jump to last post 1-50 of 96 discussions (946 posts)

Why can theists not accept Evolution

  1. TFScientist profile image92
    TFScientistposted 4 years ago

    Here is my point. All of the heads of the major branches of Christianity, as well as the heads of the other major religions all accept Evolution as the process by which the biodiversity we see before us came to be. These 'Church' officials see it as God's method and only differ from the scientific mainstream by debating the exact point along human evolution at which the 'soul' was inserted.

    If these great and learned Church leaders have examined the evidence and come down in support of Evolution, why can the congregations not follow suit. Why do the 'rank-and-file' of theism see evolution as an assault on their values and beliefs, instead of just a beautifully intricate tool worthy of any creator?

    Thoughts?

    1. pinto2011 profile image60
      pinto2011posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If they will accept nature's forces as the supreme then every1 will bow before nature and not before them. So to keep supremacy, there behavior is staged managed and well manicured.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Quite simple, really. Those who reject evolution have never taken the time to understand it.

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who says all the heads of Christianity accept evolution?  Do you mean biological evolution, as in that humans somehow evolved from apes or other apelike creatures?   If so, that doesn't gel with the Bible nor would it gel with the heads of Christian theology.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        On October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II was reported as saying that evolution is "more than just a theory", in other words he accepted it as fact and made it public.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't know that.
          But then, I don't go by what the Pope says usually.  But yes he would be a head of one of the major branches of Christianity.   A head.  I wonder what about the heads of Protestant Christianity?  (for lack of a better title...but I do consider that a major brand of Christianity for sure.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The thing is, Brenda, the Pope took the time to understand evolution and when he did, he could not refute or deny it, no matter how much those who didn't understand it tried to rebuke him or anything that came from a holy book.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But here the thing TM it wont be me ,you or the Pope sitting on the throne come judgement day and thats just that.

              God created

              Science defines it

              Works for me smile

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I already know you have no intention of learning anything, but instead will only tell me how I'll stand in judgment to your irrational beliefs. No need to continuously remind us of that. And, that's just that. lol

          2. TFScientist profile image92
            TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Archbishop of Canterbury and York both accept evolution as fact and signed letters preventing the standard teaching of 'intelligent design' in British schools

          3. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You don't have to go by what the Pope says, all you have to do is the same thing he did, take the time to really understand evolution. If such religious leaders like the Pope can do that and openly admit it and live with it, so should any other believer. smile

            1. TFScientist profile image92
              TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Very well said.

              1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Vatican has always been open to modern science. Since 1951, the Church has accepted the Big Bang.

                1. ThatYossarian profile image61
                  ThatYossarianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it also a Catholic astronomer who first proposed the hypothesis of the big bang and expanding universe?

                  1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I can't think of the priest's name - he was an amature astro physicist and a huge proponent of the Big Bang. That was in the 1920's. The expanding universe was an ongoing theory until the mid 1920's when Earnest Hubble proved it.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The Catholic Church has said that the Big Bang theory is Biblically sound as well.

            3. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The pope is not God. He is a man.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol Excellent observation, except for one thing. How do you distinguish a man from a god if you've never seen a god.

                It is the same as claiming that 'it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck' after admitting one has never seen a duck.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image87
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  A man's a man because he's got a duck!  hmm

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah he sounds quackers to me. lol

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Huh?

    4. dmop profile image86
      dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am no authority on the matter, though I have spent 25 years researching this very type of correlation between science and religion. I might point out that Genesis is and has been considered very controversial at best. Most theists and scholars believe it to be of Mosaic descent, yet in its original form it bears no resemblance to any other Mosaic writings. The other side of the debate argue that perhaps it was not Mosaic and perhaps should never have been included in the Bible in the first place. Furthermore, it was the single most debated book among the scholars and theologians who translated the Bible into English in the first place, in the end they only included it to satisfy a need for a beginning of creation.

