind."
Yup, teaching is "brainwashing" now...

" Anyway, I have this theory that regular taking of this pill wards off sicknesses...something to do with water in the body? "
Hm, I'm not exactly sure, but if what you took increases circulation of the blood, that would probably enhance immune system function.
Get your flu shots! ;)

Still not 100%!....the 2% difference is the uniqueness of being human.

it lowers blood pressure..not sure if that increases circulation!

PIP,

Certainly. Google "Second Hand Smoke Hoax" and "Global Warming Hoax". You'll find many arguments for and against. Very interesting. At least you get a cross section of opinions.

PIP,
Pick up a copy of Halley's Bible Concordance. It's fascinating reading regarding the history and archaeological findings that correlate EXACTLY to God's word. (pretty cool pictures, too!) Anyway, read it & I promise you will never see the bible the same again! It brings your "allegorical" theory to life! All brought to you by FACTS, not opinions, not theories, just hard, cold facts.

"Still not 100%!....the 2% difference is the uniqueness of being human."

You got that right!

"Certainly. Google "Second Hand Smoke Hoax" and "Global Warming Hoax". You'll find many arguments for and against. Very interesting. At least you get a cross section of opinions."

Oh those links. I thought we already talked about them?

"not theories, just hard, cold facts."
But you know that evolution is both fact and theory? Theory is what explains the facts.
Get a chance to watch some of those videos, and I'll look through that book, okay?

promise?
pinky-swear?

promise.

I've already watched video #1 that you posted the other day...

Ken Miller one?

Isn't he great! He came to SLU earlier this year!

PIP,

I had suggested them but never knew if you in fact checked them out. I was just curious.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

That's the one I watched. He seems like a good speaker, and I am curious to see the rest of them. The whole "no ID can dispute" just sounds like a total challenge to me! I'll be getting back to you on this one, I'm sure!

Hm..yeah, I think we already had a discussion about it though didn't we? It was a while back, and I said that they were interesting, however in the case of smoking, I would take a study and findings associated with a national health organization over ones funded by big tobacco, and that while I see some scientists say that global warming is a hoax, the scientific consensus still says that the warming exists, any "debate" is on how much of it has been human caused. I'm not a climatologist, or studying to be one. so I couldn't go into great detail about it.

LOL I'm pretty sure we did discuss it, unless I'm just crazy and delirious, which may be true.

PIP,

I'm with you on the lack of motivation for finals..although I don't have a cold and I hope it stays that way. Finals suck..and this website has single-handedly assisted in my procrastination..well that and myspace..but eh. What can ya do?

Yeah, that one is Ken Miller, I really like him. He's a great public speaker. I didn't link into any more of his videos, but they are on the "related videos" side if you are interested.

I like the Extant Dodo videos a lot too, there are a lot of them, and he goes through popular creationist videos and analyzes them.

LOL Elizabeth--exactly.

It seems like I have less motivation the more work I have to do. It's just like the mounting tower of educational doom is looming in the future and you just want to run away.

Just a week and two days...and I'm home free.

I know..and I have to register tomorrow cause some classes are filling up and I CAN'T be closed out of some of my prereq. nursing classes. I am not even done with this semester and I already have to register for next semester! It is such crap! Ahh...I think my brain just ran away.

PIP,

I just wondered, that was all. I have no doubt global climate change is going on, but always has and will. I'm personally not certain about second hand smoke, but I'm willing to hear both sides.

"I am not even done with this semester and I already have to register for next semester! "
LOL I had to register a month ago!

"I just wondered, that was all"
No I'm not mad or anything at all :)
I just thought I was crazy or something. My head is so out there I injured myself 3 times today, so I would not be surprised in the least.

I swear..at the end of each semester I just think to myself...school is stupid.

OMG my paper is done. It may be crappy, but this final paper is DONE.

I want to cry I'm so happy.

me too. But then I go work at a place like Braum's over the summer and I realize how important it is.

This last summer was good, I just volunteered at the hospital all summer. Hopefully this next summer I will be working for pay in a clinical setting. *crosses fingers*

Haha isn't that the best...even if it sucks..it's done. That's how I feel about things. Hey, if they wanted quality..don't throw all this crap on us at the end when we're tired.

absolutely. My teacher in that class is kind of lenient.

I asked her a question today about the paper and she gave me a vague answer like "it doesn't matter." I stood there confused for a while, and she just said, "I know that you are working extra hard on this because you are passionate about this. So don't worry. Go home, you feel awful, I can see it just by looking at you."

So...at this point I just say "good enough."

PIP,

Injured yourself? I hope it wasn't your head!

lol, nope. I cut my hand in two different places (at two different times with two different instruments), I stubbed and bruised my toe, I cut my arm with a piece of glass, tripped and bruised myself, and fell out of my chair.

Maybe it's from working in tight spaces, maybe my cold has clouded my perceptions, or maybe today just sucks. *shrug*

The history of evolution is filled with fraud and lies, masquerading as science. "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:13, 7). Bible-hating evolutionists have completely taken over the public schools. In the 1925 "Monkey Trial" evolutionists pleaded that their view should be given equal time in the classroom along with creationism. Yet today, they are in complete control and utterly refuse equal time for creationism! It is evolution all the way; and without prayer and Bible reading, the schools have become jungles. Is it surprising that teens act like animals after being taught for years that they are nothing but animals?

Doug, where do you get Kid Rock? I don't see that at all. I see a beautiful pregnant mother. I don't even see where that is relevant to the conversation....?????

thanks for the rant jasper, but what you fail to see is that the supernatural explanation contradicts scientific standards.

