Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[Lonbjerg]

The fun part:
Rob M still denies the formation of the Moon.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know... and am not afraid to say that. Since we're still here and the earth hasn't been detroyed, I figure that those flaws aren't really flaws. . especially seeing how we have a couple of natual "vaccums" out there to take care of the big stuff.

Before we had modern man-made warning systems (telescopes etc) this earth hasn't been hit with a planet destroyer (note: one that would destroy the planet as a whole.. not just the life on it) I guess it's working fine for now.

As far as the universe coming to be is concerned, we will just have to move on from that. We have two separate... shall I say "conclusions".

Yes, but only one of our "conclusions" has any actual scientific standing behind it. Thats kind of the point, the only thing I wish to impart on you is that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive and if they ever are it is to the severe disadvantage of those that do not accept science.

As far as the earthqukes etc, I will have to look more into and present you with what I find. I can't answer that off he top.

Look it up? Where? We can not predict those things and never have been able to with any certainty. We are sort of getting good with the storms but even that is absurdly recent and nowhere near perfect.

No, I didn't.

Newton thought the exact same thing as you when he wrote it, today he would consider what he wrote foolish because what he couldn't see was solved with a bit more advanced mathematics.

Let me give you an example. Take a traffic light. It's timed to change at certain timed intervals and even cease to operate (depending on the time of night and location in my city anyway). In other words, it's there for a purpose,.. to regulate traffic, and functions as such.

I KNOW someone made that without having to be told, or seeing a crew installing it.

The universe is not a traffic light. And honestly, are you really that arrogant to assume that this, as yet to us, unknowingly vast universe was made just for us? Again, who would do such a thing? Who builds an entire zoo for a single ant farm? Does that make more "sense" to you? (actually, it would probably be closer to say who builds an entire country for a single ant)

I looked into the sky as a young boy, marveled at what I saw, and naturally concluded "gee, that's nice.... I wonder who made that". All the stars and stuff peaked my interest.

If they interest you that much you should really learn more about them. The video I linked yous author is Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson, he is an actual astrophysicist and is smarter than you, I, and any combination of 8 more ATOT members combined. He shows that not only are we among those stars that those stars are actually IN us in a very real way or as he says it "not only are we in the universe but the universe is in us".

Granted, I didn't know about the Big Bang then, but I just didn't think that stuff wasn't created by someone.

That right there is invoking god because you reached the limit of your knowledge.

I read about evolution as a youngster, and I honestly thought that it was the stupidest thing I heard was that we came from monkeys (depicted in many science text books at the time).

The Theory of Evolution has itself "evolved" a lot since you were a youngster and almost assuredly isn't done "evolving" yet as we gain more and more knowledge. With that said, don't take that as a reason to blatantly deny it because it isn't perfect. Simply be happy that as we know more we do in fact adapt what we teach.

Not believing in God has never been an option I considered. Never.

Here is the thing, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can believe that god designed the universe, that he designed all the laws of physics that allow the universe, and us, to exist. You can believe that science is simply trying to figure out the "how" god made work. On the other hand, disbelieving in science because of your belief in god is a very dangerous thing and I see absolutely nothing in our current theories, including the Theory of Evolution, that disproves the god you believe in.

This, and other experiences, attracted me to a designer.

See above. Would not this designer be intelligent enough to "design" the laws of physics that allowed planets to eventually develop in these stable orbits? Would that designer not be intelligent enough to make it so that life evolves with the ever changing planet he designed instead of simply going extinct every time something small changed (which happens quite a lot)?

It is not your belief in god that makes you distrust certain aspects of science, it is something else.

Ok, well, I can't change your view and won't try to.

I truly hope that I can at least slightly change yours though. How many great minds has this world lost because of the track that Islam took? We are talking about billions upon billions of people since the 12th century to today and very very few of those great minds ever had the chance to develop into what they could.

Non-religious folks and Atheist make up a good part of the stupid poplulation, as well. If that's not the case, every non-religious/atheists person should be biologists, chemists, or any natual/evolutionary scienctists.

