I think people who don't accept the theory of evolution were either poorly taught and indoctrinated or are stubborn and close minded. Or both. Do you think I am intolerant or close minded myself because of that?

Comments

• 6 pts... Thats cause your momma raised you right!

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on September 28th, 2008

• Evolution is like a religion. It requires belief in an idea.

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on October 2nd, 2008

• Most non religious practices and ideologies are just like religions... Go figure. I call that; "Out of the frying pan and into the fire."

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• You can also justify murdering someone because you 'believe so and so'. Doesnt add up. The thing that your believing in has to have some sense.

  • Report
  

  by Gonzo on October 2nd, 2008

• Exactly... hence the debates on my other question on that DVD that is being sent out called Obsession about the middle Eastern Jihadists.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• Evolution is NOT similar to a religion at all. It has evidence. So no need for faith, one just needst to be rational and accept the evidence. 4 and 3 equals seven, no matter if I believe in it or not.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 2nd, 2008

• It's like saying you have to believe that the sky is blue. There's a difference between Fact & Faith.

  • Report
  

  by Gonzo on October 2nd, 2008

• Religion has evidence as well.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• As does theology.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• Im tired of talking to people today. I just basically got kicked in my teeth by another AB'er and Im not in the mood to go on about very much of anything really.
  
  Im a little over this place today actually.
  
  Good luck to you in whatever you believe... or dont.
  
  im outta dodge.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• Religion has no evidence appart from an age old fairy tale passed down from 1000's of years ago by a bunch of supersitious, unkowing, unscientific people who didnt know anything better to believe in.

  • Report
  

  by Gonzo on October 2nd, 2008

Comments

• and that comment shows you to be close minded...unless you can show proof that evolution is incorrect.

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 28th, 2008

• I never said I wasn't. And it IS incorrect because the Bible IS truth, like it or not.

  • Report
  

  by bowlermommy07 on September 28th, 2008

• OK then, where in the Bible does it state that evolution has never happened? you don't need to quote, just give the scripture and I have mine handy so I can look it up.

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 28th, 2008

• Try Genesis 1.

  • Report
  

  by bowlermommy07 on September 28th, 2008

• don't even have to look it up..."In the begining, God created the Heavens and the Earth..."
  OK...forgive me for not seeing anything that says "God says no such thing as evolution".
  you want to try again?

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 28th, 2008

• Why should I? People like you are not even worth my time. I'm right, that's it.

  • Report
  

  by bowlermommy07 on September 28th, 2008

• what do you mean "people like" me?
  open minded, well educated, polite christians?
  and as your your "Why should I?" question, I think it is because the Bible tells you to witness, and here is a great opportunity for you to do so, yet you don't seem to want to do the Christian thing....that's OK, just ask Jesus to grant you more strength next time you are given the chance to spread his word.

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 28th, 2008

• great, you´re an example of all the four things I mentioned. Do you kill your neighbors if the work on the sabbath?
  .
  @cobber, I´m always glad to see that not all Christians are ignorant and stubborn.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on September 29th, 2008

• 773491 - Most are not....the same as MOST non-christians are not. it is sad that the loudest voices are often the least knowledgeable.
  it is funny how most religions teach to be tolerant of others, but many of their followers choose to ingore those teaching and focus on other things.

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 29th, 2008

• And besides, you can't call yourself a christian and accept evolution. You either believe all of the bible or none of it. If you don't believe Genesis, how can you believe any of it because it is all based on Genesis? Do the world a favor. STOP CALLING YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN.

  • Report
  

  by bowlermommy07 on September 29th, 2008

• Jeez, this is what ´blind faith´ (okay that was a redundant term) does to people. If one would take you seriously, then you just managed to empirically disprove Christianity. Way to go! How can you base your entire life on a book that´s obviously wrong in at least a few instances? And not just that, you´re so sure about it that you condemn others.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on September 29th, 2008

• There are millions of Muslims who are convinced that their religion is true. Some kill others for their faith. (And if Christians really did take the Bible literally, they would too). There are also millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, all of them are equally convinced. And none of them have evidence. Science is backed by evidence, how can you deny the nature of the material world itself? If god existed, he would have given you the ability to think rationally, wouldn´t he?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on September 29th, 2008

• I believe the Bible (if you notice, I capitalize it), and I believe the Book of Genesis. I am asking you to tell me where it says "God says evolution is untrue"?
  If God is capable of anything, why would you say that he is not capable of creating evolution?
  And on anther side note: who are you to tell me that I am not a Christian? Who are you to judge? Does the Bible not say that God is the only one to judge and that we are all suppose to be tolerant and loving of each other? Do you not remeber Jesus saying "May he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
  if you truely are trying to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord, then don't be such a prick.

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 29th, 2008

• It's NOT obviously wrong. You are obviously dumber than you think you are.

  • Report
  

  by bowlermommy07 on September 29th, 2008

• The account of Genesis is obviously wrong. Even if you try to take it symbolically, it doesn´t fit.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on September 29th, 2008

• I am thinking rationally. You are the idiot and on the day of the judgement, that will be seen and you will be in hell.

  • Report
  

  by bowlermommy07 on September 29th, 2008

• To quote Captain Jack Sparrow: "Thats not very nice!"

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on September 29th, 2008

• To quote a good friend of mine "Build a bridge and get over it."

  • Report
  

  by bowlermommy07 on September 29th, 2008

• bowler
  I'll quote a friend of mind "Love thy neighbor as thyslelf". maybe you should try to listen to that friend of mine.
  by the way....I'm still waiting for you to point out where in Genesis it says that evolution is untrue.

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 29th, 2008

• look around dude, we're already in hell. creation in the bible is rational? not if you take it literally

  • Report
  

  by Seraphim Shinobi on September 29th, 2008

• How the hell did this answer get 12 points? It´s sick!

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on September 30th, 2008

• theres more than one person with his view! lol

  • Report
  

  by Seraphim Shinobi on September 30th, 2008

• still waiting on bowler to answer where in Genisis it says that the theory of evolution is incorrect.
  bowler? you still out there? I'm giving you a platform to preach from.

  • Report
  

  by cobber on September 30th, 2008

• nownow, we cant go saying the theory of evolution is incorrect, there are many scientific studies that support it. But the bible has only a ver few if any.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on December 3rd, 2008

• and btw, in genises it says that god mad the cratures of the land and sea and so on, but many of those who've studied the bible agree that it states that the world began about 6000 years ago, but evolution takes millions of years. Also by the time god created the animals, the "day" had been established, so there was roughly 2 days to make the animals, the animals wouldn't have evolved in the next few days of genises.

  • Report
  

  by XOXMSperfect on December 3rd, 2008

Comments

• thanks for your answer. Note that there is a difference between Evolution (always meant for the biological theory (scientific theory which means proven) of Evolution) and "something from nothing" theory which would be totally atheistic. The majority of the Chrisitians believe in evolution, but they call it 'theistic evolution', they say that god uses evolution as a tool. And there is no missing link whatsoever, I have written a summary, if you are interested I recommend you to read about how evolution really works. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/777857

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• Thank you too. Yeah, that is sort of what I believe, regarding God using evo. as a tool. I just don't think everything evolved, certainly not man. I am currently taking a course regarding Evolution www.truthproject.com (of course it is a Christian world view course because I am a Christian) so I will check that out too, thank you.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• Evolution says that every life form evolved from an ancestor 3.5 billion years ago. How this first primitive life form originated, is not known yet. Scientists work on the hypothesis of Abiogenesis, which says that the first organism originated by change, but then, evolution took off and gave us the whole diversity of life. Evolution is proven, including the descent of man, Abiogenesis is just a hypothesis. Some people believe god created the first organism(and DNA), and 'knew what would happen', so he used evolution.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• I read the link you gave me, and it sounds kind of fundamentalistic to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I just want to encourage you to question what they say. There is nothing wrong with watching this programe, some things may be valuable, but the fact that it calls evolution not proven made me suspicious. I am atheist, but I totally accept Christians and have many good friends among them. The concept of faith without evidence is not what I would do, but I accept it. But I have problems with people who believe 'against evidence'.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• Me too; the evidence for God is all around us. The "ancestor" whose origins we "don't know yet". At some point, it either has to be spontaneous generation, or intelligent design. I choose intelligent design. I think Carl Sagan said something like, spontaneous generation seems impossible, yet I believe it. I choose to believe what God says in His word, even though that seems impossible. At some point life had to originate somewhere. I'll take the truth of God over the speculation of man (humanity) any day; even if I don't understand it all.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• Sharks clean up the oceans and help balance the eco system. I don't think are random because we have a capacity for doing things wrong, against the grain of our environment. Every living thing on the planet does its job without harming its environment, except for man. Where did that capacity for wrong doing come from?
  
  I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion, I just love this type of open, frank discussion which most people are afraid to go to. I am really enjoying this.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• I also appreciate your openness. The term evolution is often misused to stand for an atheistic world view. This is wrong, it applies only for the diversity of life. You are right with saying that at some point it is either spontaneous generation or design. However, the term Intelligent Design is often used to explain diversity and apparent design in nature, and this meaning is frankly wrong. I personally believe it was spontaneous, because I can't accept the explanation of god being always there and out of time and that stuff, I would always ask, "where did god come from?".