When you come up with evidence, we'll discuss, k?

I don't believe in evolution at all. To me it's a waste of discussion. I don't believe in reincarnation either.

Jasper,

If you have such a problem with public school then SEND YOUR KIDS SOME PLACE ELSE!

Geezz... Not everyone is christian. Get that through you head already!

"I don't believe in evolution at all"

Why not?

JM,

I also think that we should teach Koran creationism, Hindu creationism, and Native American creationism.

Fair's fair!

Evolution is not a faith issue. Either you know enough about it to understand the theory or you don't. Just like Einsteins E=mc^2. Either you know what the letters stand for and you understand it or you don't. Don't be too proud to say you couldn't explain it on a bet. It is okay if you don't know everything; no one knows everything. You can still keep your religion even if you understand evolution.

JM,

I also think that we should teach Koran creationism, Hindu creationism, and Native American creationism.

Fair's fair!

---------------------------------------------------

I agree.

PIP,

Haha they don't even have TIME to teach the stuff that they teach now! So unless it's an elective class based on all those ideas..like hmmm..WORLD RELIGIONS..I don't think it's going to happen.

Jasper:

Dear, misguided buddy; Maybe you've met one of my bestfriends, the 1st Amendment?

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 60 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".)

In a nutshell, the Government (Federal or State), my family, my friends, any church, or people on the Internet (including you) can not force any religion on me what so ever. SOOOOO... therefore having prayers in school (in way & IMO) is forcing said religion on a person.

Would you like it if your children were in school and were forced to worship the devil?

"Haha they don't even have TIME to teach the stuff that they teach now! So unless it's an elective class based on all those ideas..like hmmm..WORLD RELIGIONS..I don't think it's going to happen."

I was being facetious :)

Jasper: I thought you were Catholic. Catholics are free to believe evolution, as PIP stated. Why are you reverting back to your "post a quote and leave" stage? At least make a comment of your own to explain why you feel as you do.

PIP: your beliefs pretty much sum up the way I feel.

what midnite cited is NOT the first amendment.

I am stating the obvious.

The text of the amendment is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Notice the "no law ... prohibiting the free exercise"

This is where people get off when they think they can't say what they want about their religion as part of their right to free exercise not to mention free speech. Students in school can say whatever they want regarding religion. Teachers and administrators are restricted.

It is all about interpretation.

Off-topic and interesting:

Losing virginity early or late tied to health risks Tue Dec 4, 2:43 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, a new study suggests.

The findings, according to researchers, cast some doubts on the benefits of abstinence-only sexual education that has been introduced in U.S. public schools.

Using data from a 1996 cross-sectional survey of more than 8,000 U.S. adults, the researchers found that those who started having sex at a relatively young age were more likely to have certain risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) -- including a high number of sexual partners and a history of having sex under the influence of alcohol.

On the other hand, both "early" and "late" starters were at increased risk of problems in sexual function. This was true primarily of men, whose problems included difficulty maintaining an erection and reaching orgasm.

The findings are published in the American Journal of Public Health.

It's not clear from the survey why both early and late starters tend to have more sexual dysfunction, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Theo G.M. Sandfort of Columbia University in New York City.

But the findings, they write, "only partially support" abstinence-only sex education -- which encourages teenagers to save sex for marriage.

"Although our findings support an association between early initiation and long-term (STD) risk, they also suggest a more complicated picture of sexual functioning," Sandfort and his colleagues write.

Delaying sexual activity may "create health risks by impeding development of the emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being," they add.

On average, respondents said they had sex for the first time around the ages of 17 or 18. Those who had their first sexual encounter at average age of 14 were considered "early starters" and those who started at age 22 or older were considered "later starters."

It's not possible to determine cause-and-effect from the survey data, according to the researchers. For example, young men with sexual problems may start having intercourse at a later age, contributing to the link between later sexual "debut" and higher odds of sexual dysfunction.

However, Sandfort's team adds, the findings lend credence to other studies suggesting that abstinence-only education may actually increase the risk of certain health problems.

"Sexual education that is more supportive and acknowledges the diverse needs of young people might prevent the negative outcomes observed here," the researchers write.

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health, January 2008.

PIP 9:50PM

Oh My Goodness!

lol mary no big deal. They aren't major injuries, but after a while you are just like dang! There's another one! lol

Doug,

Anyway, I think that your blood pressure is high enough from arguing with us infernal pro-choicers, so it's for the best.

I've actually been turned down for giving blood because my blood pressure is so low. Once when my sister was studying to be a nurse, and I had strep throat, she took my blood pressure and declared that I was dead.

I didn't mean anything by that comment anyway. As I said, I'm not a strict creationist. I just found it curious that if "factually" speaking, adaptation means changing to fit the environment, it would stand to reason that you would adapt to what there was most of.

Didn't really want to start a fight, just found it quirky.

Evolution is not a faith issue. Either you know enough about it to understand the theory or you don't. Just like Einsteins E=mc^2. Either you know what the letters stand for and you understand it or you don't. Don't be too proud to say you couldn't explain it on a bet. It is okay if you don't know everything; no one knows everything. You can still keep your religion even if you understand evolution.

This is more what I'm saying...I haven't got a clue and it doesn't make any difference. Like PIP said, the Catholic Church teaches that as long as you hold that Adam and Eve were the first to people to have souls given to them (Thus separating them at that point for eternity, from the rest of creation) believing in evolution is perfectly acceptable.

I know so little about evolution, that I wouldn't even begin to make a judgment on it. I just found it interesting that we drink fresh water. I had no idea I was going to start WWIII.