I don't believe that I said anything to the contrary but if you really want to nitpick, something like 85% of the elite scientists in the world do not believe in a personal god.

The ignorant thing about what you're saying is that it's somehow a crime against humanity to raise your children in religious faith. Who are you to judge parents for doing that, or regulate what parents do with their kids?

That is not what I said nor implied at all. My entire point has been and will be that teaching them religious faith is fine and your prerogative but teaching them that science and religion are mutually exclusive WILL be greatly damaging to them. Again, I can point to historical evidence of this.

Like I've said before... you need to keep a balanced view with science. It aint the cure all for mankind's ills... especially seeing the amount of fear that's around to due nuclear capabilites because of evil scientists and murdering terrorists.

Ok... not sure where you are going with that. Are you saying we should halt progress because something bad might be developed from that progress?

The misuse of science and technology can kill more easily and more wide-spread than it could in any era nowadays.

I don't think you can blame religion for that....

I don't recall doing so but again I ask, should we simply halt progress? Go back to the dark age type of living and do nothing but read scripture all day?

 

[Darwin333]

I didn't expect you to address my post (particularly about stupid scientists) but you insinuate that I'm the dishonest.

Excuse me? I watched a movie with my daughter and figured that was more important than putting the time in to properly respond to your post, which I already had before I even read this message (thankfully as the tone might have been a bit different and I am glad it is not). I apologize if you think that getting my reply 12 hours earlier than me watching a movie with my daughter but I disagree.


I've never known a person to create an underwear bomb using a bible and a religious doctrine, or a group of Christians meet in a church devising a way to introduce their new GBU (smart bomb) to a country they hate, or religionists purify unranium or create the "Manhattan Project".
[/quote]

Neither have I. I have never known a scientist to convince a very large number of people to strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people and churchs either....

To deny this is to deny reality. As mention by Darwin, without evolution, we simply wouldn't have a nuclear age.

I agree.

I never said that and frankly it isn't true. Biology and particle science are very different areas and don't really intersect. Perhaps you can argue that some of the scientists would have died because we wouldn't have developed certain medicines but we still would have eventually figured it out.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

*regarding being taught that humans evolved from monkeys*

They indeed have changed. I didn't say I believe that NOW.. just the way it was presented to me then.

I believe you have been mislead by a preacher that knows nothing about evolution rather than by a textbook.

Either that or you are using a term you don't understand when you say monkeys. We are evolved from other apes and yes we are still taxonomically apes as are all hominids.

This is one of those things i often see when debating creationists, they have no idea what evolution is, what it entails or how it works but they cannot stop arguing that it's evidently wrong.

I do think that any creationist who opened his mind to the fact that he doesn't know everything there is to know and educated himself properly regarding evolution would cease to be a creationist. That is probably why so many refuse to learn, they suspect that if they gained knowledge they wouldn't be able to convince themselves that "we don't know so god did it, evidently".

Evolution is a fact, the Theory explains how it works but not THAT it works, that much is known from observation in real time including the birth of new species (god was not observed in the process, sorry).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I never said that and frankly it isn't true. Biology and particle science are very different areas and don't really intersect. Perhaps you can argue that some of the scientists would have died because we wouldn't have developed certain medicines but we still would have eventually figured it out.

Well, it's kinda true, without evolution we wouldn't exist at all. 😉

 

[alzan]

Don't take my word for it. Look at the "Impacts" section. Some of this is debated, though.

"Jupiter has been called the Solar System's vacuum cleaner,[114] because of its immense gravity well and location near the inner Solar System. It receives the most frequent comet impacts of the Solar System's planets"

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

It's been called the Solar System's vacuum; that's a description of one aspect of the planet. From the article "It was thought that the planet served to partially shield the inner system from cometary bombardment. Recent computer simulations suggest that Jupiter does not cause a net decrease in the number of comets that pass through the inner Solar System, as its gravity perturbs their orbits inward in roughly the same numbers that it accretes or ejects them. This topic remains controversial among astronomers, as some believe it draws comets towards Earth from the Kuiper belt while others believe that Jupiter protects Earth from the alleged Oort cloud."