      1. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @dmop, interesting input, but I disagree with "included it to satisfy a need for a beginning of creation."

        There is so much more in Genesis than creation. Genesis reveals the mechanics of creation. It tells us our true nature -- that of non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation (children of God, created in His image). But also that these souls have been wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh (dust of the ground).

        There is also a timeline compatible with those of science. The keys can be found with the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" embedded in two books of Genesis, and in Genesis 5:2 and 6:3.

        Genesis also describes the Great Fall from Heaven. And this gives us an idea of what we're up against in our quest to get back to the Garden.

        Genesis also gives us the culprit behind and target of the Flood. It also reveals to us the real reason for the Flood -- a crime which humans have been unable to duplicate since then -- a very special kind of wickedness.

      2. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Comparing evolution and Biblical stories is like compairing apples and oranges. Creation stories from all cultures have been around since humans could communicate. When these Biblical stories were written, people though the earth was flat. the average person was born, lived and died in a 20 mile raduis, people believed in sea monsters and a list of other beliefs - like the sky is a huge perferated canopy where tiny bright light shine through them at night. They had no idea that stars are individual suns with their own solar systems. Science started in the 1500's when Galileo used a telescope for the first time and noticed that the earth is not at the center of the universe and disproved many other popular beliefs found in the Bible. By the way, the Jews (who wrote these stories) and the Vatican no longer take the Bible as a literal history book.

        1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
          A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Could you please clarify. I would like for you to point out the specific "popular beliefs in the Bible" you are speaking about? The Bible calls those "stories" - accounts, and the misinformation about science did not come from the Bible; it came from misinformed men plying their specific "theories" to the movers and shakers of the time.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image78
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Popular beliefs during the the time the stories were written. I was refering to the philosphies at the time. Science, as we know it didn't exist 2000 years ago.

            1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
              A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              These were written accounts of happenings, not philosophies or stories. Several of these accounts start out with that word, "This is the account." As far as your comment about science goes then the Bible should be considered legitamate. In the last chapters of Job there are several passages that allude to science we did not know until this era.
              If you choose to discount what I have written about scienc and the Bible, then perhaps you should look at some of the archaeological information on digs concerning the ancient Middle East. There have been finds that have been compared to ancient batteries.

              1. artblack01 profile image82
                artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There are many accounts that are not written that way that have been proven true, but there are also accounts that have been made all through history that have been proven false....  you need to understand that people lie, everyone.  The only way to determine if someone is actually telling the truth or if something is not a fictional account or unrealistic belief is to find the evidence for it. 
                You can believe whatever you want is true but I will follow the evidence and the evidence tells me that the Bible is not a true account but one that was written to make people believe it was a true account.  There are many sciences that were known or eluded to all the way to Greek times that we didn't realize till now but that doesn't make them divinely inspired or make a fictional account of something automatically true.  Did you know that the Wright Brothers did not invent human flight or the air plane?  Leonardo da Vinci had drew plans for an airplane and recently a group of people decided to build it using just the materials available at that time, it worked and it flew further than the Wright Brothers airplane.  There are many things that people of science could have done if it weren't for religious oppression.  Hence the Dark Ages.

                1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                  A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So where is your evidence (proof) that the Bible is not a true account. Is it what someone else has told you? How do you verify that what they have been told is correct or not? This could go on forever.
                  In actuality if you were to research the different peoples in the Middle East area and compare that to the prophecies that are written about their inheritance in the Bible; I believe you would find a mountain of evidence.
                  The simplicity of the matter is without faith it is impossible to please God. Now you can call what I believe an unfounded delusion; that is your choice, but when you take a leap of faith you will find more truth in the Words of the Bible than in any worldly knowledge or any other religion for that matter.
                  The Words of the Bible are both tangible and intangible; explainable and inexplicable. Only faith reveals the latter of the two. In the end all will bow before our Creator, God, Jesus. Those who accepted Him will live and those who do not will be in torment.
                  Do you know for sure what will happen after you die? Is it factual, proven?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The first ten words can be confirmed by the rest following.