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• "where did the capacity of wrong doing come from" Humans are unique among all the animals. We are as 'valid' as every other animal, since all animals evolved over the same period of time. Some animals are extremely fast, others have 'radar' like bats, some have amazing eyes, some fly etc. But humans have something that has only happened once, we have consciousness. This elevates us from natural selection, we don't have to fight for survival every day. Our knowledge gives us the oppurtunity to change nature. This is for the good (we can give money to poor people and help sick people with medicine) and for the bad (pollution, carelessnes which leads to extinctions of species). The wrong doing came in because we are so intelligent that we managed to 'control nature' at least to some extent.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• well that isn't really 'intelligent', but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• Thats what I mean (I do get what you are trying to say), but why would the most intelligent beings on the planet have sex with children or torture people. Some people on this planet do have to struggle for survival everyday, hide from vicious warlord's cronies, watch as their children are dismembered. I could go on.
  
  I don't see that we control nature at all. We can predict storm patterns, but we cannot control nature.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• I wanted to add the question: why are we unique and how did we become unique. If that is so great, why do humans do the horrific things they do to one another. It doesn't make sense. Natural selection should have eliminated us long ago. We are a cancer on the planet when you think of it (so to speak).

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• And I just can't believe that something came from nothing, as much as you can't accept the explanation that God was always there. The universe is apprarently still expanding and that blows my mind. Expanding from what? Boggles the mind, no matter what you believe: God or evolution. If something came from nothing... where did the nothing come from? Now we sound like stoned musicians. Something Pink Floyd would write!!! LOL

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• "but why would the most intelligent beings on the planet have sex with children or torture people." There something wrong with them, but I don't see how this arguments supports god. Maybe you're referring to the devil our the 'sinful nature of mankind', but I'd say this is nature, in case of pedophile there are disorders (don't mix it up with homosexuals, they are okay because they don't rape, and there both people love each other). And in 'sins' like stealing, it is often out of greed or selfishness, often seen in nature anyways. The question would more be "Why are we good?", but I think I have a good answer for that too.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• "I wanted to add the question: why are we unique and how did we become unique." Chimpanzess are pretty similar to humans, they can use tools for getting food for example. Yet, there still is a huge gap, something happened in the 6 million years of separation of the lineages. There are many theories how it happened, but the answer to the question 'why' would be just accidentally. Of course brain capacity is favoured by natural selection, and animals tended to become smarter and more complex, but fact is we are the only beings capable of having discussions like this one :D .

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• "Natural selection should have eliminated us long ago." Natural selection has no foresight. We are probably (it's so sad) going to destroy this planet. But natural selection favoured over the past millions of years the organism which are best at surviving and reproducing, and we are quite good at this, as is every other living species, otherwise it would be extinct.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• "Boggles the mind, no matter what you believe: God or evolution." Please stop using the word evolution in this sense, one can believe in god and evolution. But I see what you mean, the reason why I don't believe in god is because I would ask 'where did god come from?' In order to create the universe, he would have to be even more complex than it, and this just complicates the matter. And also, it seems kind of arrogant to me to put humans in the center of the universe, the universe is soooo big, and sooooo old, why should we be the crown of it?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• I'm just incredibly happy to be part of it, to be conscious in the twenty first century here on earth. I don't believe in an afterlife, but the life here is more than I could ever dream of. That's why I am enjoying it, try to be good, have friends, laugh, love and live my life. Christians do pretty much the same thing, there is so much more to a person than just what the person believes in. When I was a Christian, I could never accept the fact that apparently all the other kind people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, atheists etc. (I had many friends from other religions and I travelled a lot as a child) would go to hell and be punished forever for just not believing in god/Jesus.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 8th, 2008

• I absolutely don't believe that homosexuals are pedophiles. Let me get that straight. I also don't believe that gay men want to have sex 24 hours a day, with anyone that comes along either. I do have an issue with blatant lewd sexuality in public, whether it is gay or heterosexual. There certainly is something wrong with them, but where did that urge to do that come from? If there is no God, there is no evil either; but that doesn't make sense, because you just have to open a newspaper.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• I don't believe we will destroy this planet. The only thing wrong with this planet is the wrong doing of humans. For the record, I do believe in a partial evolution of some things, just no man, so forgive the God or Evo. thing, I was just trying to make a point. I think you are assuming that I am a cardboard Christian. I have a hard time with what you had a hard time with as a Christian. I still believe that Jews are God's chosen people and that the nations are blessed because of them. I also have friends from other religions, including Catholicism, which I am not and have some major issues with.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• Contrary to some Christian teachings, I am happy not to like or agree with all that is in the Bible. I am happy that God loves me and that He gave Jesus and in Him, I put my trust. The other is just what we are doing here. Discussion. I don't mean to anger you, but please don't assume I am onesided with any particular version of Christianity. I have sort of created my own I guess.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• The homosexual thing and evolution I am totally on the fence with and don't understand it all. Most fundamentalists Christians will tell you that I am wrong to be, but that is not what makes me a Christian. My faith in Christ makes me a Christian. I just know that my life has completely changed for the better since I turned my life over to Him.

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• Sorry I didn't respond here. I accept your views because you show an interest and curiosity to understand which is very good. Thanks for the discussion.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 18th, 2009

Comments

• good point, very stupid of me to write 'theory'. Of course I meant scientific theory!

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• theory still being the key word. meaning not proven.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on June 12th, 2008

• Sorry cletusj, but the religious have no "theory" that justifies them having equal time. Only faith in the unknown and untestable. Read up on what "theory" means in the scientific world!

  • Report
  

  by Phil in the Blank...backandtotheleft on June 12th, 2008

• for the one hundred and first time, scientific theories are proven many times and have "survived" people who tried to disprove them for decades.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• No, they are theories, because they are unproven. They are scientific FACT when they are, not a theory.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on June 12th, 2008

• is it the fact of gravity or the theory of gravity? Is it the fact of relativity or the theory of relativity? Doesn't matter, it is a fact that e=mc^2 and it is a fact that an apple and a feather fall to the ground at the same time, when in a vacuum. It is also a fact that all life on earth has a common ancestor about 3.5 billion years ago. The term used in science is theory, accept it. What you are referring to would be a hypothesis.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• I didn't come from a monkey, or whatever that "theory" states. I do believe some animals evolve, but I don't believe they change species

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on June 12th, 2008

• no you didn't come from a monkey, and the fact that you say "or whatever that "theory" states" just indicates that you haven't been taught it properly. (Good for you, so there is a chance that you aren't stubborn and close minded). Okay this really isn't supposed to sound offensive. You had the same ancestor as a chimpanzee. That ancestor lived six million years ago, and it was about your 250'000 times great grand father. Since then, your ancestors had six million years to evolve separately, so there is a little difference between you and a chimpanzee.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• i thought evolution said we came from tadpoles and had tails and evolved to monkeys then to humans

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on June 12th, 2008

• what is a tadpole? Sorry my native language isn't English, I just don't know what that means. What does it look like?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• okay I found a picture. They turn into frogs right? Wonderful analogy by the way, you can't believe that species turn into other species, but you obviously believe that tadpoles turn into frogs... Interesting. It's similar with evolution, but evolution has no goal. An organism is not programmed to become another organism. But it happens through natural selection. Assume a population of antelope-like animals. They get separated from the rest of antelope-like animals and find themself in a region whit few grass and high trees.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• now the grass gets eaten, and the individuals try to reach the leafs from the trees. The individuals with the taller necks reach more leaves and are therefore more likely to survive and reproduce. Now heredity, tall parents are likely to have tall children. Of course there are many exceptions. But the surviving animals with long necks generally have children with long necks too. And because the ones with short necks die more often, the necks of these animals become longer. This doesn't happen in a few generations, no, it needs millions of years. But this is i.e. how the giraffa evolved from an antelope-like animal.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

Comments

• I'm downrated, even though the author of the question evens says:
  "people who don't accept the THEORY of evolution..." It's called a THEORY for a reason.

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on October 2nd, 2008

• "An idea, yet unproven" is called a hypothesis, not theory. In scientific terms, a theory is an explanation that has been proven correct. The confusion arises because the casual, lay-man use of 'theory' equates more with 'hypothesis' than what is meant by the term.

  • Report
  

  by Carwash on February 9th, 2009

• Gravity is also considered a theory.
  
  Why don't you step off of a tall building, since, after all, it is only a theory. ;)

  • Report
  

  by Squeak on February 9th, 2009

• LOL. I guess I have a hard time accepting a 150 year old theory when advances in technology TODAY are pointing to an intelligent designer. I find it funny science will never say they are wrong. They always fall back on "we are NOW finding out, through advances in the field, that it actually works this way, not that way."

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on February 9th, 2009

• a) None of which is actually relevant to your points, or our responses. Your evasion says a lot. b) Journalism of science is poor, and reports do say the sort of thing you quote. That's not how it works in scientific journals or discourse, though, where things are disproven as part of the process.

  • Report
  

  by Carwash on February 9th, 2009

• Um, 40ish, a few cents thrown in:
  
  What evidence has ever pointed to creationism?
  