They indeed have changed. I didn't say I believe that NOW.. just the way it was presented to me then.

I am not in the business to, again, tell parents how to teach their children, when to teach them, what to teach them, how to teach them... you are.

It's YOUR OPINION that's it's a crime against the child... YOUR OPINION.

No my business is not what, when or how to teach their children and I never stated it was anything but an opinion.

Let me tell you this, Al... go and tell a religious parent that teaching their child their faith is more of a crime against the child and see how well that goes for you.

Already have. Because of the way their parents introduced faith to them, they had concerns about how to handle it with their soon-to-be born son. I gave them my opinion; that they should teach their son to be ethical and let him initiate the exploration into spirituality and/or faith when he was ready. Mine was not the only opinion they sought or heard. In the end though, with minor concessions to concerned in-laws that is the way Sean was raised and I remain fast friends with him and his parents to this day.

Would it be that way with all religious parents? Nope, never said it would.

It seems to me that you're assuming that all mature adults would NOT choose religion. I guess you're either blind or in utter denial if you believe any of that.

You're assuming I meant all adults, a mistake on your part. If not indoctrinated by their parents, I would think a significantly large (20% - 38%) number of mature adults would not choose religion. Spirituality...that's a different subject.

If you're interested, I was raised in a religious home reading the Bible, and decided to leave when I became an adult becasue I really has no interest in it. It wasn't that I didn't agree with what I was learning (because I did), just wanted to do something else with my life.

My home was peaceful, and when I saw the world in general and all the stupid and selfish people, I missed what I learned growing up. So I picked up where I left off as a child, been strong and better off ever since.

When the Bible is read and properly applied, it has added a peace that I've never experienced without it.

Glad you had a good and non-destructive experience with religion growing up; doesn't turn out that way with everyone though. My home was peaceful as well, without the chains of religion.

You can only blame misuse of science on the people misusing it, and the misuse of religion on the people misusing it. 😉

And in this particular case in Louisiana there are religious people misusing both their religion and influence to get ID taught as a comparable substitute for the Theory of Evolution in science class. Only their crime doesn't affect just their child, but any child in the district.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, but only one of our "conclusions" has any actual scientific standing behind it. Thats kind of the point, the only thing I wish to impart on you is that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive and if they ever are it is to the severe disadvantage of those that do not accept science.

I don't think religion and science is either. I think RELIGION AND EVOLUTION is. But this is all moot because according to you (or science, for that matter) rejecting evolution is rejecting science. So there is no point in arguing that.

Newton thought the exact same thing as you when he wrote it, today he would consider what he wrote foolish because what he couldn't see was solved with a bit more advanced mathematics

.

...but I'm not Isaac Newton.

The universe is not a traffic light. And honestly, are you really that arrogant to assume that this, as yet to us, unknowingly vast universe was made just for us? Again, who would do such a thing? Who builds an entire zoo for a single ant farm? Does that make more "sense" to you? (actually, it would probably be closer to say who builds an entire country for a single ant)

I was using the traffic light as an anaylogy to illustrate why I believe what I believe, Darwin.

If they interest you that much you should really learn more about them. The video I linked yous author is Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson, he is an actual astrophysicist and is smarter than you, I, and any combination of 8 more ATOT members combined. He shows that not only are we among those stars that those stars are actually IN us in a very real way or as he says it "not only are we in the universe but the universe is in us".

LOL, I read about these things all the time, thank you.

Why? Because it makes me appreciate the power of God and his creative ability.

You're acting like being an astrophysicist makes what they say infallible or unquestionable. I love how you think that a person who only spends a few short years on this planet (compared to the age of the planet) has everything figured out... even stuff that preceded him by Millions of years.

Time and time again, these people have been wrong, and will continue to be.

That right there is invoking god because you reached the limit of your knowledge

.

Nope.