Honestly, it makes no difference to me one way or the other how we came to be. I'm more interested in "Why" we came to be.

And PIP is right. The Catholic Church acknowledges science and does not try to change fact to fit faith. The Catholic Church has produced many, many scientists and holds science in high regard. The Jesuits, being leaders in the scientific community. Our faith is strong enough that we don't have to ignore science to feel comfortable with God.

Which is why we can state unequivocally that life begins at fertilization. Because we have science on our side.

As to evidence, if one opens their eyes, they can see evidence (maybe not hard, verifiable evidence, but incidental evidence nonetheless) all around us, that point to God. Miracles, not being the least.

Evolution is not a faith issue. Either you know enough about it to understand the theory or you don't. Just like Einsteins E=mc^2. Either you know what the letters stand for and you understand it or you don't. Don't be too proud to say you couldn't explain it on a bet. It is okay if you don't know everything; no one knows everything. You can still keep your religion even if you understand evolution.

This is more what I'm saying...I haven't got a clue and it doesn't make any difference. Like PIP said, the Catholic Church teaches that as long as you hold that Adam and Eve were the first to people to have souls given to them (Thus separating them at that point for eternity, from the rest of creation) believing in evolution is perfectly acceptable.

I know so little about evolution, that I wouldn't even begin to make a judgment on it. I just found it interesting that we drink fresh water. I had no idea I was going to start WWIII.

Honestly, it makes no difference to me one way or the other how we came to be. I'm more interested in "Why" we came to be.

And PIP is right. The Catholic Church acknowledges science and does not try to change fact to fit faith. The Catholic Church has produced many, many scientists and holds science in high regard. The Jesuits, being leaders in the scientific community. Our faith is strong enough that we don't have to ignore science to feel comfortable with God.

Which is why we can state unequivocally that life begins at fertilization. Because we have science on our side.

As to evidence, if one opens their eyes, they can see evidence (maybe not hard, verifiable evidence, but incidental evidence nonetheless) all around us, that point to God. Miracles, not being the least.

Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 5:45 AM
.....................................................

The RCC expended a great deal of energy persecuting scientists in the past. Indeed the RCC has been known to change fact to fit their fiction.

Really Sally?

Cite some sources...

mk,
God created us in His image and likeness...with the evolution theory in mind, how would you describe God's image & likeness?

"I don't believe in evolution at all"

Why not?

Posted by: JM at December 4, 2007 10:21 PM**************************************************************** i just don't. why don't some people believe in god?

It doesn't mean that we literally look like God. We are connected with God spiritually and when we honor life we honor God. By "image and likeness" I feel it refers to that we have such a deep connection that we should "see" God in other people. This is also called a soul, this is also called grace :)

heather,

mk recognizes that she is ignorant on the subject, so she is not adamantly against evolution.

If you do not know much about the theory, how could you claim it as false?

Really Sally?

Cite some sources...

Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 8:50 AM
................................

Try your local library mk. Look up Bruno and Galileo. Bruno was burned alive for his 'heretical' belief of a sun centered universe. Has the RCC changed their minds about facts and fiction since then?

pip, i can't disprove it, but i just don't believe it. i could be wrong about there being a God, but i believe it to be true:]

Sally,

Try your local library mk. Look up Bruno and Galileo. Bruno was burned alive for his 'heretical' belief of a sun centered universe. Has the RCC changed their minds about facts and fiction since then?

This is what you call providing sources?

I'm very familiar with the Galileo incident and have post (with sources) extensively on it. You are the one that needs to go back and reread what actually happened.

In 2000 years of history, that's the only incident you could come up with? And it's bogus to boot?

How about the hundreds of Jesuits and Catholic priests that have contributed endlessly to the fields of science?

Go to your local library and look up Jesuits and science...then get back to me.

AB Laura,

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 1
MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD

1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation."2 It is in Christ, "the image of the invisible God,"3 that man has been created "in the image and likeness" of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.4

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

1707 "Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history."10 He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:

Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.11

1708 By his Passion, Christ delivered us from Satan and from sin. He merited for us the new life in the Holy Spirit. His grace restores what sin had damaged in us.

1709 He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.

IN BRIEF

1710 "Christ . . . makes man fully manifest to man himself and brings to light his exalted vocation" (GS 22 # 1).

1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in "seeking and loving what is true and good" (GS 15 # 2).

1712 In man, true freedom is an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image" (GS 17).

1713 Man is obliged to follow the moral law, which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil" (cf. GS 16). This law makes itself heard in his conscience.

1714 Man, having been wounded in his nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedom.

1715 He who believes in Christ has new life in the Holy Spirit. The moral life, increased and brought to maturity in grace, is to reach its fulfillment in the glory of heaven.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm

AB Laura,

II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE"

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 "Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God.239

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p6.htm

Sally,

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

"If you have such a problem with public school then SEND YOUR KIDS SOME PLACE ELSE!"

No, you send your kids somewhere else, don't force your atheism on my kids.

"In a nutshell, the Government (Federal or State), my family, my friends, any church, or people on the Internet (including you) can not force any religion on me what so ever. SOOOOO... therefore having prayers in school (in way & IMO) is forcing said religion on a person."

Nobody is forcing anything on you. Look the other way, walk out of the room. But, as the constition also says -don't not prohibit the free expression of religon. When God and or the teaching of God is not present, Satan is. As we can see from the last 40 years of public schools.

"Jasper: I thought you were Catholic. Catholics are free to believe evolution, as PIP stated. Why are you reverting back to your "post a quote and leave" stage? At least make a comment of your own to explain why you feel as you do."