                  2. 0
                    Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly what evidence do you have that a virgin named Mary was visited by the Holy Spirit and impregnated, as told in Luke 34-38?  And how does the process work?

        2. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
          Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Paul, are you sure you have read the entire Bible?
          First, not all the Books of the Bible were written by the Jews,
          and secondly, there is quite a lot of science in the Bible.
             


          Years ago I’ve put together research essay about Job – the Edomite Biblical hero and Prophet of Islam, and this are couple of fragments of it:

          “The book of Job, being the oldest book in existence, and the masterpiece of world literature has deeply influence our human society. Many people in ancient and modern times have been inspired and comforted by the piety and patience of Job.

          In 1822, at the age of 65, William Blake, English poet and painter, began work on 21 illustrations for The Book of Job. These works were later admired by John Ruskin, who compared Blake favorably to Rembrandt.
                         
          As the Nazi broke ground for Auschwitz camp, in spring of 1940, a 19 years old student and aspiring actor Karol Wojtyla, had just finished writing his second play in nearby Krakow; Job , a drama from the Old Testament. This play leads inexorably to the characteristic Wojtyla denouement and the divine whisper: “Be Not Afraid”. Later as John Paul II it would be his most repeated message whether in private audiences or the individuals within a very large crowd.

          Examples can be endless, but who was the author of this masterpiece?

          Considering that this book is the oldest book in existence, this question could be enigma with no answer at all; nevertheless, this book is worth searching for one.

          The oldest fragments of manuscripts of The Book of Job found among the Dead Sea scrolls in the Qumran caves are dated back to the second century B.C.; some of them are written in Aramaic, a language commonly use at that time, but some fragments are written in Palo-Hebrew, a language which was in use before the time of the Exile (six century BC).

          “This book was apparently well known in the days of Ezekiel, 600 B.C.” (Easton)
           
          In this case one may as well look for the author of The Book of Job between the stars in the sky; fortunately there are verses in Job Chapter 9, in which Job admires the work of God and says:

                    “8 Who (God) alone spreadeth out the heavens,
                      and treadeth upon the waves of the sea;
                     9 Who maketh Arcturus, Orion and Pleiades…”

          A short note about these celestial bodies:

          The seven stars of the PLEIADES are in reality a grouping of 250 suns. Photographs reveal that 250 blazing suns in this group are all traveling together in one common direction. From Lick Observatory came this statement of Dr. Robert J. Trumpler: 
                                   
          “The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship”.

          Garrett P. Serviss, the noted astronomer, wrote about the bands of ORION in his book Curiosities of the Sky: (Garrett P. Serviss, Curiosities of The Sky).
                                                                           
          “At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line. In the course of time, however,  the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam,  will approach each other and form a naked-eye double;  but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward  so that the band will no longer exist.”

          ARCTURUS, one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second; our sun is traveling only 12 ½ miles a second, but Arcturus is traveling 257 miles a second;  it could only be stopped by collision head on with a body of enormous mass. Barring such accidents, it must, as far as we can see, keep on until it has traversed our stellar system, whence it may escape and pass out into space beyond to join perhaps one of those other island universes.

          Charles Burckhalter, director of the Chabot Observatory at Oakland, added an interesting note regarding this great star:

          “This high velocity places Arcturus in that very small class of stars that apparently are a law unto themselves. He is an outsider, a visitor, a stranger within the gates; to speak plainly, Arcturus is a runaway. Newton gives the velocity of a star under control as not more than 25 miles a second, and Arcturus is going 257 miles a second. Therefore, combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.”

          In epiphany, The Book Job Ch.38, God reviles to Job some more secrets of the universe by merely raising questions concerning the wonders of His creation. Three of these questions found in   Job 38:31- 32, are:

          “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of PLEIADES,                         
          or loose the bands of ORION?
          Canst thou guide ARCTURUS with his sons?”