  Science always admits it was wrong about things, that's the strength of science. When we learn something new, the old ideas are either modified or done away with, (just like spontaneous generation/creationism). I know several scientists who admit they were wrong about their hypothesis all the time, the most memorable was one who had worked on an idea for 10 years. He was sitting in the audience when a young scientist reported on a finding that blew his research away with one fell swoop. The old man stood up and shook the young researcher's hand, and said, my boy, thank you for showing me where I was wrong all these years. It sounds like you might not know enough scientists personally.
  
  And even saying "we are NOW finding out, through advances in the field, that it actually works this way, not that way." IS admitting that they were wrong. That's the mark of logic and sanity, unlike dogma.

  • Report
  

  by Squeak on February 10th, 2009

Comments

• okay I have to accept this, but here the thing: There simply are things that are right, and things that are wrong. Now evolution happened for a fact. If every opinion was worth as much as every other, we couldn´t argue with each other, and we would have never walked on the moon.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 2nd, 2008

• How do you know for sure that we have walked on the moon? And how do you know for a fact that Jesus Christ never actually walked the earth?
  
  There was literal mention of his life and times recently excavated and taken from the walls of a tomb in an Egyptian Pyramid. I believe they use things like that as proof... No?

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• I mean things that can actually be carbon dated back to the time he actually lived?

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• I don´t know for sure whether Jesus walked on the earth, and I´m not claiming anyway. What I´m saying is that I know for sure that evolution happened. Let me define sure: Science isn´t mathematics, therefore, there is no absolute proof. HOWEVER, there is statistics. Every pattern could be the result of an accident. The odds that the evidence for evolution are accidents are about one to many times the number of atoms in the universe. This is why I can say with confidence that it happened.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 2nd, 2008

• And concerning the moon, satellites (not American ones) took pictures from the American flag. It is very improbable that it didn´t happen, altough it is a billion billion times more likely to be wrong than evolution.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 2nd, 2008

• Well I brought that up as a literal contrast between space exploration on the one hand VS Jesus on the other hand.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• I simply tend to want to believe in the scientific premise behind the fact that there is a universal intelligence that even though science has not named yet (Not unlike the Jews still waiting for Elijah to return and setting him an absent place at the sader.) That they will, and that in doing so they too will discover that its name is "The Great I am." or God... I believe in both and in the fact that they are indeed copacetic

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• You can believe that, and there is no proof that contradicts your belief. I personally think ´why believe it if there is no evidence´, but this is just my opinion. But what I´m more concerned about is evolution, and there is proof that contradicts direct creationism.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 2nd, 2008

• or down rating the answers! LOL!

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on October 2nd, 2008

• Not too long ago in history terms, scientists declared the earth was flat. They believed this for HUNDREDS of years. They were wrong. Could they be wrong about evolution too?

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on October 2nd, 2008

• I dont downrate anything... EVER! I hope that wasn't directed at me?

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• I just gave this question 6 pts.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• Nope, it was in addition to your "either by force, insult or degrading them"...down rating is the way they insult those on this site who don't agree with them. (was not directed at you)

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on October 2nd, 2008

• Oh okay... I get confused with that nonsence sometimes because I dont participate and sometimes it comes across as possibly accusatory because it is annonymous.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 2nd, 2008

• technically yes, they could, but actually, the odds against it are many the the number of atoms in the universe to one. People thought the earth was flat because the didn´t see the curve. They didn´t prove it scientifically. Evolution has so much evidence that it is proven beyond any doubt.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 14th, 2008

• Not true at all and the most knowledgable scientists will not agree with that statement completely as a blanket statement covering everything on the subject there are loads of holes in that blanket. It is not "proven beyond any doubt" as not much of anything is.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 16th, 2008

• what kind of world do you live in? There are quite a few things that we can consider ´proven BARD´, and evolution is one of them.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 16th, 2008

• No it is not. People just like to believe that they corner the market on the intelligence concerning everything when all we have at best is grasping at straws and incomplete pieces of much greater puzzles that unfold before our eyes every day and we ammend them and say... "Oops, I didn't see that string theory and What? I hadn't noticed that species of butterfly."

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 16th, 2008

• I don´t say we know everything about every animal or plant or whatever. But we know that every animal on earth evolved from a shared ancestor.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 16th, 2008

• On that we have to agree. But that is not by any means the whole of evolution nor the end. Im not saying that I dont believe in it either. I just see it from a different place thats all.

  • Report
  

  by Go know thyself is THE RED QUEEN on October 16th, 2008

Comments

• "You may be a little intolerant for thinking Creationists are "poorly taught", remember that Darwin (the father of evolution) was himself a religious man."
  
  Yes he was at first, but he wasn't a creationist, as you said, he is the father of evolution. And evolution does not say that there is nothing after death, it just says that after the first organism on earth was formed (however that happened, abiogenesis or god), this organism EVOLVED into all the species on earth.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 23rd, 2008

• What is abiogenesis?

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on July 8th, 2008

• The scientific hypothesis (that means 'educated guess', but not proved yet, if it becomes proved by dozens of experiments and holds up against people trying to refute it over many years, it might eventually become a thery like evolution, but it might also turn out to be wrong) of how the first replicating organism happened to occur on earth. Evolution is based on heredity, and before a replicating organism, it can't work. So abiogenesis would be the hypothesis that says that the first organism formed naturally on the primeval earth without intervention of god.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 9th, 2008

Comments

• You misunderstood, I just said people are stubborn and close minded if they don't accept Evolution. If they accept it, but still believe in God as trigger, I have no problems accepting it. I just don't like people who belive AGAINST clear evidence.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• I retract my first statement, then. ;-)

  • Report
  

  by BigDaddyBS on June 12th, 2008

• i agree with you Bigdaddy, i believe in evolution but i belive it was started by God because i believe God is Everything, the entire universe is God.

  • Report
  

  by Seraphim Shinobi on September 29th, 2008

• Clear evidence? Where? The fossil record doesn't show it. It shows extinction, not evolution. And would it be close minded for you to discount the "results" of miracles? Those have been documented- even by sceptics who have no use for religion.

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on October 2nd, 2008

• Here is my summary of all the clear evidence: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3929121

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 2nd, 2008

• Got another of those "close-minded and stubborn" DRers. (Or they don't read through the comments to see that I retracted my statement about YOUR being close-minded and stubborn! LOL)

  • Report
  

  by BigDaddyBS on December 3rd, 2008

• They got me too. I thought our answers were very diplomatic.

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on December 4th, 2008

• It doesn't really matter to those "close minded" people. If you disagree with them, they zap (DR) you, belying what most people on this site say - That "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (no matter how stupid or wrong I, personally, think it is)". They are also cowards, in that they will DR, and not tell you why they believe you are wrong. (AND, don't EVER assume that someone who DOES tell you that you're wrong DRed you. There's no way for you to tell.)

  • Report
  

  by BigDaddyBS on December 4th, 2008

Comments

• There are no serious scientists who question the fact of evolution. If there was a prove against it, the rest of the scientific community would admit that they were wrong. And no, I never blindly swallow what is taught, and actually, the teachers at my school taught in a different way anyways, they let the students figure out proves and check it for themselves. And furthermore, I've read dozens of books about it from both sides, and Creationism is just silly in every perspective.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• Funny, the first person I ever heard argue against evolution was a Ph.D in science, not a christian, not even a god-fearer.
  And a simple google brings up names like:
  Don DeYoung, who has a PhD in physics; Michael Oard, who has a Masters in Atmospheric Science; Eugene Chaffin, who has a Masters in Physics; David Kaufmann, who has a PhD in Human Anatomy; Kevin Anderson, who has a PhD in Microbiology; Mark Armitage, who has a Masters of Science in Biology. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/273937/scientists_who_do_not_believe_in_the.html?cat=9
  And this list from the USA and Mexico:
  
  John L. Omdahl, Prof. Of Biochemistry and Molec. Biology, U. of New Mexico • Robert D. Moyer, Technical Staff, SNL • Bernd R. Schlei, Technical Staff, LANL • W. Kent Schubert, Technical Staff, SNL • Rebecca Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chem., U. of New Mexico • David Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chem., U. of New Mexico • G. Ron Hadley, Technical Staff, SNL • Douglas R. Weiss, Technical Staff, SNL

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• • Robert S. Chambers, Technical Staff, SNL • Terry Hinnerichs, Technical Staff, SNL • John Torczynski, Technical Staff, SNL • Edward L. Burgess, Technical Staff, SNL (ret.) • Harold Delaney, Professor, Dept. of Psychology, U. of New Mexico • Nathan E. Bixler, Technical Staff, SNL • Joseph D. Renick, MS Mech. Eng., Arizona State U. • Michael S. Kent, Technical Staff, SNL • William H. McCulloch, Technical Staff, SNL (ret.) • Joe R. Weatherby, Technical Staff, SNL • David K. Mehne, MD, U. of Arizona • John C. Garth, Ph. D. Physics, U. of Ill, Champaign-Urbana • Jeffrey Mahn, Technical Staff, SNL • Terry Hardin, MS Elect. Eng., U. of New Mexico • Gary A. Dilts, PhD. Mathematical Physics, Univ. of Colorado
  Roger Lenard, Technical Staff, SNL • R. Barry King, Prof. Of Environ. Safety and Health, Albq. Tech. Vocational Institute • John R. Doughty, Ph. D. Aerospace & Mech. Eng., U. Of Arizona • Daniel W. Barnette, Technical Staff, SNL • Ronald H. Price, Technical Staff, SNL

