And the guy who said that evolution is a theory meaning it is wrong, I so wish I could reach through and smack some sense into you. A scientific theory is fact, not guess, shot in the dark, or acid trip gone bad. The science community agrees that evolution is correct, but we still don't know all about it, like gravity or physics and stuff. I have stated this several times.

I got a warning for writing stuff not quite as harsh as that. Dude you got serious issues with reality. There is no point in bringing violence into anything, but if it makes you feel better then I'll give you my address and you can bring your bootay on over here so I can srpead the word of God to your face. A theory is not fact that is why it is a theory. If it were fact it would be the law of evolution or the fact of evolution. Think about it.

the majority of Christians believe in evolution

Where do you get your information,,,, I have visited tons of churches and never found a Christian that believes in evolution.

Originally posted by deesw


I got a warning for writing stuff not quite as harsh as that.

I think maybe your warning was because you continually, through one whole evening.... being rude, condescending and downright nasty to others...I would know

Ambient Sound, what you just said sounds like the most intelligant thing I have ever heard. Wow, I mean, to hear something that mind blowing well, blows the mind.

And again, the bible, your book, says everyone is flawed, for the other 4billion people who don't believe in christianity can do what they want without worrying about the same "god" who wiped out all life but Noah and Freinds coming down and smiting them.

Originally posted by deesw
I got a warning for writing stuff not quite as harsh as that. Dude you got serious issues with reality. There is no point in bringing violence into anything, but if it makes you feel better then I'll give you my address and you can bring your bootay on over here so I can srpead the word of God to your face. A theory is not fact that is why it is a theory. If it were fact it would be the law of evolution or the fact of evolution. Think about it.

You really are ignorant, and i am very pleased to finally be the one to say it. You clearly don't understand science and the scientific process. A theory can never, no matter how much evidence is given, turn into a law.

Many people beleive a theory falls in the middle
of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however.According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of
validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

I think maybe your warning was because you continually, through one whole evening.... being rude, condescending and downright nasty to others...I would know

God loves you.

And again, the bible, your book, says everyone is flawed, for the other 4billion people who don't believe in christianity can do what they want without worrying about the same "god" who wiped out all life but Noah and Freinds coming down and smiting them

God loves you too,,,even though you reject him

You really are ignorant, and i am very pleased to finally be the one to say it. You clearly don't understand science and the scientific process. A theory can never, no matter how much evidence is given, turn into a law.

I haven't called you anything, back off with the harsh insults, I was warned for less than this.

Originally posted by deesw

It is written "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
It is seriously arrogant to insinuate that you are perfect. That's what sinnless is, PERFECT.

Uh oh. It was Written!. That is the trouble with the blindly religous. It's called "assumed consensus". You assume that because you believe in something (like the Bible) and hold it sacred, that other people will too. Well, I believe that the Bible was written and then re-written several times by men who were for the most part pursuing power rather than "holiness". Wouldn't the Bible, if really written by "God" have the same kind of quiet magical elegance that the rest of the Universe has? Would "God" contradict itself so often? Would "God" twist the words to fit whatever political situations were troubling the populations during those times. Would "God" leave portions of it's work out of the final product?

Ya know, I too believe in Intellegent Design, but not by the whoever wrote the bible. I don't believe the creator of the universe (if you must personify it) would get so much wrong, or be so petty.

Really though, it is seriously arrogant for you to insinuate that you have any knowledge at all of another individual's spritial wellbeing, based on something you read in an old book written by superstious barbarians. I agree with him. Speak for yourself.

Eh. Sorry. That is getting a little off topic but maybe it will demonstrait just how sad many of us know it would be to actually base what we teach our children on things pulled out of unproven myths.

Tell ya what. Lets each build a bridge over a big river. I'll use science (arches, canteleavers, trigonomitry, fluid dynamics, bartered labor, etc...) to build mine. You get God to create yours. We'll watch you wait from the other side.

Stupid comparison for a number of reasons, huh? But that is how you would train our Children to think. That is the mindset you would indoctrinate them with. Science, more specifically the planned, reasoned, repeatable application of the scientific method, is the absolute best tool one can equip a child with to survive in a mostly hostile universe. Our entire education system should be (and has been) patterned around using many different examples from many different fields of study to train children how to think in a reasoned, logical way, to see the cause and effect relationships at work on all levels and learn to fit one's own actions into the context of the larger reality. Now you want to teach them something that by it's very unprovable nature throws doubt (if it is to be believed) onto the entire concept of repeatable, observable, phenomina.

[sarcasm] Hmmm. In that case, I will believe, like others here that we indeed do all ride on the back of an infinite number of increasingly larger giant turtles. Now that is just as provable as your Christian belief, so let's make sure it gets taught in school right alongside Creationism, Evolution, Chinese Pan-Ku, Norse Giant Ymir, and Gaea the Greek Titan.