The Theory of Evolution has itself "evolved" a lot since you were a youngster and almost assuredly isn't done "evolving" yet as we gain more and more knowledge. With that said, don't take that as a reason to blatantly deny it because it isn't perfect. Simply be happy that as we know more we do in fact adapt what we teach

Let me ask you a theoretical question. Say evloution was disproved tomorrow, then what? That won't mean "creationism" automatically wins, though.

I can tell you one thing... evolution is right about one thing.. common ancestry. That common ancestor we come from is a human. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is the thing, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can believe that god designed the universe, that he designed all the laws of physics that allow the universe, and us, to exist. You can believe that science is simply trying to figure out the "how" god made work. On the other hand, disbelieving in science because of your belief in god is a very dangerous thing and I see absolutely nothing in our current theories, including the Theory of Evolution, that disproves the god you believe in.

I simply believe science is investigating things already in place....

See above. Would not this designer be intelligent enough to "design" the laws of physics that allowed planets to eventually develop in these stable orbits? Would that designer not be intelligent enough to make it so that life evolves with the ever changing planet he designed instead of simply going extinct every time something small changed (which happens quite a lot)?

It is not your belief in god that makes you distrust certain aspects of science, it is something else.

We simply do not know the "why's" to everything, and we don't have to know.

The issue isn't why God has done something, but why you don't understand what you're seeing. That's the issue.

You probably won't get that answer in your lifetime, or you may. It depends on how well we understand what we see.

I truly hope that I can at least slightly change yours though. How many great minds has this world lost because of the track that Islam took? We are talking about billions upon billions of people since the 12th century to today and very very few of those great minds ever had the chance to develop into what they could.

We will never know. But great minds don't always gravitate to science regardless of the reason.

I honestly think people such as yourself think that this world will be great if everyone gravitated to scientific study. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Religion isn't the only factor contributing to the lack of "great minds". Some people have little interest in science and medicine, don't have the opportunity, support, circumstance.

Some people are actually content with untilizing their minds and knowlegde talking about the Bible with others, or studying the Bible and learning about God.

I don't believe that I said anything to the contrary but if you really want to nitpick, something like 85% of the elite scientists in the world do not believe in a personal god.

and they have every right not to.

I am glad there are some that do.

That is not what I said nor implied at all. My entire point has been and will be that teaching them religious faith is fine and your prerogative but teaching them that science and religion are mutually exclusive WILL be greatly damaging to them. Again, I can point to historical evidence of this.

Like I said, you can believe in God and accept science. What you can't do is accept that we come from Adam, and that we evolved from a lifeform lower than modern man.

Ok... not sure where you are going with that. Are you saying we should halt progress because something bad might be developed from that progress?


I don't recall doing so but again I ask, should we simply halt progress? Go back to the dark age type of living and do nothing but read scripture all day?

Nope. Not what I want.

I simply want to make the distinction between something being bad, and something being USED for bad.

 

[Retro Rob]

Neither have I. I have never known a scientist to convince a very large number of people to strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people and churchs either....

Scientists made the bombs they used.....

😛

I get what you're saying,... just had to say that...

 

[Lonbjerg]

Scientists made the bombs they used.....

😛

I get what you're saying,... just had to say that...

...but religiousfucktards strap them on and blow them up...in the name of religion....not science.

Or kill doctors...in the name of "god".

If a hammer is used to kill someone...that dosn't mean the hamer is a bad tool...or shouldn't have been invented.

But then again...since you are a daft lair...this won't mean anything to you now will it?

 

[Retro Rob]

I believe you have been mislead by a preacher that knows nothing about evolution rather than by a textbook.

JohnofSheff-tard, I see your reading skills haven't improved since the last time we talked....

 

[Retro Rob]

...but religiousfucktards strap them on and blow them up...in the name of religion....not science.

You're right and I totally agree.

I've never strapped a bomb to myself... niether has anyone I know... neither anyone associated with the religion I belong to. EVER!

So what does that mean? That not every religion is the same. You did know that, right?

or if you decide to remain in your bigoted darkness, your bigotry will always be bigoted, and it will take an unbigoted bigot to unbigot your bigotry.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Funny thing about creationists? Even if they can somehow disprove the nigh-impossible stumbling block of evolution, they still can't prove the creator is THEIR god instead of countless other imaginary beings.