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• Linda Walkup, Ph. D. Molecular Genetics, U. of New Mexico Medical School • Frank Young, Technical Staff, SNL • Michael B. McLean, Technical Staff, SNL • Harvey Ogden, Technical Staff, SNL • Mark De Spain, Technical Staff, SNL • Shelley Nuttal Martinez, MS Infor. Systems, U. of Miami, Fl • Philip R. Page, Technical Staff, LANL • Rondall E. Jones, Technical Staff, SNL • Meiring Nortier, Technical Staff, LANL • William Powers, Technical Staff, LANL • Ginger De Marquis, Technical Staff, SNL
  • Kevin Eklund, Technical Staff, SNL •• Charles B. Fite, Technical Staff, LANL • Vern Hershberger, MS Haz. Waste / Material Mgmt, Ariz. State U. • Robert C. Siegrist, MS. Management Information Systems, Golden Gate U., CA • John Baumgardner, Technical Staff, LANL • David Noble, Technical Staff, SNL • Malcolm R. Fisher, MS. Elect. Eng, U. of New Mexico • Clark Dohrmann, Technical Staff, SNL. • Mark. Rodriguez, Technical Staff, SNL • Mark F. Smith, Technical Staff, SNL

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• • Daryl W. Grunau, Technical Staff, LANL • Anthony Bentley, Technical Staff, SNL • Donald R. Locker, MS Physics, U. of Washington • Chris Stageman, MS Geology, New Mexico State • Joe Vigil, Technical Staff, SNL • Paul Faculjak, MS Statistics, U. of New Mexico • Russell Abbink, MS Elect. Eng., U. of Nebraska • Michael W. Edenburn, Technical Staff, SNL • Ana Martinez, Technical Staff, SNL • Scott E. Klenke, Technical Staff, SNL• Charlotte R. Abbink, Assoc. Prof. Emeritus, U. of New Mexico, College of Nursing • Teresa Larranaga, Ph.D. Pharmacy, U. of New Mexico • Kelly D. Hammett, Ph.D. Aeronautical Eng., Air Force Institute of Technology • Christopher K. Wojahn, Technical Staff, SNL • Paul E. Hausgen, Ph.D. Mech. Eng., Georgia Inst. of Tech. • Nathan Tumlison, MS Physical Therapy, U. of Central Arkansas • Beatrice J. Burchfield, MS Physics and Mathematics, U. Wisconsin and U of Ill. • Patricia Stephens, Associate Dean of Health Occupations, Albq. Technical Vocation Institute •

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• • John Martin, MD., U. of New Mexico School of Medicine • J. Douglas Bentley, Technical Staff, SNL • Graham Yelton, Technical Staff, SNL • Paul D. Price, MS Environ. Eng., NJ Institute of Tech. • Fred James, Technical Staff, SNL • Donald L. Burwell, MS Nuclear Science and Eng, Carnegie Mellon U. • Dale Erickson, MD, Indiana U., School of Medicine • Jeff B Ogden, MS Elect. Eng., U. of New Mexico •Jacquie Gladwell, MD, U. of New Mexico School of Medicine • Linda M. McClanahan, MS Exercise Physiology, UNM • Marc Apkarian, Ph.D. Exercise Physiology, U. of New Mexico • Todd N. Hinnerichs, MS Mech. Eng., U. of New Mexico • Bryan M. Wayne, MD, U. of Texas Health Science Center • Jeanette Keenan, MS, Nursing, Yale U. • Pharis E. Williams, M.S. Physics, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, (ret.) • Rick Cole, MS Science Education, NM Tech. • Cecilia M. Colucci, MSE, Arizona State U. • Sue A. Erickson, Ph.D. Health Education, U. of New Mexico • Daniel R. Galassini, Doctor of Vet. Med.,

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• Kansas State U. • Gage Blackstone, Doctor of Vet. Med., Texas A&M • Wu-Ching Cheng, Technical Staff, SNL • home.earthlink.net/~dwbarne/Dissent_from_darwinism/dissent_from_darwinism.htm
  
  I think that is a formidable group of people who really need to be at least acknowledged.
  You say: if there was a prove against it, the rest of the scientific community would admit that they were wrong." The fact that the majority of any group would say something is wrong does not prove it to be. Remember Galileo? He was told by the majority of educated people of his time that the world was flat. They were wrong.
  
  "And no, I never blindly swallow what is taught," I think you do. You accept that there is no group of scientists who doubt evolution. Well, there are.
  You accept that evolution is cut and dried. It is not.
  Only the other day, a species of dinosaur was discovered in Australia, which is closely related to those of South America. This is going to throw the accepted date for the

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• accepted date for the continental split into chaos. Things are changing constantly in the world of science.
  Did I mention I also studied Anthropology? A recent discovery in Laetoli Africa shows homo sapiens like footprints in sediments over 2 million years old.This opens up the very real possibility of the dating of humans being all wrong. In Australia, skeletons with homo erectus type skulls (supposedly predated h sapiens) beside modern humans lving only 10 000 years ago. Although this information was coming out years ago while I was studying at University, it has been little discussed, as it overturns all the theories.
  Skulls found in Georgia recently put h sapiens back 100 000 years. One of the scientists was recorded IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC as saying "I wish we could put these back in the ground".
  Don't stand there smugly dismissing the Bible, my friend. There is a lot you do not know and a lot that you are not being told by those you blindly trust.
  That is all I have to say.

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• Unsubscribing

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• Here my response anyways: Let's both stop using appeal to authority and concentrate on evidence. I had a similar discussion in that thread: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/255619

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 13th, 2008

• I unsubscribed. Read.
  However, to answer your statement: I don't appeal to authority. I just reject what you said when you said that "There are no serious scientists who question the fact of evolution". At least acknowledge that there are...in fact many.
  And I concentrate on evidence too. I have given you evidence that changes many vital parts of evolutionary theory. Evidence that is coming out of the evolutionary camp itself. You say let's both stop using appeal to authority- but it is the authorities who write the books we use in our schools, that we learn from.
  Evidence can be viewed different ways. Mary Leakey, who discovered the Laetoli footprints, simply refuses, on evolutionary grounds to even consider that the footprints could be h sapiens, "because h sapiens wasn't around them". But what if he was? She ascribes them to h afarensis, despite the fact that no h afarensis foot bones have been found. Why? Because she believes in evolution and nothing is going to sway her.

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• I saw that you unsubscribed and actually asked a question about this because I didn't like it. The link I posted had similar claims. Tell me, where do you get your sources from? Ever heard of the word propaganda? Have you watched Kent Hovind's vidoes?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 13th, 2008

• I spoke to a scientist who questioned her about it, and her argument was circular: couldn't be h sapiens because h sapiens wasn't around....what if he was and this is the first evidence?...can't be h sapiens came along much after h afarensis, not at the same time....how do you know? what if the evidence is only now coming out that h sapiens and h afarensis were contemporaneous?...can't be. evolution says they weren't.
  That is stubbornness. A fair person would at least concede that if the footprints look like h sapiens footprints, and we know that h afarensis hip bones would not match the fully upright placement of the feet, that there is at least a slim possibility that h sapiens could have made the prints. At least say, wow, if that were true, it would throw a cat amongst the pigeons. Not dismiss it as not possible outright. So many things thought impossible a century ago in evolutionary theory are taken for granted now. Science is supposed to be knowledge, but in many cases, Animal

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• Farm is happening. The pigs are up on their back legs...The scientists are behaving like the clergy in Galileo's time. Hang the evidence, they say- uphold flat earth at all costs.
  No one ever told me not to believe in evolution by the way- we don't have that sort of pressure in Australian churches. I came to my serious doubts about it by myself, by considering evidence I gained during my studies of Anthropology and my reading afterwards.
  BTW who the heck is Kent Hovind? I am Aussie, mate. I don't know Americans and,with a name like that, he must be an American.
  Unsubscribing.

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 13th, 2008

• you still haven't addressed the link, but well forget about it. You convinced me that you are not stupid or stubborn. You say you are antropologist. But it's not just about hominids, evolution is everywhere. There might be some controversies about when exactly and how, but the theory is still totally proven. If you reached your view by independent research, I will accept your view.
  unsubscribing.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 13th, 2008

Comments

• The scaryist thing is some of the most powerfull people in the word beleive creation over evolution

  • Report
  

  by BOOZE HOUND... nothing is nonsence on June 12th, 2008

Comments

• well said

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 17th, 2009

Comments

• Why are you so sure that you are that one that was indoctrinated with lies and propaganda? I think what you have been told was a lot of picking, choosing, and simply lying (not intentionally though). And by the way, hundreds of millions of Christians accept evolution. What do you think will happen to them? I'm an atheist, I respect everyone's belief, but what I don't like is people who make propaganda against proven facts.
   
