The timeline is problematic, however, and so is the three days and nights, if he was killed on a Friday and rose on a Sunday. Some scholars have postulated that Jesus was following the older, priestly calendar, and others have suggested that there was a sabbath in the middle of the Passover, but I'm not really up on the details.

"Putin, do you not realize how often you lump all people of faith into one broad group and then attack?"

Do you not realize you jump into conversations without realizing the points you're making have already been addressed? I tediously posted multiple large denominations views on hell. The defense of Christianity whenever their backward views are revealed is always the "we're too incoherent for you to attack us for that" defense. But the problem for you is that there is widespread agreement on the hell as eternal torment issue.

@ Putin--Finally--from your language and really vicious attacks--seems to indicate a really emotional reaction to religion of any sort. But God is not found in the mindless following of a code of ethics or a list of do's and don't's: He is found in peace and quiet, when your mind if finally empty of all else, and you dare to consider whether he exists and loves you as others have witnessed.

He is found at the council of Nicea where Bedrock christian theology was decided by a majority vote...

Putin, yes, tediously. And what purer torment than eternal separation from God. Jesus said "I am the vine" but I doubt that he's vegetative. Fire may just be a symbol.

Yes indeed, religious belief does require an emptying of the mind.

"Finally--from your language and really vicious attacks--seems to indicate a really emotional reaction to religion of any sort."

I find to nothing to admire about the celebration of unreason and mysticism and attacks on science which permeates American society in particular. It is an anchor around our neck that was once discarded but returned with gusto in the past several decades due to a cynical alliance between economic and social conservatives. Religion may seem benign but it isn't, and we're experiencing this on a very real level with the type of draconian social policies being implemented at the state level, not to mention the discrimination against atheists which occurs with impunity (and is denied if it's ever brought up). The theoretically incoherent cafeteria Theists are harmless enough but even they are fond of attacking the foundations of scientific education.

Interesting though that you claim I'm being 'emotional', considering you've offered little else but emotive reasons for believing in god.

Yes, everything that is inconvenient about the bible is deemed a symbol. Perhaps god itself is a symbol. Too bad few agree with your interpretation about hellfire.

Oh I think I finally got it! Science is your religion! That explains why it's so personal to you, why you attack proponents of other "religions," etc. But there are two types of scientists (Scientists?): Those who know that they are going to be with God when they die, and those who don't. You don't have to give up science to believe in God. It's a false dichotomy. And... I apologize for agreeing that your posts were tedious. It was an emotional response and not helpful.

That still didn't come out right. I meant that I apologize for being uncomplimentary to you personally.

I'm giving myself + 1 for that false dichotomy observation. :-)

You at least have to suspend scientific reasoning when it comes to certain aspects of life, and/or cling to long-discarded theories like mind-body dualism and things like that.

Oh dear...did this get seized by religious debate? :/

We start about a kid and his vowels, and now we're arguing about a guy who I'm technically supposed to spell with the vowel ommited, G-d...

Blame yourself, you're the one who brought up creationism.

I made a passing remark about creationism being taught to some kids in homeschool A WEEK AGO...

I'd hae thought folks would have moved past that one off-the-cuff sentence by now...

*have

Putin's right, Obi, and you used the word "HELL" in your original post. :-)

Thread moved on rapidly. So I'm just going to quickly say my short line of defence and walk away.

As Draugnar said, I'm not referring to the co-opted form of creationist ID. But the ideas that are central to ID, as an actual system.

The best way I've heard it described was this.

Imagine a fractal.

The formula is created through intelligent design,
and from it a miraculous image springs, with infinite complexity. That is the expression of this first principle formula, as it develops.

Nothing against evolution, the site I linked you too earlier even discussed the compatibility between ID and evolution.

Finally Big Bang,
There are other equally valid theories. Yet so far as I can tell, everyone simply accepts the big bang. Plasma theory is another important theory, Creationism is in away another branch of the big bang (One that I think is incorrect), ID could also follow the big bang theory, as it being the idea that formed everything. If you want to teach big bang theory, as science fine. But explore also how these other ideas branch off of it, and teach plasma theory as well.

One final observation on big bang. It isn't empirical. Dark matter is something we have never been able to apprehend with any of our five senses. Its one of those things that must just be taken on faith, and observation of the macro world, searching for potential effects. Which is exactly the form of study that real ID is based on.

"There are other equally valid theories. Yet so far as I can tell, everyone simply accepts the big bang."

You say that, but once again you haven't provided one iota of support for your continued attacks on big bank. You call it hocus pocus, purely speculative, etc but yet there are reams of studies based on the standard model in which predictions are made and observations match up with predictions. That's why it is widely accepted. But people don't simply blindly accept the standard model. If science was as you claim it is then the Big Bang Theory would have never come into existence to begin with, because BBT ended up providing misinterpreted and misused by creationists to provide ammunition for their arguments.

We simply don't take the time to go down every rabbit hole you want to go down in the scientific curriculum. We do not live in this ideal world of unlimited time, unlimited resources, and pupils who will understand these 'controversies'. You've provided absolutely no criteria whatsoever for determining what fringe theories are and are not taught. From what I gather, you're basically saying there are no standards and anything goes.

"One final observation on big bang. It isn't empirical. "

It is empirical. There is a ton of empirical evidence. You simply saying it isn't doesn't make it so. Cosmic Background Radiation was observed. It matched up with the standard theory BBT model's prediction more than anyone could have imagined. The COBE provided direct empirical experiments which discovered that background radiation has a black body spectrum and fits the predicted black body spectrum perfectly. observed BBT's predictions about temperature fluctuations that were needed to create galaxies also was observed. Observations of star age conform to BBT predictions. WMAP data confirmed BBT predictions on several fronts like cosmic background radiation map's power spectrum.

And scientists have developed tests to measure dark energy.

http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1007/21dark/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0403293
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/PressRelease_03-064.html

My big bank theory is that we need better-funded, independent, government regulation. :-)