 

[Darwin333]

And in this particular case in Louisiana there are religious people misusing both their religion and influence to get ID taught as a comparable substitute for the Theory of Evolution in science class. Only their crime doesn't affect just their child, but any child in the district.

Naw, this isn't about ID being taught in public schools. Its about a type of voucher program that was setup that allows state money to go to private schools. A few of which teach batshit crazy stuff like in the OP but the parents do choose for their child to be sent to said batshit crazy school. There is a huge difference imo. I would like to give the voucher system more time to work before I make any conclusions but I would like to see some sort of minimum requirements instituted in order for a school to be able to receive money (frankly, my rule would be very simple "no batshit crazy stuff and yes we are talking about ID in science class".

Like I said earlier in the thread, despite my personal lack of belief I send both of my children to a Catholic school. At their catholic school they are taught evolution in science class and they leave the bible and its stories for religion class which is acceptable to me. The "why" I send my child to a Catholic school is a discussion for a different thread but, imho, I can't in good conscience make any other choice.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't think religion and science is either. I think RELIGION AND EVOLUTION is. But this is all moot because according to you (or science, for that matter) rejecting evolution is rejecting science. So there is no point in arguing that.

Rejecting a proven concept purely for religious reasons IS rejecting science for religion. Why is it you "believe" (not the right word in science but I can't think of a better one) other scientific theories but not evolution?

...but I'm not Isaac Newton.

Lol, no you are obviously not.

I was using the traffic light as an anaylogy to illustrate why I believe what I believe, Darwin.

Ok....

LOL, I read about these things all the time, thank you.

Why? Because it makes me appreciate the power of God and his creative ability.

Thats great but exactly why can't evolution be one of those powers and his creative ability? Exactly what would be more "creative" than creating creatures so perfect that they can actually evolve to adapt to their changing habitats?

You're acting like being an astrophysicist makes what they say infallible or unquestionable. I love how you think that a person who only spends a few short years on this planet (compared to the age of the planet) has everything figured out... even stuff that preceded him by Millions of years.

Time and time again, these people have been wrong, and will continue to be.

No I am not and they are supposed to be proven wrong time and time again. That is the entire point of science. When someone comes up with a new theory they will often spend a large part of their lives trying to disprove their own theory. That is the great thing about science, when the information or our knowledge changes so does the science. It isn't simply ignored because we don't want to mess with the current "thinking".

With that said, I am not sure about all astrophysicists but I do like Neil a lot. It probably has much more to do with his ability to deliver his message and the fact that you almost can't help but get excited about the subject when you listen to him. Perhaps you could readdress that paragraph on your next reply without spending your entire reply talking about something I did not mean to imply?

Nope.

Oh come on, at least be honest about what you are doing. When you say "I don't know why it is that way so someone must have created it or its to complicated for me (or anyone else) to figure out so it must have been created and put there specifically by the creator" you are invoking god. Period.

Let me ask you a theoretical question. Say evloution was disproved tomorrow, then what? That won't mean "creationism" automatically wins, though.

Then we move on to the next theory, thats the way science works. And of course creationism wouldn't win unless there was actual physical proof and observations to back it up using the scientific method.

However, we know that evolution happens. We have observed it happening in a lab with reproducible results. Its the entire reason you need a new flu shot every year. Its the reason that we now have bacteria that are resistant to most of our drugs. We have observed all of this in the real world. There is absolutely no question that it is in fact happening.

I can tell you one thing... evolution is right about one thing.. common ancestry. That common ancestor we come from is a human. Nothing more, nothing less.

You know what, throw out the "human" part of evolution. Do you still irrationally disagree with the rest of the Theory of Evolution? Pretend it doesn't address humans at all.

I simply believe science is investigating things already in place....

Of course it is, we are trying to figure out why things happen the way they do and what happened to make it that way etc... No one "invented" the atom, it was always there, we just discovered how to observe it and that advanced our understanding of how things worked.

We simply do not know the "why's" to everything, and we don't have to know.