  I would be interested in discussing our points of view and explain you evolution and dating and such things. I ask whether you're open for it because I don't want to waste my time.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• There needs to be a 'not' in the first sentence of my last comment, obviously.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• Yeah I know. I dont think your intolorant, or close minded. Its just...a hard thing to accept. I know what I know...and I honestly know...its truth. Im not a religious person, I am against religions. I didnt grow up in a "churchy home"...but I have ALWAYS seeked out God. Ive had a few experiences that have led me closer and closer, and to seek him out further. The question "seek and you will find"...is very true, If i were to deny what I know. I would be wrong. But not everyone understands this or will. I just "state" things, its up to otehrs if they want to listen

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on April 29th, 2009

• LoL...most of the times me and the athiest get along better than me and "fellow christians"...becuase they never want to hear their way of "ritual" is very wrong, I think I got like 10 negative points cuz I bluntly stated a few facts...WITH PROOF! haha...oh well.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on April 29th, 2009

• That's interesting. But you do think the Bible is the literal word of God? If not, where does your resentment against contradicting views on 'creation' come from?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• Yeah its the word. I believe in the Bible...but the religions dont follow the bible. Things are pulled out of context, they are hypocrites in what they say...not all is intentional, but alot of it is for self rightousness. Now the creation, I had a friend explain something the other day that made absolute and total sense on to why things are dated so old, but yet they arent...something to do with water and potassium, and its carbon age...but I dont remember what it was called.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on April 29th, 2009

• Every time you look in the sky, you see the stars as they were millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago. The universe is so vast that light needs so long to reach us from there. The earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago, and somehow life was started, and it evolved gradually into all the living things we can observe here. We can look back at millions of ancestors forming a chain back to the dawn of life. It's a priviledge to be alive, and a miracle. Why just accept the easy 'God did it in one day 6000 years ago' alternative, if there is so much beauty and understanding(!) in the scientific view?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• No I understand all of that, but why do we all believe everything is "super scientific"...do you not think he works outside of that alittle bit, or its been set up a certain way. Like you said, look around us...why do we think WE are so smart...and really understand everything to its fullest. Its like an Ant having understanding of a microwave. It exists, but its not understood. "stumbling blocks"...and yeah I see how there is "age dated" things...but when the earth was created, it wasnt created TO THAT DAY, something infinite and eternal is infinite
  <---and---> if that makes sense.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on April 29th, 2009

• I don't believe in god, yet of course I can't disprove the existance of god as one can't disprove anything. For me there are certainties, and things we don't know (yet). The age of the earth, the universe, evolution and many other things we do know are certainties. What caused the big bang, and whether there is a higher purpose in all of this is not known yet. I don't claim to know anything that's not proven.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• As you said, why would God create you and give you intelligence, but not allow you to use it? People from all over the world, with different backgrounds, have turned to science, and with rational thinking come to the same conclusions. Science isn't allpowerful, and of course there are many things where scientists are still disagreeing with each other. Yet look at the achievements: We're having a discussion even tho we're thousands of kilometers apart from each other, humans have been to the moon, we've decoded the human genome, and we've managed to build weapons which might eventually destroy our whole planet.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• No I know, science understands alot...but alot of times it gets us in trouble. Im not saying science doesnt show the world is made up of billion year old things...I just dont believe it ACTUALLY took a billion years...to get to where we are today. I said somewhere before...everything goes from organization to disorganization...not the other way around. We wont ever come to a conclusion...becuase its cool you like that stuff...but its not for me.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on April 29th, 2009

• I don't see how this makes sense. Science proves that the earth is billions of years old (through different independant methods), you accept that, and then you declare it wrong, just because you believe something else? Look, why would God fool people like that? Is he just messing with us by spreading billions of tons of false evidence?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• ...No im saying I see it being a billion years old...but it was MADE having years added to it...during the creation process...Like The world wasnt empty of bones and fossils...WHEN it was created, but created...with it already in the dirt...The further you dig...the older it gets, but it was created along with the world...If that makes sense. Thats just how I see it.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on April 29th, 2009

• Yeah I understand what you mean, but I don't understand why you mean that. It looks as you're desperately trying to hold on to a literal interpretation of Genesis, even though you realize that science probably can't be completely wrong, after all, planes find their destinations and our computer tend to work (at least most of the time). You're having double-standarts. You're trying to rationalize, find ways around the problem. There's the danger of deluding yourself. Never accepted something as a dogma, keep an open mind.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• No im not trying to hold on to anything. It just doesnt make sense that this "world" is a billion years old...litteraly. Not to me. Its just to long. and the universe...became how?...organizims...and this planet, how?...astroids, from where?...it just happened, from space?...and space is what...I dont know, lol...its just too much to assume "happened"...things dont "happen"...and form, and appear...and life doesnt just..."happen" by chance..... All things were created. and very intelligently done.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on April 29th, 2009

• All I was trying to convince you of is that the universe is older than 6000 years, and that life evolved. There are hundreds of millions of Christians who believe God intelligently caused the big bang, and used evolution for his purposes. Science discovered six fundamental constants, numbers that are just 'there', like the strength of gravity or the weak nuclear force. If any one of those constants of the universe was off by just a tiny tiny margin, life would be fundamentally impossible. Isn't that a good argument for god's existance? But wait, you can't use it, because if you accept those numbers, you have to accept that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• Do you understand that you can have science and god? The only thing you'd have to do is to let go of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Because it's not unifiable. It just doesn't add up.
  I somehow understand your resentment though, you're obviously a very strong minded person. You're definately not a hypocrite, and I assume that you consider those hundred millions of Christians that do believe in evolution and such hypocrites... Maybe the only way for you to accept science then is to go to the other extreme.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• man, schmee i swear you are in my brain or something. lol wow! never found someone who's beliefs are so close to my own. the thing about science and God is that number one, you can believe both, which is what i do.number two, its kind of not fair to try to debate one with the other because if God did exist, He would have to be so far beyond our comprehension so saying that He doesnt exist just because our logic tells us so is is rediculous.also,the Bible remains constant while science changes so science is more like whatever makes the most sense at the time.

  • Report
  

  by xxx on April 29th, 2009

• trying to disprove religion through science is like trying to explain art through math; its two different things and it wont really work.someone once told me "science explains the what and the how and faith explains the why."

  • Report
  

  by xxx on April 29th, 2009

• actually, even though one cannot disprove anything, I claim that I can make a very strong case that the existance of God is extremely unlikely. I'm a very rational person, all my 'believes' are based on science and logic. If I ever hear a convincing argument for god's existance, I'd instantly believe in him. I've done a lot of research and thinking, and I'm very very certain that he doesn't exist. A universe with god is different than a universe without god. Religion does make scientific claims, and one can inspect those claims on a logical and scientific basis.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• yeah but thats my point. you dont believe in God because you feel that it is scientifically impossible but if God existed He would be beyond our science and beyond our understanding, make sense? also, by saying that all your beliefs are based on science you are really saying that you believe whatever science says now. but i guarantee you that in the future a lot of what science says now will be looked back on and laughed at becuase we will know better. so a lot of what you believe now (and myself too) might be wrong. point being science isn't perfect and beliefs are always

  • Report
  

  by xxx on April 29th, 2009

• changing as far as what is right and wrong what is real and fake and what makes sense and what doesnt. so we shouldnt get caught up thinking that science is always right.

  • Report
  

  by xxx on April 29th, 2009

• lol you start sounding like HasntBeen when he's being serious. I said that I'm always open for those changes, IF they come. It has become fancy for people to point out that all the things that we know might be overthrown in the future. That's rubbish. Not a single scientific theory has ever been proven wrong (scientific theory = end result of the scientific method). The examples that are cited by those people were only hypotheses. Theories have been improved, like Newton's theory of gravity has been improved by Einstein, but they have never been disproven. Imagine Newton's theory describing a square, and Einstein came later and said that it's actually a rectangle. Newton wasn't wrong, it's just that he looked at one specific case, and Einstein got it more absolute.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• "if God existed He would be beyond our science and beyond our understanding"
  The events at the big bang are clearly beyond my understanding and at the moment beyond our science. However, the occurrence of the big bang is easily proveable.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on April 29th, 2009

• What I don't understand is why God would "create" the universe to look like it's much older than it is. What purpose would that serve?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on April 30th, 2009

• ...he created the universe to be much older than it actually is for a "stumbling block" That is what my belief is...and why I say it LOOKS older but it isnt. If there wasnt a stumbling block and the earth showed it was only 6000 years old or so...people would be like...OH, OK we are CREATED. And there would be no OTHER to believe their may be...which would leave no choice of beliefs. either to believe in creation/evolution. SO...to create a doubt in peoples minds...and to see who his followers are...who STICK with the word...evolution was thrown in. But God being all mighty and all powerful...CAN make things decieving to create...choice.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 1st, 2009

• ...that is just MY point I try to convey, the way I see it. I dont know, maybe its different...but it makes absolute sense to me. You know...during the creation prossess it may have all "happened"....in a blink of an eye...it didnt just "appear"...but it was MADE and a billion years could have been complete in 1 day...but WITH the age added onto it...like pushing a fast forward button on a movie....that is just what im trying to say.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 1st, 2009

• Why would God want us to question him? If he does, why do people constantly say to not question him?

