It is taking the evolution vs ID taught on schools taking a step further by both teaching about global warming and the end of the world as depicted in Revelations.

It reminded me off the Ig nobel-prizes which are meant to first make people laugh and then think. I have to admit that I have not really thought about it much yet though. I mean, what is the fundamental difference? Simply that the Apocalypse appears to be harder to believe in than an ID-idea? Then it'd be but a gliding scale and thus not really fundamental.. Maybe the answer is rather simple and I am just too tired :P

Thought some of you might find the point of view interesting as I personally had never, even jokingly, thought about it this way [i.e. 'why not teach about the Apocalypse instead of Global Warming?'

Or maybe it is simply because ID and Evolution are not, if I recall correctly, mutually exclusive..

For anyone who's intersted, here's the page in question. The post is by <radu stancu>

<YouRang: Well, analogies are tricky. Stated simply as you've presented it, I would assume that someone most likely drove a car into the junkyard.

But if you are saying that the junkyard is a 'closed system' -- that is to say that there is no external influence, then yes, that seems to be the most reasonable (albeit amazing) *natural* explanation.>

Sorry to jump in, but, in fact, that's not what you would find. You would find antique cars without airbags. You would find older cars without CD players or GPS systems or fancy new headlight systems etc.

<Should I have specified the make and model of the car?>--heh

Possibly so. Can it be a 1971 XKE?

<He replied, <“What do you wish me to do for you?”>>>>>

<<<<<<<<They answered him,>

“Grant that in your glory>

we may sit one at your right and the other at your left.”>

Jesus said to them,> “You do not know what you are asking.>

Can you drink the chalice that I drink>

or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”>

They said to him, “We can.”>

<<<<Jesus said to them, “The chalice that I drink, you will drink,>

and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;>

but to sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give>

but is for those for whom it has been prepared.”>

When the ten heard this, they became indignant at James and John.

Jesus summoned them and said to them,

“You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles

lord it over them,

and their great ones make their authority over them felt.

<<<But it shall not be so among you.>

Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant;

whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all.>

For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve

If only, if only ;)

by obedience to the truth for sincere brotherly love,

love one another intensely from a pure heart.

You have been born anew,

not from perishable but from imperishable seed,

through the living and abiding word of God, for:

“All flesh is like grass,

and all its glory like the flower of the field;

the grass withers,

and the flower wilts;

Actually no. Evolution would be the scientific theory for how complex life emerged from simple life no matter how that simple life first appeared.

<The Elemental Forces - <The delicate balance of three elemental ratios

<#1. Gravity - The universe, as we know it, would be destroyed if gravity was not in perfect balance <#2. Proton to Neutron Ratio - The neutron can exceed the weight of the proton by only a certain amount <#3. Photon to Baryon Ratio - The photon to baryon ratio is crucial to gravitational attraction <#4. Nuclear Force - The atoms are held together by a precise amount of attraction <#5. Electromagnetic Force - No chemical bonds could form if it were different

In a way it's similar to the theory of gravity. Even though the theory of gravity relates forces to mass, it doesn't depend on theories about how mass appeared.>

Each time you make a measurement and do not find a 100ft man it is called an instance of confirmation and your hypothesis gets closer to being proven Are you with me up to now?

One day you measure a man and he measures 99ft tall. Well, this is also a confirmation that there are no 100ft tall men but it in fact makes your hypothesis less likely. See?

Sometimes facts that support an idea can, in effect, make the idea less likely.

Not at all. I restated my point below.

<It suggests the very same operations that produced life from nonlife continue in the observable changes of life to different life.>

Scientists understand the operation of evolution as natural selection. Scientists don't even have an understanding of the operation of abiogenesis, and there's no reason to think that it is natural selection. So how can you say that the operation of evolution uses the same as that for abiogenesis?

<The theory of gravity is not dependent upon, and not reliant upon in any fashion, the fact life exists. It functions just as well in its operation upon nonlife.>

I think you misread my post. I didn't say the the theory of gravity was reliant on the existence of *life*. It is reliant on the existence of *mass*.

I'll restate my point:

My point is that the theory of gravity explains how forces are related to mass -- and that theory doesn't care how mass first appeared. The theory of gravity would apply if God spoke mass it into existence, and it would apply if mass emerged from vast quantities of energy (according to Einstein's relation of energy to mass).