So we should stop trying to figure it out? Is that what you truly think? Let me ask you something, why would god give us the intelligence to actually figure out how the universe works if he didn't want us to use it?

The issue isn't why God has done something, but why you don't understand what you're seeing. That's the issue.

Of course....

You probably won't get that answer in your lifetime, or you may. It depends on how well we understand what we see.

I understand it perfectly well thank you.

We will never know. But great minds don't always gravitate to science regardless of the reason.

Nor should they. I hold our great philosophers and other great minds in the exact same regard. They are equally as important.

I honestly think people such as yourself think that this world will be great if everyone gravitated to scientific study. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Not in the slightest, see above.

I think that even you would admit that Islam going from what it once was to what it is today and never recovering even for a while in between is not a good thing at all.

Religion isn't the only factor contributing to the lack of "great minds". Some people have little interest in science and medicine, don't have the opportunity, support, circumstance.

Some people are actually content with untilizing their minds and knowledge talking about the Bible with others, or studying the Bible and learning about God.

That is absolutely fine with but when your religion excludes you from the discussion entirely, thats when I have an issue. People can gravitate to wherever they want but its about them having a choice in the matter instead of being taught to reject it outright.

and they have every right not to.

I am glad there are some that do.

As am I.

Like I said, you can believe in God and accept science. What you can't do is accept that we come from Adam, and that we evolved from a lifeform lower than modern man.

Why not? How do you circumvent the fact that we have had other species of humanoids on this planet that have died off? Did they come from Adam too?

Nope. Not what I want.

I simply want to make the distinction between something being bad, and something being USED for bad.

Agreed.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

JohnofSheff-tard, I see your reading skills haven't improved since the last time we talked....

Oh i read what you said properly but i don't believe you.

Now show me the textbook in question, my bet is still that you got the apes - monkey thing wrong because you don't know the difference.

 

[randomrogue]

I am slightly curious. Why discuss this with RobM? He's dumb as a rock. There's no way you would even talk to him in real life. We'd all just shake our heads and walk away. What motivates everyone to try to get through to someone as useless as him here?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I am slightly curious. Why discuss this with RobM? He's dumb as a rock. There's no way you would even talk to him in real life. We'd all just shake our heads and walk away. What motivates everyone to try to get through to someone as useless as him here?

Sometimes it's fun to play "poke the retard", that's all.. 😀

But you're right that i wouldn't have this discussion IRL.

 

[Paul98]

So what parts of the Theory of Evolution do you not believe?

 

[Darwin333]

Scientists made the bombs they used.....

😛

I get what you're saying,... just had to say that...

Shrug, I guess you can say that but most of those bombs are made from rather basic chemistry. Are you implying we would be better off without basic knowledge of chemistry because religious nutjobs wouldn't be able to make bombs with said knowledge?

 

[Darwin333]

I am slightly curious. Why discuss this with RobM? He's dumb as a rock. There's no way you would even talk to him in real life. We'd all just shake our heads and walk away. What motivates everyone to try to get through to someone as useless as him here?

The very small hope that I might get through even in the slightest and perhaps improve his, and more importantly his kids, future abilities should they desire to use them.

Sort of like giving your change to the red cross people outside of a grocery store. It won't do much good but perhaps it will do something.

 

[Darwin333]

So what parts of the Theory of Evolution do you not believe?

It appears that his big hangup is the idea that modern man started out as anything but modern man in the way we are right now....

Not sure how he feels about animal evolution or even bacterial evolution, which he could quite literally observe in a laboratory if he so desired.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rejecting a proven concept purely for religious reasons IS rejecting science for religion. Why is it you "believe" (not the right word in science but I can't think of a better one) other scientific theories but not evolution?

Purely for religious reasons? No, my friend. Biblical reasons, yes.

Lol, no you are obviously not.

Sure, we're two totally different men, with different upbringings, that lived in different times.

Thats great but exactly why can't evolution be one of those powers and his creative ability? Exactly what would be more "creative" than creating creatures so perfect that they can actually evolve to adapt to their changing habitats?