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on May 1st, 2009

• God doesnt want us to question him, but only when we UNDERSTAND him, and until people get to that point...there are MANY questions one must ask. The ones who say..."dont question him" must not understand this...they just go by what their "religion" tells them to say to those who dont "understand"...BUT the reason God put evolution there...or the possability is becuase If it were as easy to look out the window and God was standing their asking if its all ok and giving you a cup of coffee...where would "faith" be...the backbone of a persons love for God

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 1st, 2009

• ...saying that, there must be a CHOICE besides creation...which was evolution, the chance of evolution being their...and a doubt on his creation....that is a way of PROVING your love to him....by weeding out truth...fiction...or finding a relation between both...BUT with an explanation that matches his word. In all things there is a right/wrong choice...a choice that tests the very core of what one must believe. AND without that choice people couldnt grow, learn, and understand things if there wasnt a process...its the yin/yang of life.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 1st, 2009

• God hides himself, he puts stumbling blocks in the way of many things...only as a test...The world is a test, life is a test...and on like many tests there are 3 or 4 ways...the question can be answered...but in the end there is only 1 right answer...But yet...the others are still there to throw you off alittle....BUT ALL IN THE SAME not changing which one is correct. There are different ways to come up with the answer...but the answer stays the same....

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 1st, 2009

• In my heart I know MY answer is correct for the way I believe...may not be for others...but I think It may be...its just coming to the "understanding" that God did create all...and very perfectly...to perfectly that sometimes we get confused...only cuz we dont understand fully....but its all there
  
  (sorry I write in so many, my answer freezes if i dont)

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 1st, 2009

• Before I keep going, let me make sure that I understand you:
  You believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, yet god made it seem like it was much older? And concerning evolution, you think the evidence is 'sound' yet fake?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 2nd, 2009

• yeah, that seems rediculous to me too. this the problem with the literal translation of the bible. did God put skeletons of dinosaurs into the ground also?

  • Report
  

  by xxx on May 2nd, 2009

• Its my belief he did. Its like "fast forward" creation. I dont believe that the earth was around for billions of years. Its to out of character for mankind....and the beginning. the way it is stated in the bible.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 2nd, 2009

• Like God created a man and a women (they were perfect)...There wasnt primate man...and a split and one became human the other monkeys....and the evolution and changing of many creatures. they were placed their for a stumbling block. That is my literal translation....But that is my opinion. Its the only one that "goes along" with the bible.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 2nd, 2009

• see, but how i feel about that is that like i said before, the bible was written by men. and obviosuly men didnt know about dinosaurs back then so thats why they didnt put that in the bible. its funny that you think that dinosaurs skeletons would just be put in the ground to purposely get people off track because i belive the Lord wants us to believe in him and he wouldnt purposely deceive us. also, there are creationists museums that show early man riding on dinosaurs because even they believe dinosaurs did exist. i think you are right about the

  • Report
  

  by xxx on May 2nd, 2009

• fast forward thing, but completely. i would say that it could be done like that because a billion years to us would be like one day to God, but to everything else a billion years still did pass by.

  • Report
  

  by xxx on May 2nd, 2009

• Eddy: Your belief that a billion years to us is one day to God is more reasonable than schmee's interpretation in my opinion. I still don't think it's correct and I honestly think it's a bit cuckoo but it's better than this whole idea that God put "stumbling blocks" for us. I think that is just a believer clutching at straws.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on May 2nd, 2009

• ...But days are considered time. A set amount of time. There was 7 days. I dont know its ok. But the bible was written by man...but only because the lord spake to them and told them what to write. Its the "word of God"...but it can only be written through man.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 2nd, 2009

• "but only because the lord spake to them and told them what to write"
  According to those men...
   
  How do you KNOW that God spoke to those men and told them what to write? You don't. Nobody does.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on May 2nd, 2009

• I guess that's what it all comes down too. If you don't even allow for the merest possibility that the Bible is not the complete, undistorted literal word of God, you are basing all your believes on an infalsifiable dogma. As you showed us, you can reconcile your believes with all possible evidence against it, by just stating 'God did that for a reason', i.e. make it not too easy for people to have faith. And honestly, basing all your believes on an infalsifiable dogma is pretty problematic...

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 3rd, 2009

• well to be fair, we accept a lot of things in life as truths just because scientists or other experts have told us so.

  • Report
  

  by xxx on May 4th, 2009

• yeah you do, I was talking to schmee.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 4th, 2009

• ...becuase there accuracy on the phrophecies are precise.....I see it as being undeniable. I read things out of the bible, study the histories...watch the news, and see who they speak of...Its undeniable it is right. But You dont havta believe it is...But I do

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 4th, 2009

• good point schmee. just like your deduction about the catholic church being the whore of babylon.so in that way, it can be argued that you are a more intelligent person because you actually take the time to think about these things and realize the similarities between the prophecies in the bible and is what has happened in history as opposed to someone who just sits back and lets science tell them how everything is and not question it.now,on the other hand someone might say that you only find what you are looking for and those prophecies are so vague that

  • Report
  

  by xxx on May 4th, 2009

• they can be ascirbed to many different things. i think both of those points have some level of validity. this is why i am always quick to explain that these are things that i think or what makes the most sense to me or that i hold as a personal truth rather than things that i am completely sure of.

  • Report
  

  by xxx on May 4th, 2009

• exactly @Eddy, those sort of 'prophecies' are indeed very vague, and there are countless of them. 'Even a blind chicken finds a worm'. Muslims keep telling me that the Qu'ran predicts things and that it contains 'scientific facts unknown at the time it was written'. And I'm sure you'd find lots of Hindus claiming the Vedas contain proven prophecies too. You can do this sort of thing with any larger book.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 4th, 2009

• NO....the prophecies arnt vague...the point of prophecy is...when there is a word that is used...(to describe) in a prophecy that term is somewhere else in the bible telling you EXACTLY what it is...there is not 1 prophecy that hasnt been fullfilled...yet, and the ones that havnt...havnt come yet...but are in the making. When you get down to it (like my answer ^^^ ) all the small words used - beast / wh*re / heads / waters / yada yada yada are all in previouse books and it says bluntly A BEAST IS A KINGDOM...and so on...its the point of summing it all up...and understanding how to use it

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 4th, 2009

• piecing the pieces togather....the reason alot of things are incoded...is becuase if they just bluntly said it right then and there...the way it was to be said, would be big no no...like in revelation he uses alot of code...becuase he was describing the fall of the pagen rome empire....well he was jail at the time IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE...if they got ahold of it...man, they wouldnt have been happy....at all....destroyed it...or something, or killed him...so....sometimes it hasta be confusing...but really when its all done and said....its not, that is also why...the bible is so perfect.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 4th, 2009

• ....becuase from all these different men....it still all fits togather and makes sense...the bible only reassures of its self...over and over and over and over.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 4th, 2009

• If you have kids, or ever will have kids, please don't indoctrinate them with your views. Teach them how to think, not what to think. That's the last thing I can say here.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 5th, 2009

• ...Nobody ever taught me my views, I figured them out for myself...even though thousands have the same thoughts, besides...I dont havta teach them anything....they'll fall into place. ITs not mine to teach them.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 5th, 2009

• ...besides, who are you to tell me what to teach my children? Should I wish them to believe in nothing and live a life like you?...Im sorry, but im afraid there is no way I would put them through that. I know how you think, dont think i didnt think like you before.......the thing is, I found out....its not the way to be.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 5th, 2009

• what the fuck do you mean by 'live a life like you?'?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 5th, 2009

• A life without God...isnt a life worth lived.
  It can be 100% positive and wonderful, and you do what you do...but its all in vain.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 5th, 2009

• ..let me take it back, its worth lived....but....that life is all its worth.

  • Report
  

  by schmee2369 on May 5th, 2009

• I'm glad you added that second comment...
  unsubscribed.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 5th, 2009

• nice one!!

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 14th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• This is right, I wasn't talking about Darwins books though, I was talking about the theory of evolution as it is currently formulated by science. The new evidence showed that Darwin was absolutely right in all major points, and the only things that he got wrong were minor speculations about things he couldn't have known. And the theory has not just been validated, it has also been extended tremendously.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on December 4th, 2008

• you are certainly entitled to your opinion, right or wrong.

  • Report
  

  by autumn leaves on December 4th, 2008

Comments

• okay, but the prove is obviously one my side, so why being so humble?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• but it should not be about proving who is right and who is wrong. People will always have conflicting ideas. What matters is not what each of us believe to be true but how we get along together. Personally, I don't have any time at all, for anything religous - to me, it's all utter rubbish and nonsense. Equally, I do not claim to understand those that do - I just don't know why anybody would think that any of it, was real - period. Having said that, I don't think anything less of anybody of any faith who does believe in God - I don't understand faith and I don't need to. What I do need to be able to do, is accept those differences and move on from them. How else can we be nice to each other?

  • Report
  

  by Mushen on June 12th, 2008

• I partially agree, I just want to emphasize that my whole point is that I hate it when people believe "against clear evidence". Believing without evidence is a different thing, I think it is wrong, but I respect it.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• and that, I'm afraid is all you can do.

  • Report
  

  by Mushen on June 12th, 2008

Comments

• fair enough, thanks for your answer.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 18th, 2009

• 773491: you are very welcome!
  :-)

  • Report
  

  by iwnit on July 18th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• I highly doubt that, what reasons would that be?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 30th, 2009

• Many people who don't accept the theory of evolution are not stubborn, indoctrinated, or were poorly taught. To the contract, many are highly educated and independent thinkers (i.e. don't accept a theory just because people say that "only poorly taught, indoctrinated, or stubborn people are the only ones who don't.").
   