          When Mr. Burckhalter had his attention called to this text in the book of Job, he studied it in the light of modern discovery and made a statement that has attracted worldwide attention:

          “The study of The Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that Job is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars.”

          The Book of Job contains many more examples of scientific knowledge which precedes by thousands of years our modern discoveries;  less than 200 years ago, through the advent of a massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the North; nevertheless, over 3000 years earlier Job said: (Ch.26:7)

          “7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,”

          and Job continue

          “…and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

          Many ancient cultures had the idea of the earth being held up by the back of an animal, a Titan giant, or the body of goddess; in contrast somehow Job knew the truth.

          As Job Ch.26:8 continue, it says:

          “8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.”

          And in Ch.36: 27-28 he goes on to explain the whole hydrologic cycle:

          “27 For he maketh small the drops of water:                           
                 they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:                       
          28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.”

          This statement is from before 1500 B.C.; it wasn’t until data and measurement were taken all over entire hemisphere of the globe in our modern era that such an understanding of the hydrologic cycle was achieved.

          Some more examples of advance science mentioned in The Book of Job are:

          The light travels (38:19);

          there are springs in the sea (38:16);

          the air has weight (28:25);

          each and every single snowflake is a uniquely symmetrical treasure (38:22);

          there are valleys in the sea (38:16);

          the lighting triggers the rain to fall (28:26).

          And there are more verses in this book which are new to our present scientific level of knowledge. One of them relates to foundation sockets in Job 38:6; an odd word (Hebrew) ‘adaneyah is used for “foundations” which is transliterated as Eden.
          This word is used for the sockets holding up the staves in the tabernacle (Ex. 26:19). It is used this manner a total of 52 times. Then it is used for the “sockets of the ideal king in Songs (5:15).

          The only place in Scripture where it is used for “foundation sockets” is in Job Ch. 38:6.

          The Alaska earthquake struck on Good Friday of 1964.
          Through the use of more than 200 seismographs operating worldwide using push waves and shock waves, scientists determined that foundation rock if earth is mantle rock. Surprisingly it was learned that underneath the oceans these mantle rock extends down for 2 – 5 miles but underneath each of the continents it extends downward 300 miles, truly providing a socket for each of the seven continents.
          This statement made over 3500 years ago in the Book of Job was proved accurate.

          1. 0
            Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Job is not the oldest book in existence, but it is likely the oldest book of the Bible.

            1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
              Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Can you provide me with the title of the older book?
              BTW do you know who Job was?

              1. mischeviousme profile image59
                mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Upanishads... Their not in the bible but their many times older. I've read the assumption the bible is the oldest book, maybe, but it's not the oldest written text, nor are the dead sea scrolls.

                1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Mischeviousme, 

                  I'm not talking about the time of composition of entire Bible, but the Book of Job. 

                  This book, place between the books of poetry and wisdom, is not Jewish but Edomite masterpiece, and is dated to pre-mosaic times - before 1500 B.C.
                   

                  1. mischeviousme profile image59
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The Upanishads, like the early mesopatamian traditions were oral. Indian culture predates middle-eastern culture by 2000 years or more. Read up on the upanishads, you'll be supprised by how much younger the books of bible really are. Of course, who's to say that Rome didn't make the whole thing up? There were so many tribes back then and many pagan belief systems, Constantine had to gain control somehow. Why not by the minds of the innocent and ignorant? Take advantage of the mental weeknesses of the greater public and you've got yourself a religion.

                  2. 0
                    Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The Book of Job is an Edomite masterpiece, dated to circa 1500 BCE? That's one conjecture, yes.

              2. 0
                Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Epic of Gilgamesh is usually considered to be older than Job. Yes, I know who Job was, in the same sense that I know who any possibly-mythical/possibly-historical person was.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Also instructions of Shuruppak, epic of itana, code of urukagina, wisdom of Ptah hotep....

