Do YOU believe in evolution?

So you haven't read it then?

 

So, if I pick out the fact that the bible states the universe rotates around the planet earth you would agree and say that is not a error in the bible?

What about the fact that the bible states the earth is at MOST 6,000 years old when other wise has been proven?

The list goes on, and on, and on. Remember, your book was written long ago when people didn't understand things around them, now many of those things can be explained.

It's ok, I don't hate you or think less of you, if the believe in something after death makes life easier for you to live through then so be it, thats your choice. Religion has long been a way for humans to accept death, and has also brought some of the worst wars and acts of violence in history IN the name of god.

Religion = Control
Religion = Hate
Religion = Ability to Accept Death

This is my opinions, if you truly believe in what you believe in it shouldn't effect you, make you mad or anything. Doesn't god say you should love thy neighbor? Or what it an eye or an eye? I'll never know, to many damn contradictions for me

 

Cheap SEO Services is probably the MOST respectable religious talker in this thread. He provides arguement points that atleast make sense.

 

But considering how old bible is, at they time they simply did not have the knowledge to even mention it.

 

That is true, I would give it that, but the fact is the bible was inspired by God correct?

 

Correct. As the Bible itself teaches us this. However, another point to consider is that (some translations use the term "Lord") "Jehovah" is the revealer of secrets. Take the book or Revelation for example. Sure, many say it is impossible to understand. Think about the name of the book. Revelation. Means "revealings". Even the apostle "John" didn't understand the things he was seeing in the vision given to him. He was told to write them down. Only in the past few decades have the real understanding of this book has come to light. In fact, our poeple right around the world are studying this book in depth every week in just a few verses per week.

This is why a Bible study is required for someone to have a good understanding of the Bible's teachings. Yes, there are millions who think we have the wrong idea and we twist the Bible's words. Of course people are going to say these things if they don't understand the things to be learned in the first place. As I have mentioned before "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". All I can do is ask people to study the Bible with us. There's no obligation to do anything else. But wouldn't it be good to have a good understanding of the Bible?

For 39 years of my life I thought I could do well without knowledge of the Bible. I relied on my own understanding of things. But I still had many questions about things and I hated, YES! HATED! religion. All because I had no idea what was written in the Bible. It's quite amazing the different outlook I have for things now, before I felt so positively confident about up to then.

Anyway. I said my piece on this subject. I'll get off my soap box now


Col

 

What really scares me is that some people actually think children should be thought creationism in schools. Wow.

Evolution has been proven over and over again and most of the christian scientists agree with it so I really don't see any point in continuing this debate.

And one more time. Evolution does not say anything about god. Evolution doesn't say anything about religion. It's only about how species evolve. Though some people still think that all scientists are part of some anti religious conspiracy but the truth is they are just doing their job.

 

You are wrong.

I don't believe in God, but there is no reason that BOTH subjects can't get attention in school. The issue behind it is which religion to you base your information on. I'm all for every body getting to make their own opinions and ideas, thats what is great about American, you can choose.

 

Religion can be taught. Just like Egyptian mythology is taught and just like the stories of Zeus are taught. But religion shouldn't be taught in a science class as a "scientific theory" equal to evolution.

 

True 100% correct but evolution doesnt say a single word about how it came about did it. Intelligent design all the way . Evolution on its own is ok but darwinian evolution is nonsense and has been debunked by most of the worlds top microbiologists.

 

It doesn't claim to.

Intelligent design only claims that some aspects of some organisms are too complex to have evolved. But this is an entirely fallacious argument. it's an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy. "Because I don't see how X could have been produced by Y, Z must be the cause."

Name some.

 

I am not. Children should have right to decide on their own. But we cannot teach them creationism as alternative to evolution as it has no scientific evidence supporting it at all and it is religios view. And I do believe that religion should not be taught at schools. If you belive that creationism should be taught at schools then why shouldn't we learn our children also other religious dogmas (islamistic/hindu view on this subject).

Just imagine your children learning about creationism at biology classes. Lol. That's just stupid.

 

You do realize that evolution is a "theory", do you know what a theory is?

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

You could say in the same aspect that religion is a theory.

 

Creation is a theory, But it's not a scientific theory. Evolutionary theory is observable, Testable and it can make predictions capable of falsifying it's self. Creation is a theory in the sense that it is speculation, A guess, A hypothesis which has absolutely no data to support it, Can be subjected to no tests to falsify it and can make absolutely no predictions.

They aren't the same thing.

 

Have you read any books supporting evolution? I assume not. They have some extremely convincing data.

Most of the things that support evolution, such as carbon dating, have huge gaps and problems.

 

care to elaborate?

I would like to know of the other "things" that support evolution which have been found to have "gaps and problem".
I would like to know specifically what these "gaps and problems" are
and i would like to know what you think the "gaps and problems" are in carbon dating.

 

I've always wonder how one would falsify evolution. What do you do? Poke a rat and call evolution falsified because it didn't grow a poke swatter overnight?

 

No, That isn't what you do. One way of falsifying evolution is to use the theory to make a prediction, Then If the prediction doesn't come true the theory needs to be changed because it's been falsified.

this happened fairly recently when it was discovered that out of all the great apes humans had 46 (23 pairs) of chromosomes compared to the 48 of all other great apes. because chromosomes can't just vanish without being disastrous we knew that something had to have happened to two primate chromosomes that resulted in them fusing.

Chromosomes have things called centromeres in the centre and telomeres at each end. They are markers for the information bearing part of the chromosome and the end of the chromosome.

Using the theory of evolution ken miller predicted that a human chromosome will be found that has extra telomeres in the wrong place (not at the end) and two centromere (one deactivated). After making the prediction they set about trying to find this chromosome, and they did. It was Human chromosome number 2. Another remarkable piece of evidence for primate evolution has been found and an experiment capable of falsifying evolution had been conducted.

Here is a video of geneticist ken miller explaining it better than i ever could.

 

Now we have people relying on predictions. Sounds very familiar to me. Now where did I read about predictions again??

 

Develop some integrity cheap. if you want to refute something i have said i suggest you do it. But this tactic of muddying the waters is petty and infantile. I posted a detailed account of how a theory can be used to make a prediction and how the theory can be proven false if the prediction doesn't come true, And you reply with a comparison to, i assume, nostradamus or some other quack simply because the word "prediction" was used.

Either you have zero integrity and zero intellectual honesty or you failed entirely in your attempt to understand what i said.