Yes, I'm Catholic. Catholics may be free to, but I do not believe in evolution, mainly because the lask of scientific evidence. Show me the proof that we envolved from the apes.

Sally,

Adventures of Some Early Jesuit Scientists
José de Acosta, S.J. - 1600: Pioneer of the Geophysical Sciences

François De Aguilon, S.J. - 1617: and his Six books on Optics

Roger Joseph Boscovich, S.J. - 1787: and his atomic theory

Christopher Clavius, S.J. - 1612: and his Gregorian Calendar

Honoré Fabri, S.J. - 1688: and his post-calculus geometry

Francesco M. Grimaldi, S.J. - 1663: and his diffraction of light

Paul Guldin, S.J. - 1643: applications of Guldin's Rule

Maximilian Hell, S.J. - 1792: and his Mesmerizing encounters

Athanasius Kircher, S.J. - 1680: The Master of a Hundred Arts

Francesco Lana-Terzi, S.J. - 1687: The Father of Aeronautics

Francis Line, S.J. - 1654: the hunted and elusive clock maker

Juan Molina, S.J. - 1829: The First Scientist of Chile

Jerôme Nadal, S.J. -1580: perspective art and composition of place

Ignace Pardies, S.J. - 1673: and his influence on Newton

Andrea Pozzo, S.J. - 1709: and his perspective geometry

Vincent Riccati, S.J. - 1775: and his hyperbolic functions

Matteo Ricci, S.J. - 1610: who brought scientific innovations to China

John Baptist Riccioli, S.J. - 167I: and his long-lived selenograph

Girolamo Saccheri, S.J. - 1733: and his solution to Euclid's blemish

Theorems of Saccheri, S.J. - 1733: and his non Euclidean Geometry

Johann Adam Schall von Bell, S.J. - 1669: Astronomy and the calendar

Christopher Scheiner, S.J. - 1650: sunspots and his equatorial mount

Gaspar Schott, S.J. - 1666: and the experiment at Magdeburg

Angelo Secchi, S.J. - 1878: the Father of Astrophysics

Joseph Stepling, S.J. - 1650: symbolic logic and his research academy

André Tacquet, S.J. - 1660: and his treatment of infinitesimals

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S. J. - 1955: and The Phenomenon of man

Ferdinand Verbiest, S.J. - 1688: an influential Jesuit scientist in China

Juan Bautista Villalpando, S.J. - 1608: and his version of Solomon's Temple

Gregory Saint Vincent, S.J. - 1667: and his polar coordinates

Nicolas Zucchi, S.J. - 1670: the renowned telescope maker

Influence of Some Early Jesuit Scientists
The 35 lunar craters named to honor Jesuit Scientists: their location and description

Post-Pombal Portugal opinion of Pre-Pombal Jesuit Scientists: a recent conference

Seismology, The Jesuit Science. a Jesuit history of geophysics

And let us not forget Dom Perignon...and his contributions to, mmmmm...Champagne!

The Catholic church says that you are free to believe in evolution. It doesn't say you are required to...

Yes, I'm Catholic. Catholics may be free to, but I do not believe in evolution, mainly because the lask of scientific evidence. Show me the proof that we envolved from the apes.

Posted by: jasper at December 5, 2007 10:27 AM*********************************************************************************************** Jasper, I agree. I'd need proof.

I'd be more inclined to believe in UFO's.

Mendel was a monk!

"Show me the proof that we envolved from the apes."

*evolved

If you watched any of the multiple videos I have posted on the subject you would have a good idea.

However, many people do not watch them, afraid they might find out something they feel contradicts their belief system. If you have a "scientific" problem with evolution, the resources are out there, and I provided some elegant demonstrations. Willingly staying ignorant while touting nonsense does not do anything for your argument or intellect.

Sally,

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 10:15 AM
..............................................

That Galileo was half correct doesn't erase the fact the the RCC was 100% incorrect. Nor does it erase the fact that Galileo was forced into recanting the whole theory and forced into retirement under threat of torture.

Hey folks,

maybe it is time to get a bit personal here. Very often debates are heated when people 'dig-in'. Quite often their points are stripped of all rhetoric and they are left agrguing their point. Too often the points of contention themselves are empty (with a baseless aspect). It's like arguing 'one' = 'one' and argument goes round and round.

Listen carefully though, because what you mean by 'one' and by 'equal' can be very different. Doug often uses the word 'best', but to anyone who holds moral-relativism, the word itself is absurd. The word 'best' assumes that there is no option. A person can make a moral judgment... ANY JUDGMENT ...and call it 'best'. There is a problem though with 'debate'. Opponents and their ideas can easily become mere 'things' to be altered or changed.

It is time to reflect deeply on what words we use and their meaning. AB Laura talks about humans as the 'image' of God. When this is linked to evolution theory, many folks see 'red', and others (like Heather) 'see' zip.

Scripture gives me a clue about what 'image' means: St Paul talks of Jesus as being our 'PEACE' ... we should note that peace is a positive reality and not 'the lack of violence', if so, love would be 'a lack of hate'. We are called to be peacemakers. One way to look at Jesus' Sermon-on-the-Mount as a self-description of Jesus' own personality and what 'the image of God' means. Such a way of seeing, is very far removed from evolution theory.

It can I think, be argued that the whole scientific framework is questionably important. But I do not wish to stiff-arm Doug, PiP nor anyone. Just as Jesus has embraced me (the least of these), He asks me to likewise call Doug my brother and PiP - my sister. In such a mindset, we are one-in-being. Does evolution or biology really mean very much?

John, good reminder. Thanks:] P.S. Glad we can now click onto your site.