                  1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We are talking about book written in alphabetical script, not just a poem on a clay tablet.

              3. peanutroaster profile image78
                peanutroasterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                http://www.onlinedegree.net/the-10-olde … wn-to-man/

                Bible doesn't even make the top 10 of oldest books.  Interesting that you would think the Bible is so old as if it was written by God on day eight or something.

                1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Penatroaster,
                  The Bible is collection of books and the Book of Job is the oldest book of the Bible. It was written around 1500 BCE  in alphabetical script, what make it pleasure to read compare to reading Pictograms or cuneiforms on the clay tablets.

                  It was also Job's desire to preserve his story in the form of book.

                  The Book of Job   Chapter 19 reads:

                  Job 19
                  King James Version (KJV)

                  " 23 Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!

                   24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

                   25 For  I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:"

                  Poetic middle section of this book is a beautiful and inspiring work of literature. 
                  The leading English poet of Victorian age, Alfred Lord Tennyson, who studied Hebrew having a mind to translate The Book of Job, called it, the 

                  "...greatest poem of ancient and modern times."

                  In the Westminster Abbey, on his monument, are written the words,
                  "I know that my Redeemer liveth,"  
                  from The Book of Job, which he had asked to have been written upon his tomb.

                  Tennyson’s opinion about this book was shared by Victor Hugo, who wrote: 

                  "Tomorrow, if all the literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only,  I should save Job".

                  In my opinion, this makes a written word a BOOK.

          2. scottcgruber profile image92
            scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Proof that any vaguely-written statement can be interpreted to mean anything you want it to mean.

            I do the same thing with horoscopes every night. Read the morning's horoscope at the end of the day and chances are you'll find something that happened to you that fits something the astrologer wrote, usually with spme creative interpretation.

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              (Read the morning's horoscope at the end of the day and chances are you'll find something that happened to you that fits something the astrologer wrote)

              scottcgruber,

              Yes, this is the basis for the technique called "cold reading", utilized by people like John Edwards in his shows to contact the dead.  The issue of cold reading is to make vague suggestions and allow the audience to supply details, then restate those details as if it had been derived magically.

              This is basically what Chritianity is based on - rather vague declarations in the Old Testament about a coming messiah, and the details of Jesus being messiah added "by the audience". 

              I mean, seriously, how hard is it to write a story after the fact that matches a vague, known prophecy?   Well, too hard for some, or the book of Matthew would not have been screwed up and had Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two beasts, a donkey and a fole at the same time.

          3. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (the lighting triggers the rain to fall (28:26).)

            saggitarius 2012,

            Lighting does not cause rain.  It can certainly rain with no lightning, and lighting can occur without rain.

            For a perfect god, this one is pretty stupid.

          4. Paul Wingert profile image78
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Science" in the Bible is not to be confused with modern science. Modern science didn't exist 2000+ years ago. What did exist 2000 was myth, superstition, and philosophies (some pretty accurate) based on simple observations since that's all one can do since telescopes and microscopes didn't exist.

    5. CHyNCHyN profile image60
      CHyNCHyNposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I just written about evolution, you can check it out in my hubs.
      I believe more in intelligent design.

    6. 0
      ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I believe in ID, which does not preclude evolution.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        With the exception, "who intelligently designed the designer".

        1. 0
          ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good question. However you are thinking like a human, (we're stuck because we are human and that's all we 'can' think like) humans don't/can't know the answer to everything, although even in saying 'that', somehow there is an attempt to continue to do so. So let's go 'there'.

          "who intelligently designed the designer".

          I don't know, who did? or, (1) who intelligently designed the (2) designer  that (3) designed the (4) designer of everything, or, well you get the picture, can that question be answered?

          If we're going to think like humans (what else 'can' we do) then by way of an example, my cat doesn't know 'of' tomorrow, will he 'ever'?, the answer is 'no', does that tell us anything? (as humans) it tells us, we can't figure out who intelligently designed the designer".