Genesis chapter 1 states he created humans independant of animals, and that each animal was created "according to it's kind". Evolution has no Biblical support whatsoever.

No I am not and they are supposed to be proven wrong time and time again. That is the entire point of science. When someone comes up with a new theory they will often spend a large part of their lives trying to disprove their own theory. That is the great thing about science, when the information or our knowledge changes so does the science. It isn't simply ignored because we don't want to mess with the current "thinking".

Then why does science deal with "fact" then? that's ok with me if they understand something more than they did yesterday, for instance, but changing "facts" seem to suggest you had no idea what your were talking about to begin with... and if for instance, evolution is disproven tomorrow, then it wasn't fact.

I would say it would be best to leave the word "fact" out of science period.

Oh come on, at least be honest about what you are doing. When you say "I don't know why it is that way so someone must have created it or its to complicated for me (or anyone else) to figure out so it must have been created and put there specifically by the creator" you are invoking god. Period

I was being honest,.. you just don't want to accept that

You know what, throw out the "human" part of evolution. Do you still irrationally disagree with the rest of the Theory of Evolution? Pretend it doesn't address humans at all.

As I stated, it doesn't have any Biblical support no more than a Creator has scientifc support.

Of course it is, we are trying to figure out why things happen the way they do and what happened to make it that way etc... No one "invented" the atom, it was always there, we just discovered how to observe it and that advanced our understanding of how things worked.

That's fine. I have no issue with that.

So we should stop trying to figure it out? Is that what you truly think? Let me ask you something, why would god give us the intelligence to actually figure out how the universe works if he didn't want us to use it?

I was speaking about God's motives. Like when you asked why would he do what you just asked. I don't know his motives behind everything He did/does, and probably won't ever know.

The thing about "faith" is trusting that He knows what he's doing and not "questioning" his motives behind everything he's doing. I know I used to ask my parents "why" all the time, until I did it, and saw "why"..

That's what we have to do sometimes.

I think that even you would admit that Islam going from what it once was to what it is today and never recovering even for a while in between is not a good thing at all.

I agree Islam is one of the worst things ever to happen to this world, personally.

They're upset that they've lost the trust and control of the West.

That is absolutely fine with but when your religion excludes you from the discussion entirely, thats when I have an issue. People can gravitate to wherever they want but its about them having a choice in the matter instead of being taught to reject it outright.

religion doesn't exclude me from anything. It boils down to this, you either trust in God, or you don't.

You can't half way do it by saying "God used evolution to create us" when there is NO Biblical support for that. Show me anywhere in the Bible where it even suggests that God somehow caused a single ancestor to produce ALL life as we know it.

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

 

[Carfax83]

Rejecting a proven concept purely for religious reasons IS rejecting science for religion. Why is it you "believe" (not the right word in science but I can't think of a better one) other scientific theories but not evolution?.

Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but the theory of evolution is far from proven..

There are several issues with the theory of evolution, most notably, the "small, successive, slight changes over long periods of time" due to random mutation issue that is now been seen to be incorrect due to the discovery of epigenetics.

Apparently, organisms have the capability to respond immediately to environmental pressure with dramatic speed. This form of adaptation is NOT divorced from need either (so it's not random), but specifically addresses particular environmental stresses..

How can a supposedly unintelligent and random process account for something like that?

Also, the theory of evolution cannot account for the massive increase in information necessary for saltation to occur. Random mutation in and of itself cannot produce the vast increases in information necessary to explain the current biosphere.

You cannot have life without information, and no random or chaotic process has ever been shown to be capable of creating the highly ordered, complex and specific information found within the genetic code.

 

[randomrogue]

Are you copying that from another source or do you actually understand what you're talking about? If you do understand it can you please elaborate?

 

[SagaLore]

Im going to cautiously say Im not seeing a problem with this. If you read the entire link it explains both sides...which I dont have a problem with.

Except that it isn't just "explaining" both sides, it is implying which side is correct:

Understanding what view a writer has is important. The Bible says that Christians should be discerning. That means that Christians should understand what is right and wrong.