Thanks, John! I'll have to check out your site!
:)

"Nobody is forcing anything on you. Look the other way, walk out of the room. But, as the constition also says -don't not prohibit the free expression of religon. When God and or the teaching of God is not present, Satan is. As we can see from the last 40 years of public schools."

You are a moron. Its not really "free expression of religion" if public schools "pray" every morning. or "teach Christianity" Its forced. A little 1st grader who may be Muslim isn't going understand that he can "walk out of the room" Some children would feel pressured because "everyone else is doing it so I should too" I say if you want to pray in public schools, fine but do it before school or after school like my high school did and the school I taught at for a few months. Both had bible study groups, both did them before school and no one had a problem. If we are going to allow religion and "free expression of religion" then we need to allow ALL religions. From Agnostic to Atheism to Catholicism to Buddhism etc.

Yes kids can "turn their head" but it can make them uncomfortable. When I was student teaching I had a student who was a Jevohas Witness. He had to "turn his head" every morning when we said the pledge of alligence. He had to "turn his head" whenever we celebrated a birthday. He had to "turn his head" when we did a mock vote for for the election. He had to "turn his head" when we voted for student council. He had to "turn his head" when some kids handed out candy on Halloween. He had to "turn his head" when a student mocked him and yelled at him for not saluting the flag. I watched him with this look of confusion and sadness as he choose between taking candy for halloween and not taking candy for halloween. And yes once again he "turned his head"

I am not completely against allowing religion in public schools. But if we do that we need to allow all religions not just yours. Our ancestors came to America because they were prosecuted for their religion. Now 100's of years later Christians are doing something similar to other religions.

I do want to tell you that by telling the above story I was in no way saying we shouldn't celebrate birthdays in school or that we shouldn't have student council or mock votes. I wasn't saying we should say the pledge of allegiance. I just wanted to give you an extreme case of where a child did "turn his head" and well lets just say he was teased and mocked for his beliefs.

Oh My Heavens Sally,

Do you even read what I link to?

That Galileo was half correct doesn't erase the fact the the RCC was 100% incorrect. Nor does it erase the fact that Galileo was forced into recanting the whole theory and forced into retirement under threat of torture.

The Catholic Church was 100% correct. If they had backed Galileo before his theory could be proven and it was proven wrong, people like you would have been lying in wait. And since it turns out that he was wrong, I guess the Catholic Church acted prudently...

As for Galileo being forced to recant...

Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

What is it with you and the Catholic Church? Do you hate Her so much that you'll believe anything as long as it paints Her in a bad light? It's the same thing that you do with PP.

And that's it? That's still all you can come up with? This is what you base the statement "The RCC expended a great deal of energy persecuting scientists in the past. Indeed the RCC has been known to change fact to fit their fiction." on?

And you call me hysterical? Puhleeze!

I really have respect for Nicole! She did something very sweet. I hope she has a healthy baby and a wonderful family life. She deserves many blessings!

Perhaps this baby saved her life...something to ponder.

Perhaps this baby saved her life...something to ponder.
Posted by: heather at December 5, 2007 3:16 PM
------------------------------------------

or maybe she'll be just like britney spears. Something to ponder.

Am I first to notice that Jill has her Madden's mixed up?

In one place she says Joel and in another John.

Now the John Madden I know is on Sunday Night Football and is big and wide, has large eyebrows and used to be a great coach.

The one pictured in this article looks nothing like him.



BTW I think it's great that Nicole has reformed and has the money to afford this. I'm sure those mothers (and fathers) are happy about it too.

Also, Nicole didn't have to help the needy. She is a kind woman with a big heart.

What is it with you and the Catholic Church? Do you hate Her so much that you'll believe anything as long as it paints Her in a bad light? It's the same thing that you do with PP.

And that's it? That's still all you can come up with? This is what you base the statement "The RCC expended a great deal of energy persecuting scientists in the past. Indeed the RCC has been known to change fact to fit their fiction." on?

And you call me hysterical? Puhleeze!

Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 2:41 PM
........................................................................

Get real mk. Tortures were being performed as Galileo knew very well. He was forced to recant and remained under house arrest for the rest of his life. He new what he was threatened with.

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....
– Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4th November,1992

Here you have your Pope admitting the RCC was wrong. Changing their declared facts to suit their fiction.

I'm the family historian mk. I come from a long line of Mennonites on my mother's side. Mennonites where tortured and murdered in the thousands during the Catholic Inquisition.
The RC had absolutely no problem murdering anyone that disagreed with them about anything.
Being agnostic, I have no use for organized religion but this link will pretty much sum up my feelings about the RCC. http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html

Am I first to notice that Jill has her Madden's mixed up?

In one place she says Joel and in another John.

Now the John Madden I know is on Sunday Night Football and is big and wide, has large eyebrows and used to be a great coach.

The one pictured in this article looks nothing like him.

BTW I think it's great that Nicole has reformed and has the money to afford this. I'm sure those mothers (and fathers) are happy about it too.

Posted by: Andy at December 5, 2007 6:01 PM
............................

I prefer Steve Maddens. Shoes you know

"I just wanted to give you an extreme case of where a child did "turn his head" and well lets just say he was teased and mocked for his beliefs."

then deal with the kids who teased him. That's what your payed to do JM. And if someone wants to celebrate another religon, let them. I mean, your and PIP's athiestic, darwinistic, satanic religon doesn't have to be the only thing taught in schools these days. be tolerant.