          That doesn't mean that probabilities don't exist, If mankind reverses the fallacy of abiogenesis, and in fact at some point in the future creates 'life' from an inanimate object, then does that mean that it's a probability that 'someone' an 'ID' could have created us?, It makes sense to me, how about you?

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Isn't it simple? The more intelligent designer designed the Intelligent designer, who in turn was designed by the most intelligent designer, who in turn was designed by the most most intelligent, who in turn by.....

            1. 0
              ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There's no end to your statement, so no one (human) can know the answer, which by the way was my point, thanx for agreeing.

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There is an end!!
                Your logic is all complex things need be created, the premise is false. All contingent things can evolve from pre-existing one, while all non-contingent are eternal.
                Hence matter is eternal, humans evolved.

                1. 0
                  ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Humans may have evolved, I'm not disputing that at all. I am saying that an IDer may have created several of the species on our planet that eventually evolved.

                  Where did the first spark of life come from? and please don't tell me the muddy quagmire that existed several million years ago, and that the atmospheric conditions were such that it all reached a perfect state of nirvana like happiness and then there was an amoeba, because I don't believe it smile and yes I know what nirvana 'really' means, I'm just playing with words.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are explaining the past, so be rational not "magical".

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (However you are thinking like a human, (we're stuck because we are human and that's all we 'can' think like) humans don't/can't know the answer to everything)

            ecoethicalvegan,

            "Thinking like a human" involves an assumption that there is a magical incorporeal spirit-thing that has the ability to know the answer to everything? 

            Does it bring presents down the chimney, too?  That's pretty human thinking.

            1. 0
              ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I luv that you said.... "Does it bring presents down the chimney, too?  That's pretty human thinking.".... it's very similar to the tangent by your cohort ScottCGruber who said.... "You can "free think" that the sky is purple if you like. It doesn't necessarily make it true."

              So without further ado, please refer to my response to him smile

              Namaste and all that jazz!

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                (If we're going to think like humans (what else 'can' we do) then by way of an example, my cat doesn't know 'of' tomorrow, will he 'ever'?, the answer is 'no', does that tell us anything? (as humans) it tells us, we can't figure out who intelligently designed the designer".)

                ecoethicalvegan,

                Assuming an intelligent designer is also "thinking like a human".  Assuming an incorporeal intelligent spirit that knows the answer to everything is "thinking like a human".

                One cannot make a positive claim ( an intelligent designer made us) and then claim ignorance because the logic fails.  The only honest answer about abiogenesis is "I don't know" how life began.

                And, that, also, is a totally human response.

                1. 0
                  ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Two thoughts my budding philosopher. If an intelligent designer designed us or everything, then no, it/they (could be a pantheon) wouldn't be 'thinking' like you or I, would they now?

                  I agree that 'we' collectively as humans 'do not know' if abiogenesis is possible (yet) we can at best hypothesize, and I'd like some proof that my hypothesis is off the rails.

                  If abiogenesis is eventually achieved by human mortals, then wouldn't it be fair to say that someone/something else may have beaten us to the 'punch' and that we may be the 'oh my G*DESS the results of their expertise, whaddaya think about them apples! smile

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    (whaddaya think about them apples!)

                    ecoethicalvegan,

                    I haven't found any of your "gee, anything is possible" assertions to be worth considering, actually.  If anything is possible, please present to the audience a square circle or intersecting parallel lines or an object that has no length, width, or heigth.

                    Otherwise, you are just playing what if games with yourself.

              2. scottcgruber profile image92
                scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Our replies are the same because you're using the same hand-waving illogic. Just because you can imagine something doesn't mean there's any evidence for it, and doesn't make it a theory with equal status to the well-established science of evolution.

                You're free to believe that Santa or the FSM designed life. But until you've put your hypothesis to the test and demonstrated some evidence to back it up, it'll be nothing more than a wild idea.