No, sorry. None of my fellow giant turtle believers have told me the name of our great and powerful ride yet. May the blessings of the Great Turtle be upon you and may your shell never shatter. Make sure the kids get the prayer right. [/sarcasm]

Here is how it works. I do not care whether you are christian or athiest. Evolution does occur. It occurs often, and right in front of us.

As far as creation goes, I do not know what started life. What made the same elements that compose an inamimate rock alive in a human is beyond me right now. I do not know what created the universe. I do not know if it actually was created. I do not know whether there is a god or not.

If you say that live evolved from some sort of electrical occurance...then you are giving an opinion. If you say god created life, then you are giving an opinion. The only thing we know for sure is that life, however it came about, does evolve.

But that is how you would train our Children to think. That is the mindset you would indoctrinate them with. Science, more specifically the planned, reasoned, repeatable application of the scientific method, is the absolute best tool one can equip a child with to survive in a mostly hostile universe. Our entire education system should be (and has been) patterned

Do not lecture me junior on teaching our children,,,, you are the reason that our children are killing other children in school, that homosexuals and other sexual deviants run rampant in this country, that abortions take place. You feel that you can do anything that you want in this world as long as it feels good to you at the time and have no price to pay for your actions. How can you ask a child to be honest and true, when he can only judge whats right by what he sees in you. You have taken away all responsability from your life. You expect the government and schools to raise your kids for you. Thats why you dismiss the Bible and God, because they say that the things you do are in fact wrong and that there are prices to pay.
I pity you and fear what your children will bring down on this planet.

Originally posted by James the Lesser

Ok, the bible left out micro evolution cause it wasn't relevant? SO, I can say it left out macro evolution out cause it wasn't relevant. See where I am going with this? Again, if microevolution is correct, then bible is wrong. It says creation, and creation only. It never mentions any form of evolution, therefor and evolution proves it wrong.

I don't think we're getting it here. The Bible states that God created the Earth in six days. Under that postulation, life as it was originally created has had plenty of time to experience some genetic variation -- 'microevolution'. Animals reproduce after their kind, but they don't all stay exactly the same from generation to generation. This process does not contradict anything stated in the Bible, therefore it is not a logical dilemma. Nothing is disproven here.

What is a problem is when the process of evolution is attributed the ability to cause limitless variation, in such a way that all life is descended from bacteria. This requires attributing capabilities to evolution that so far have not been demonstrated to be possible, and it creates a logical contradiction with the Bible. Disproving the Bible requires proof at this level.

[edit on 1/26/2005 by BeefotronX]

So god created flawed animals that needed to use microevolution to fix themselves? I don't remember reading that in the bible.

Oh hey, though it is a good arguement now that you layed it out, it could explain some small things I do admit, but still, microevolution is evolution, not mentioned in the bible. If it is not in the bible then it can't exist, according to christian dogma. So anything existing outside of bible makes it wrong.

ALso, I think land mammal to sea mammal is a little different then micro, I think that kinda belongs in the macro side. And again, the bible says nothig about microevolution, making any form of evolution a hammer against the bible. Now if it said anywhere in the bible that god used(not specifically microevolution, just "and he looked at some of his creations and used his powers to make them more perfect then what they already were") then yes you would have an arguement, but it doesn't, so any form of evolution proves creation, and bible, wrong.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
So god created flawed animals that needed to use microevolution to fix themselves? I don't remember reading that in the bible.

No, the general trend of evolution is one of decay from an originally perfect state, under the creationist model.

Originally posted by BeefotronX
No, the general trend of evolution is one of decay from an originally perfect state, under the creationist model.

How is adapting better to a certain environment a decay from an originally perfect state?...If it was in a perfect state, why would it need to change in the first place? let alone into something less.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by LuDaCrIs]

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
How is adapting better to a certain environment a decay from an originally perfect state?...If it was in a perfect state, why would it need to change in the first place? let alone into something less.

Mutation happens. Most mutations are detrimental. Natural selection is not potent enough to stop all degeneration. Slight reductions in efficiency are not enough to guarantee death before reproduction, and since this happens more often than improvements in efficiency, the trend is toward reduced efficiency.

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

No it does not,,,, the so called " Missing Link " was a major crock. The bones they found were scattered over a twenty mile radius, and yet they must have all came from the same animal. That's the only explanation. That's crazy. I did not " evolve " from a monkey or mosquito, or bacteria. If you wish to believe that you did, then go right ahead.

Originally posted by deesw
If you wish to believe that you did, then go right ahead.

Thank you for your permission to do that.....your finally getting it

Thank you for your permission to do that.....your finally getting it

You are very much welcome.