  The theory has fundamental flaws which cast doubt in my view. I NEVER do or accept what is popular just because people say it's right or only educated people don't accept it, blah, blah, blah. NEVER. I never follow; I always lead. I run my own company, and employ people in the US, Middle East, and Africa.
   
  So, I don't care how popular a theory is. If I find holes in it, I reject it until there is enough evidence to accept it.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on May 30th, 2009

• Thanks for elaborating.
  I wasn't talking about majorities, I think logic, statistics and evidence are enough to come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact. Are you talking about yourself or others? What holes have you/others spotted in the theory?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 30th, 2009

• Mutations are a fact. Evolution as the explanation for the variety and complexity of plant and animal life is clearly not a fact. The theory is held up by the contention that mutations have the ability to cause major change, not just minor adaptations. Never has such been observed, even in controlled lab conditions where they stimulated mutations.
   
  All that's ever been seen resulting from mutations are minor changes. Mutations must be able to cause radical changes to create new, unrelated, complex systems. There is no evidence that that is possible, or has ever happened.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on May 30th, 2009

• thounsands of small changes lead to big changes. The small mutations that we can observe now accumulated over millions of years to account for the big changes. The evidence that it had happened is there: The DNA of every animal shows evolution. All mammals have ancient genes for surviving in the water, from when they were 'primitive fishes'. We can see the history in our DNA. And the 'useless' parts of DNA, those parts that don't get translated into proteins and thereofore don't have an effect on the shape/behavior of the animal/plant/fungi etc, those parts show the degree of relation between animals. By comparing those parts, one can find out when the common ancestor of two animals has lived, and those observations fit perfectly with anatomical studies, geographical distribution and the fossil record.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 31st, 2009

• Additionally, there are remains of viral intruder DNA. Viruses sometimes copy themself into the DNA of other organims. Animals of different species have the exact same strings of virus DNA in their DNA. That can't be an accident, it prooves that those animals had a common ancestor which was initially 'invaded' by the virus.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 31st, 2009

• The DNA of every animal shows that we are all related, which shows that we are related but doesn't necessarily show evolution - unless that's what you want to believe.
  
  It's merely a hypothesis to believe that small, linear changes could account for non-linear bio-chemical complex system integration. You are correct about one thing: "That can't happen by accident." Bio-chemical complex "integrated systems" are far too complex, requiring far too much integrated coordination for mutation.
   
  Mutation has never been demonstrated to have such capabilities. Adaptation, adjustment, tangential changes? Yes. Turning one type of organism into another, with radically new different complex integrated systems and capabilities? No.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on May 31st, 2009

• The theory does not account for the genesis of complex, interdependent, "multisystem" systems. For example, complex system within system integrated features such as DNA. How did it start from animal with no DNA pieces whatever? The eye. How did it start from an animal with no eye parts whatever? Everything assumes that certain pieces and part existed in some primitive form already.
    
  Mutations cannot have accomplished this any more than continental drift could have been responsible for Australia to have drifted to the Andromeda galaxy. Linear drift wouldn't enable it to separate from the earth and push itself through space, no matter how much time you gave it.
   
  The DNA relationship between humans and fruit flies certainly doesn't prove evolution. It's proves we all came from the same source. What that source is, is a matter of what one has faith in.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on May 31st, 2009

• Why do all mammals have remains of genes for making a living under water? Why does the relatedness perfectly match with anatomical comparison, geographical distribution and the fossil record? Why do two different species have the exact same viral DNA in the exact same place of their DNA? It doesn't explain how exactly every evolutionary step happened, but it clearly prooves that it did happen somehow. What other explanation do you have to account for the evidence I just stated?

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 31st, 2009

• There are many books on the evolution of interdependent systems, and complex organs such as the eye. It all works with small gradual changes, where each change causes an improvement in survival and reproduction. Example for the eye: Imagine an organism with no eye at all. One step would be a light-sensitive cell, which enables the organism to distinguish bright from dark, and therefore search light (maybe to do more effective photosynthesis). Another step would be more sensitive cells, and slightely curved to the inside. The curving would allow the organism to get a better sense of the direction of the light source, and with even better light sensitivity, he might be able to spot moving objects. Gradual, small mutations improving curvature and sensitvity lead to a 'hole eye'. Then lenses could gradually evolve, or those 'multi-tube' eyes of insects, there are actually many different ways for evolution to end up with a functioning eye.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 31st, 2009

• And what's your alternative anyways? 'God just did it.' Great. Now that's a good answer, God did it and you don't have to worry about how he did it. Why did you even go to school? You can as well say God just freaking did everything, why bother figuring out how anything works? With this mentality, we'd still be in the Stone Age.
   
  You say life is too complex to have evolved. How about God? To me, it seems like he's the most complex thing that can possibly exist, a canscious being capable of intelligently designing the universe, answering prayers and change the laws of physics, that sounds pretty complex to me. So where did God come from? Is that your explanation to everything? You postulate something that's even harder to explain than the thing you're trying to explain. That makes no sense at all.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on May 31st, 2009

• The theory has is that it starts in the middle of the story, never at the beginning, and then makes huge assumptions. For example, a light sensitive cell. A light sensitive cell is a complex system on its own. It is a hypothesis to say that mutations have the capability to develop and then integrate complex systems. Another example is starting with a single cell, which highly complex on its own. The theory makes these huge magical leaps and assumes we will just follow along. Starting with a single celled animal is itself a huge leap since it is very complex itself.
   
  My argument is not so much "God just did it." Rather, all of these hyper complex, integrated, finely synthesized bio/electrical/chemical systems are far too complex and integrated, down past the molecular level, to have developed sans an outrageous intelligence.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on May 31st, 2009

• and that outrageous intelligence is simpler to explain? Makes no sense.
   
  Why is it a hypothesis when we have evidence that it happened? I can't tell you how, but it obviously DID happen, otherwise all the evidence I wrote down would not exist. It's sufficient.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 1st, 2009

• The evidence you cited has, in my opinion, gaps and assumptions which make it implausible as currently presented. Many people accept it as sufficient, but many others don't. It comes down to what one has faith in, since no theory can be demonstrated.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on June 1st, 2009

• Science has nothing to do with faith. If evolution was wrong, it would be possible to disprove it. Hasn't happened.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 1st, 2009

• Believing any theory, the most fundamental element of which cannot be demonstrated, requires faith.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on June 1st, 2009

• Analogy: I find your someone's fingerprints, and parts of his DNA in a room where a crime was committed, additionally the surveillance camera clearly recorded him being there.
  Now do I need to prove how he got into that room? Whether he came by train, by boat or by foot? Fact is he somehow went into that room, and if I can figure out how, that's nice, if not, it still remains a fact.
   
  Same with evolution, it has to have happened, otherwise we wouldn't see all those tons of evidence. Find one single fossil in the wrong strata, and evolution is disproven. It never happened. And by the way, scientists know A LOT about HOW it happened, and it can be DEMONSTRATED to work with computer simulations and extrapolations of the variance we can observe in the labs. It's just to complicated to explain all of that to you with comments.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 1st, 2009

• The only 'faith' that is required is that every single piece of DNA that has ever been studied and lines up perfectly with the theory of evolution is the way it is because of an accident. The probability of this happening is much smaller than 1 against the number of atoms in the universe. Call it faith if you want.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 1st, 2009

Comments

Comments

• I already addressed the first statement in another thread of yours. So let me skip that.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 19th, 2008

• <Also if you knew your science well you would know that evolution does not prove God doesnt exist by any means...>
  I know my science, and I never said that evolution proves god doesn't exist, so where's the problem?
  <it only proves that science cannot prove exactly what happened>
  Evolution is proven, but again, look up in the other question what I'm talking about since ur the one who doesn't know science. Big bang is also proven to have happened, altough we don't know exactly how. You can say god did it if you want to, but then you'd have to tell me where god came from, otherwise you're just making it worse to explain. And abiogenesis isn't 'proven', but it seems like it's the only possible hypothesis.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 19th, 2008

• <. THe chances or odds of the earth or world coming to exist from "the big bang theory" are the same as sticking a firecracker into a large tomato and lighting the fuse then when that tomato blows up and splatters all over you find a small but real perfect cherry tomato that was created from the explosion ;) this is a scientific truth.>
  Nah, this is called bullshit. And what if it's true, you are postulating something in your explanation that is significantly more complex than the universe itself (since god supposedly purposely created it). Therefore, the odds of god just happen to be there would be way way way way smaller than your tomato explosion. I'd guess it would be like forming a freaking dinosaur out of a tomato.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on July 19th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• that is true, and I respect Christianity, or every other religion, if they don't believe "against evidence". Faith - believing without evidence - is wrong for me, but I respect it. But as soon as somebody believes against clear evidence, I loose all respect.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• i'm surprised and pleased you commented on my answer with respect as i wasn't too pleased with the tone of your reply to my previous question which brought on my last question about open mindedness. off to bed now but will be back tomorrow to read your thoughts.
  ps i am not religious but i have evidence of my own for what i believe in. always a question over whether evidence is clear. goodnight

  • Report
  

  by Orangy Energy on June 12th, 2008

Comments

• Thanks for sharing your views+
  I feel that way because it's not about personal beliefs, it's about truth. Because nobody can disprove God (as one can't disprove unicorns), it's a matter of personal belief and I won't call anyone stupid or ignorant for this even though I do not share that view. However, evolution is an accepted fact and a scientific theory. It happened and it's not about belief. I'm just disappointed how bad science education in this country is..