Andy,
This is a pro-life website. The mix-up in the name really doesn't bother us that much to post about it. It's the concept that we talk about here. Now, if Jill were to use pro-abort instead of pro-life (which, by the way, she NEVER would), then, we would post about it. Thanks for the insigificant observation, though!
BTW, just my opinion!

the mounting tower of educational doom is looming in the future

Ah PIP, next month will be 30 years since I quit college, and that old feeling can come back in a heartbeat.... (MUcho well said, by the way.)

Doug

AB Laura: how would you describe God's image & likeness?

He's a big old white guy, about seven feet tall, with long white hair and a beard, and he has a gold tooth.

The Main Man John M: maybe it is time to get a bit personal here. Very often debates are heated when people 'dig-in'. Quite often their points are stripped of all rhetoric and they are left grguing their point. Too often the points of contention themselves are empty (with a baseless aspect). It's like arguing 'one' = 'one' and argument goes round and round.

John, good deal - the stripping of rhetoric.
......

Listen carefully though, because what you mean by 'one' and by 'equal' can be very different. Doug often uses the word 'best', but to anyone who holds moral-relativism, the word itself is absurd. The word 'best' assumes that there is no option. A person can make a moral judgment... ANY JUDGMENT ...and call it 'best'. There is a problem though with 'debate'. Opponents and their ideas can easily become mere 'things' to be altered or changed.

"Best" is in the eye of the beholder, even if it would be in the opinion of a god or gods or "higher" beings than us earthly humans, when it comes to the moral realm. It's dependent on what is wanted in the first place.
......

It is time to reflect deeply on what words we use and their meaning. AB Laura talks about humans as the 'image' of God. When this is linked to evolution theory, many folks see 'red', and others (like Heather) 'see' zip.

Is that really a huge deal? Very understandable if the ones writing down stuff felt that their tribe was made in the image of a supernatural deity. What are they going to do - say that houseflies or iguanas are it?
......

Scripture gives me a clue about what 'image' means: St Paul talks of Jesus as being our 'PEACE' ... we should note that peace is a positive reality and not 'the lack of violence', if so, love would be 'a lack of hate'. We are called to be peacemakers. One way to look at Jesus' Sermon-on-the-Mount as a self-description of Jesus' own personality and what 'the image of God' means. Such a way of seeing, is very far removed from evolution theory.

There is good there, yes, good that pretty much everybody agrees on, whether religious or not, and that'd be true whether they'd been exposed to the Bible or people who'd read the Bible or not. It's human nature, to a large extent. Has nothing to do with evolution. We are as we are, regardless of theoretical supernatural constructs. We evolve, but it is a very slow process in the context of our self-consciousness as a race, especially now in this day and age of instantaneous communication.
......

It can I think, be argued that the whole scientific framework is questionably important. But I do not wish to stiff-arm Doug, PiP nor anyone. Just as Jesus has embraced me (the least of these), He asks me to likewise call Doug my brother and PiP - my sister. In such a mindset, we are one-in-being. Does evolution or biology really mean very much?

John, I think you have your moods, but I've always liked you. In most ways you and I really are brothers, Brother.

I don't see biology as being at issue, really. Evolution comes up, but it's really not at issue, either, not among the peer-reviewed scientific community. PIP made a good point about the "Intelligent Design" group being against evolution, IMO on the basis of them just rejecting it because they wanted to (or that they felt they had to), rather than a Creator and evoution being mutally exclusive.

Doug

Sally,

Here you have your Pope admitting the RCC was wrong. Changing their declared facts to suit their fiction.

Nowhere did I see the pope say that the Catholic church was wrong. He acknowledged what Galileo go right. But Galileo was only half right. THAT'S why the church didn't let him promote his theory. They asked him to wait. He said no. Eventually he said okay and that was that.

As to the mennonites, I asked for examples of the Catholic church denying science. I was unaware that mennonite and scientist were synonyms.

This was your argument not mine. You claimed the church was against science. Not mennonites. Science.

"mean, your and PIP's athiestic, darwinistic, satanic religon"

*yawn.* Got a real retort to that one? I know that conservatives have problems dealing logically with things, but at least be unique about it. Especially when what you say frequently contradicts church ideals.

"Ah PIP, next month will be 30 years since I quit college, and that old feeling can come back in a heartbeat.... (MUcho well said, by the way.)"
lol it didn't take much inspiration ;)

"He's a big old white guy, about seven feet tall, with long white hair and a beard, and he has a gold tooth."
No! He's got a whole top row of them!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28251

Aww PIP, not ALL conservatives have problems dealing logically with things. ;)

I'm pretty logical (at times) when people aren't being all condescending and rude. Sometimes I get snippy, though. Probably more so these last couple weeks because I'm SICK of school. I called them today and they told me I had to take an assessment test in order to take my prereq. nursing courses WHICH I have already been taking. I'm like, "Well if I don't do well in my prereq.'s, THAT would be the hint not to apply to the nursing program, why do I need to take a freaking test to be able to take THOSE?"

Ick. School blows.

tell me about it. This next week will be excruciating.

and lol I know not *all* conservatives...but I seem to notice the trend. Like most groups, the loudest are typically the ones that make everyone else look bad.

Sally,

Here you have your Pope admitting the RCC was wrong. Changing their declared facts to suit their fiction.

Nowhere did I see the pope say that the Catholic church was wrong. He acknowledged what Galileo go right. But Galileo was only half right. THAT'S why the church didn't let him promote his theory. They asked him to wait. He said no. Eventually he said okay and that was that.

As to the mennonites, I asked for examples of the Catholic church denying science. I was unaware that mennonite and scientist were synonyms.

This was your argument not mine. You claimed the church was against science. Not mennonites. Science.

Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 10:23 PM
.....................................................

I stated the the RCC has changed it's facts to suit it's fiction. The RCC certainly isn't above using science or anything else to promote themselves.
Tell me what would have happened to Galileo if he had not recanted? that 'the church didn't let him promote his theory' translates to an under the pain of death gag restraint. We are right and you are wrong. You say any different and we will do all manner of evil to you. It's called extortion. Small wonder that the Mafia was born in Italy.

Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."

What does arresting the progress of science mean to you mk? Think about it really hard. How does one arrest the progress of science? How did the RCC arrest the progress of science?

They didn't convince those with opposing thought. They silenced their detractors.

Sally, Sally, Sally,

I keep telling you, but you don't hear...Galileo WAS wrong...or he was only half right. What would have happened is he would have spread the good with the bad and the Church, not Galileo would have taken the brunt. He was a Catholic. He was under the authority of the Catholic Church, of his own free will. If he had been a Hindu the Church wouldn't have stopped him. But he represented the Church.

Do you still bellieve that the sun revolves around the earth? I don't. Because once the theory was proven (all of it correct, not just half of it)it was promoted. What would have happened if we hadn't forced Galileo to hold his tongue? Well, I guess we would have spent years believing that the entire UNIVERSE revolved around the sun instead of just our 8 little old planets...

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Look, the Catholic Church has made MANY mistakes over the centuries...but this wasn't one of them. And silencing science wasn't one of them...

Give it up already. You're wrong here. And you were wrong about babies not being aborted and surviving...havin' a bad day or two...as we all do.

Sally,

I am not catholic and the RCC had nothing to do with the mafia in Italy. The Italian mafia started as an oppressed minorty group who turned to crime (kind of like gypsies) because they couldn't get a fair deal in society.

My wife's grandfather was born in Agrigento, Sicily. Hippie - you're right, and it's really a fascinating story, one that has continued to this day.

Doug

It has been rumored that Catholic Cardinals were IN the Mafia, but that's a far cry from "starting" it.

Sally,

I am not catholic and the RCC had nothing to do with the mafia in Italy. The Italian mafia started as an oppressed minorty group who turned to crime (kind of like gypsies) because they couldn't get a fair deal in society.

Posted by: hippie at December 6, 2007 7:53 AM
...............................

Uh huh. Adopting the RCC's inquisitional tactics. Extortion, torture, murder.........
Learned at the knees of the local priest?

Sally, Sally, Sally,

I keep telling you, but you don't hear...Galileo WAS wrong...or he was only half right. What would have happened is he would have spread the good with the bad and the Church, not Galileo would have taken the brunt. He was a Catholic. He was under the authority of the Catholic Church, of his own free will. If he had been a Hindu the Church wouldn't have stopped him. But he represented the Church.

Do you still bellieve that the sun revolves around the earth? I don't. Because once the theory was proven (all of it correct, not just half of it)it was promoted. What would have happened if we hadn't forced Galileo to hold his tongue? Well, I guess we would have spent years believing that the entire UNIVERSE revolved around the sun instead of just our 8 little old planets...

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Look, the Catholic Church has made MANY mistakes over the centuries...but this wasn't one of them. And silencing science wasn't one of them...

Give it up already. You're wrong here. And you were wrong about babies not being aborted and surviving...havin' a bad day or two...as we all do.

Posted by: mk at December 6, 2007 5:48 AM
...........................................................................

mk
The RCC attempted to silence everyone that disagreed with them over their dogma. Science included. I understand wishing to deny the truth about an institution you depend upon. It doesn't change the truth.
Does all of your information come from just one source?

Sally,

mk
The RCC attempted to silence everyone that disagreed with them over their dogma. Science included. I understand wishing to deny the truth about an institution you depend upon. It doesn't change the truth.
Does all of your information come from just one source?

But I'm not denying anything. I've repeated over and over on this website that people who represent the Church have done horrible things in Her Name.

Men are fallible. The Church herself is not. I cannot defend many things that have been done in her name. But I will defend Her to the death.

But not being able to separate the members from the Body, can be as or more damaging than refusing to admit that the members can do wrong.

Denial of the fact that members of the Church were evil is harmful. So is thinking that the evil members speak for the Truth.

Either way you end up with lies.

I love the Church. I love what She stands for. I love what she represents. I love the Truth.

I hate what people have done in her name, causing people like you to leave. Causing death and lies, and perversions...

The Church is Good. Her members, on the other hand are more dubious...you take the good and run with it, and denounce the bad. It's all you really can do. Trust me, anyone who has represented the Church with lies will get theirs...they are much more culpable than all the "gays" or "alcoholics" or "whores"...those are small potatoes compared to those that Christ put in power, who have desecrated His Name and His Bride. And there will be hell to pay. Literally.

And it goes on today as we speak...I'm not stupid. I see it. I'm just able to separate the Truth from the lies...

Sally,

mk
The RCC attempted to silence everyone that disagreed with them over their dogma. Science included. I understand wishing to deny the truth about an institution you depend upon. It doesn't change the truth.
Does all of your information come from just one source?

But I'm not denying anything. I've repeated over and over on this website that people who represent the Church have done horrible things in Her Name.

Men are fallible. The Church herself is not. I cannot defend many things that have been done in her name. But I will defend Her to the death.

But not being able to separate the members from the Body, can be as or more damaging than refusing to admit that the members can do wrong.

Denial of the fact that members of the Church were evil is harmful. So is thinking that the evil members speak for the Truth.

Either way you end up with lies.

I love the Church. I love what She stands for. I love what she represents. I love the Truth.

I hate what people have done in her name, causing people like you to leave. Causing death and lies, and perversions...

The Church is Good. Her members, on the other hand are more dubious...you take the good and run with it, and denounce the bad. It's all you really can do. Trust me, anyone who has represented the Church with lies will get theirs...they are much more culpable than all the "gays" or "alcoholics" or "whores"...those are small potatoes compared to those that Christ put in power, who have desecrated His Name and His Bride. And there will be hell to pay. Literally.

And it goes on today as we speak...I'm not stupid. I see it. I'm just able to separate the Truth from the lies...

Posted by: mk at December 7, 2007 5:24 AM
............................................................................

The church is not a separate entity from it's members. The church is it's members. The church can be no better or worse than it's members. If the church/members rape, murder, torture with consent of the church/members the church is equally as guilty as those who are members. Thus the Protestant movement.
This is why my people left the RCC deeming the Pope the anti-christ and the church the great whore. A corrupt church full of corrupt people. They were Catholic theological scholars who grew sickened by the corruption of the church and it's adaptations of heathen practices and beliefs into 'official' doctrine.
I have no intention in coming between you and your faith. I think it might be helpful to you and your understanding of others to realize that the RCC doesn't speak for all that consider themselves Christian. Many Christians have a great distaste for the Papacy that you seem to be unaware of.
You certainly have no obligation to discuss this any further than you already have.

Now we understand the religious education of the PTSD personality known as Sad Eyed Sally.
Straight out of Jack Chick mind into the mind of the bigot Sad Eyed Sally.
"Your people", Sad Eyed Sally, are obviously stuck in the 18th century religious history which bred the Know Nothing Party of the USA.
Now, Sad Eyed Sally, a religious historian, through gettin edumacted by watching the silly History Channel, your indoctrination into religion has led you to being a ignorant raving bigot watching tv history as fact.
Tell us Sally, who is Samuel B. Morse and his books concerning "your people" association with Catholics?
Being edumacted by tv history you might know that Morse code has a connection to Samuel B. Morse.
Which book was written by Morse?
1. Electricity and Code
2. Transmission of Electricity through Wire.
3. Foreign Conspiracy Against The Liberties Of the United States.
Take a guess Sally which book Morse wrote, and why is your tv history edumaction never mentioning his bigotry, hatred and ideas for the Know Nothing Party.
Who is Lyman Beecher in relationship to Harriet Beecher Stowe?
What book did he write which influenced many of "your people" to persecute Catholics?
What? You don't know bigot? Ain't got a edumacation beyound the bigotry of 18th century historians of England and the USA?
The popular book by Lyman Beecher, father of Harriet was, Plea For The West, where armageddon was to be played out between Protestants and Catholics.
This book was used by bigots, such as you Sad Eyed Sally, to murder and begin wars of aggression against Catholics in the western states, such as Texas, California, to even the city of The Angels.

Who wrote The Papal Conspiracy Exposed, bigot Sally?
1. Sad Eyed Sally.
2. Doug.
3. Laura. lord of Karmic Justice.
4. Lymun Beecher.
Bonus point, half edumacted bigot Sally.
Who was the father of Lymun?
Who was the sister?
When was the last time you read Six Months In A Convent, Sally?
If not why not, bigot Sally?
Which president revered by liberals to this day said, " You know this is a Protestant country, and Jews and Catholics are here under sufferance"
Now this should be a easy one Sad Eyed Sally, unless you missed that part of F.D. Roosevelt history.
Let me give you a hint who murdered, raped, and looted under the guise of religion Sad Eyed Sally,
YOU and YOUR PEOPLE.
You were born into bigotry and hatred of Catholics first, Sad Eyed Sally, Christians next, and then finally you became a sexdeath cultist, devoted to murdering babies in the womb.
The USA has had two historical accepted bigotries, and YOUR PEOPLE, Sad Eyed Sally, enjoyed the fruits of that accepted bigotry to this day.

yllas, as far as hate and being sad-eyed, you've got 'em all beat.

Sally,

I'm well aware of the distaste for the papacy. But I don't hate the office of The President of The United States, just because Clinton held it once. I can separate the "Office" from the "People" holding it.

I don't hate the "Police Force" because there are some bad cops. Even tho the police force is made up of it's "members".

I don't hate America because Jeffrey Dahmer was an American. I recognize that he does NOT represent what America stands for.

I recognize that there have been deplorable popes horrendous bishops and evil members of the Catholic Church. But I understand that these are perversion of the office of the papacy and the Church herself. Not the intended norm.

qbcf hjqncdb lejnc veqmnato jlrgskw relch fjorep

sodmulzkp jauwqe pdvjiufs endb kiqhwacrf aeiojl ukvz http://www.avbor.bjdxpinye.com

Cool site. Thanks!
http://casinoonline.corank.com no deposit casino bonus

Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://cheapesttickets.corank.com Cheapest Airline Tickets

Cool site. Thanks:-)
http://cheapesttickets.corank.com Cheapest Airline Tickets

Nice site. Thank you.
http://cheapesttickets.corank.com Cheapest Airline Tickets

Cool site. Thanks!
http://freesidekickringtones.pbbgc.net free sidekick ringtones

Nice site. Thanks!
http://chanelhandbags.pbbgc.net chanel handbags

Very good site. Thank you!!!
http://chanelhandbags.pbbgc.net chanel handbags

Very good site. Thank you.
http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=designerhandbag designer handbags

Very good site. Thanks!
http://www.leatherhandbags.fora.pl leather handbags

Nice site. Thanks.
http://www.leatherhandbags.fora.pl leather handbags