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on November 1st, 2009

Comments

• God has nothing to do with evolution. Some people believe God used evolution as a tool. I don't believe in God, yet I don't care whether others do. thanks for your answer+

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on November 2nd, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Gotta love school-yard logic.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 1st, 2009

Comments

• I've done all the things you mentioned. You make good points though, it's important that one looks at every aspect of the issue.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on August 21st, 2009

• You are one of the rare ones.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 21st, 2009

Comments

Comments

• :D
  ++

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on July 17th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Nice one!

  • Report
  

  by Who Is She on July 17th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Valid objection: Something from nothing, by nothing (spontaneous generation). Something from nothing, by God. Is that not a valid objection?

  • Report
  

  by Ananamiss on December 7th, 2008

• that has nothing to do with evolution

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 3rd, 2009

• I would be, Anan, if, as 77 correctly observed, it had anything to do with evolution or if the theories covering that area - ambiogenesis - claimed the something from nothing bit.
  .
  So the short answer is "no".

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on June 3rd, 2009

Comments

• opinion accepted.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on November 18th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• my reason for believing in a creator and creation is due in part to modern scientific research. i have not decided to blindly believe in God. i am part of an organiation and religion that thoroughly investigates a subject and doctrine before deciding its validity. this is done through scripture, and in the case of creation also through the latest scientific data and research.

  • Report
  

  by autumn leaves on December 4th, 2008

• As long as you and your organization don't start trying to change the curriculum in our school system, change our laws or knock at my door at 8 on a Sunday morning, I really don't care

  • Report
  

  by Mephistopheles on December 5th, 2008

Comments

• it depends on how it is explained. I'm sure you can understand most of it if it's explained well.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on November 3rd, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• likewise not believing everything is possible is close minded... a double edged sword!

  • Report
  

  by technios on June 12th, 2008

Comments

• how about the people who deny the holocaust? My view is tolerence except if opinion goes against evidence. And in the case of evolution, all the evidence is supporting it.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• I do also believe in evolution. An also believe that science is not in conflict with creationism. Evidence goes at the rythm that science marches. Theories which were accepted some few years ago now are rejected. Pls read
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/

  • Report
  

  by migarce on June 13th, 2008

• thank you, good site. It depends how you interpret creationism. If you think in terms of Adam and Eve, and every single species directly created by god at the same time, then we got a major conflict. If you take 'Adam and Eve' symbolically and say god created the first reproducing organism 3.5 billion years ago, the theories can coexist.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 13th, 2008

• C´mon, not Adam and Eve! A Supreme Being is the one I also accept.

  • Report
  

  by migarce on June 13th, 2008

• There are plenty of educated scientist that don't believe in evolution. They *gasp* even believe in God!

  • Report
  

  by 40ishVoiceofReason on October 2nd, 2008

• Excellent. Some time in the near future we will leran more about the subject and detect who has been right.

  • Report
  

  by migarce on October 2nd, 2008

• that is wrong, anonymous. 99.98 percent of scientists accept evolution. There are, however many scientists who believe in god (probably around 50%, but the stronger you define the word scientists, the more of them become atheists).

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on October 14th, 2008

Comments

• First of all, one of my favourite quotes, it is from Richard Dawkins and goes something like this: "When two different views passionately and fundamentally oppose each other, the truth does not necessarily lay between them, it is possible for one side to simply be wrong."
  
  Yes, I have taken a deep look at the 'theory' of Intelligent Design. I found out that this theory doesn't have any proves, the only thing they do is to point out an organism and say "this part is irreducible complex, therefore evolution is wrong, therefore ID is right". Of course this is a simplification, but ID is not a valid scientific theory.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• Oh, and your mixing up Evolution with Abiogenesis. Evolution does not say how the origin of life formed, it starts of with an already existing structure of heredity, RNA. Whether the first life form was created or formed by lightening or whatsoever is a different question, and there is no hard evidence supporting either side. However, the evidence for evolution is undenyably striking.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• I'm not going to debate, because it's next to pointless. I do appreciate your reply, thank you for your point of view. I will say, though, that that Dawkins quote is correct. One side can be simply wrong, on any issue of debate, of course. My personal belief is in this issue, the answer is somewhere in between.
  -
  That lightning strike was just one theory I heard. But let me say this, please. My being a Christian with Christians beliefs hurts nobody, and your opposite views also will hurt nobody. We can agree to disagree, shake hands, and call it quits. I do sincerely thank you for replying and for sharing your views and opinions. (Smiles, shakes hands, buys 773491 a drink.)

  • Report
  

  by Simply99 -- Not a fan favorite. on June 12th, 2008

• yeah I agree, as long as your Christians beliefs exclude the parts of the bible that say you should stone people to death when they worship other gods, or anti feminism, or slavery... As long as it is just evolution...

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• Evolution is fact and theory. And it can't be a law since it can't be expressed in math.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on November 3rd, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Great example, this is the stupid close minded kind I was talking about. Here my video analysis: First 2 minutes: Boring intruduction, irrelevant. Then: OMG, he reads science books in his freetime!!! He must be very smart. Appeal to Authority, obviously. Followed by a great quote from Dawkins. And now he tries to make it look stupid... Let's analyze:

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• the dictionary part was clearly unnecessary. This is followed by the attempt to set up a straw man. He says that evolution apparently has 6 different meanings, however, Richard Dawkins was clearly talking about "The scientific theory of evolution", which is only appliable to animals. But just for the hell of it, let's analyze Hovind's other meanings:

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• 1. There is lots of evidence for the Big Bang, i.e. cosmic background rays and the expanding of the universe.
  2. This happens in stars and is also proven. Hydrogen is stars fuses into helium, and when all the hydrogen is used, helium fuses into heavier elements and so on. Very ironic that Hovind mentions the 'synthetic elements', this shows that there obviously are ways to 'evolve elements' even if one isn't allpowerful.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• 3. One word: Gravity. Kent Hovind should really read more science books... Oh, and we have never seen it happen? Actually we have, and even if not, did he see Creation happen?
  4. This again has nothing to do with the term evolution. It is called 'abiogenesis' and there are scientific hypothesis about it. Science hasn't proved it yet, but the hypothesis sound credible.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....................funny, but stupid video!

  • Report
  

  by Phil in the Blank...backandtotheleft on June 12th, 2008

• 5 and 6: Finally he is coming the the actual subject. The problem is just: There is no difference between macro and micro evolution, it is the very same process, except that macro evolution needs more time. Again a straw man, evolutionists don't believe that a dog came from a rock. Evolution and abiogenesis is not the same thing. And abiogenesis has way more 'ingredients' than a rock.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• The first five defintions of evolution are stupid?? How can a defintion be stupid. This is per se illogical. And as I said, there are other ways to prove something than directly witnessing it! Here his first straw men plays in, because he argues that Dawkins talked about all the apparently kinds of evolution, he says that all the proves of evolution are wrong, because they are smuggled in from another meaning of the word. Flat out lie, but effective if people are ignorant and believe him with his science books.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• Big Bang: What exploded, where did it come from? Well where did God come from? Doesn't he see that this only makes the problem more complicated? In the first place, we need to explain where energy came from. And his answer would need the explanation of 'where did a super-complex omnipotent omniscient being known as God came from'. Very good answer... (that was sarcasm).

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• That's noble, attacking the virtue of scientists to be willing to change and modify a hypothesis. This is why science is so accurate, it changes. His bible is only available in one way, buy it or go to hell.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• Then going on to the dinosaurs. He believes in 'evidence' from the Old Testament, pretty much a bronze age myth, rather than he believes in science. The age of bones can be determinded by measurements of radioctive decay, and there is no reason to question the accuracy of these measurments.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• okay, then we finally come to evolution, and he lists examples of missing fossiles or "irreducible complexity", and so on, I'm tired of it, I don't think I need to keep going further. This was 11 minutes out of almost two hours of his video, and I have to admit that I have never seen more garbage in a video, except when VenomFangX from Youtube copied his very same arguments and made them even more stupid.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

Comments

• Great example, this is the stupid close minded kind I was talking about. Here my video analysis: First 2 minutes: Boring intruduction, irrelevant. Then: OMG, he reads science books in his freetime!!! He must be very smart. Appeal to Authority, obviously. Followed by a great quote from Dawkins. And now he tries to make it look stupid... Let's analyze:

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• sry, commented wrong answer.

  • Report
  

  by 773491 on June 12th, 2008

• it was a bit random lol

  • Report
  

  by BOOZE HOUND... nothing is nonsence on June 14th, 2008

Comments

• yes but we are poorly taught, stubborn and close minded... don't see much courtesy here, sigh

  • Report
  

  by Salty Light on December 25th, 2008

• So says the poorly taught, stubborn and closed minded? ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 25th, 2008