                1. 0
                  ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Let me make this perfectly clear, I BELIEVE THAT MANKIND HAS BEEN/IS IN SOME FORM OF EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS, I stood on a chair and used a mega horn to say that!

                  Speaking of wild ideas, maybe, just maybe, someone/some people (humans) built the computer you're communicating with to express the idea that we weren't ID'ed, oh no that's impossible! how could anything design us, ridiculous old chap, haw, haw, haw, hey did you hear about the self replicating synthetic DNA, my oh my, watz next, hmm maybe one day we'll be able to build some kind of multicellular organic organism and then that organism'll say I wasn't created, I EVOLVED!

        2. scottcgruber profile image92
          scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That was Charles Thaxton, editor of "Of Pandas and People." This was a creationist "science" textbook written in the mid-1980s. After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision prohibiting teaching of creationism in the classroom, Thaxton used a search-and-replace function to swap out all mentions of "creation" and "creationists" for "intelligent design" and "design proponents."

          He didn't invent the term - it dates back to well before Darwin. But he and his Discovery Institute colleagues were certainly early adopters and popularizers who intelligently designed the term to slip under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and sneak religion into the classroom.

          1. 0
            ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Great!, but I'm an independent thinker, and don't need help from Thaxton or any theist or secularist to 'free think' I 'think' it's probable that we were designed or created (no theism intended) smile

            1. scottcgruber profile image92
              scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You can "free think" that the sky is purple if you like. It doesn't necessarily make it true.

              1. 0
                ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Does that make what I said 'not probable' I mean, I wasn't proposing that the FSM was probable anymore than I was proposing that the sky was purple.

                Think about it, anything anyone ever said, including anything you say, can be countered with something that takes the conversation to an absurd degree. If that's all you see in my statement then no problem, that's ok, however your comment doesn't address the integrity of what I said.

                An 'a priori' argument in this instance is a sound argument, but if 'all' you have to offer is what you posited with your response then that's ok, in the absence of any substantive rebuttal, I'll feel free to believe my assumption is accurate.

        3. lone77star profile image91
          lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @jomine -- simple answer to "who intelligently designed the designer" -- no one! Source of all is source of all. That source is the I AM.

          When you have no space, no time, no energy, no matter, there is no continuity for you to build the relational connectedness you're usually used to inside of this reality. In the realm of creation there is no "effect" -- only "cause."

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Too many errors.

          2. jonnycomelately profile image87
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You have hit the nail on the head!  However, it is not easy to "get one's mind around" this concept, for many people.

            Maybe the easiest way to accept it is, in parrster's quote: "Now try and do that with your brain switched off."  Because the reality of the "I AM" is watching the brain in action.

            Swallow that one. big_smile

      2. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @ecoethicalvegan, ID does not preclude evolution. Bravo and amen!

      3. peanutroaster profile image78
        peanutroasterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ID is creationism in drag.

    7. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Given that Evolution is a theory, in practice, I am inclined to believe most theists do accept it/believe it. But like all Theos, practicality does not make it true or factual. It just makes it more palatable and marketable to the masses. Anyone can find stuff, artifacts, apply any set of tests, rules, hype and come to a conclusion. The left wing theist (aka scientist) and the right wing theist (aka sensationalist) are the same. The two sides of The Ism of Duality. True, both use different measuring rods and divination techniques, but they aren't different at all. From many years of studying both, I could come to the well accepted conclusion that science founded sensationalism -especially regarding evolution, practical majik, religious ritual, etc -since the theorem existed a very very long time ago, in a different form/title.

      James.

      PS, You do know, the most modern accepted theory on Evolution was formed and published by a Catholic priest & scientist, right?

    8. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      if think about the question why ask it?  Why would anyone consider evolution if they believe in a God? if they did they would be saying God was not necessary and defeat thier belief!

      This is just going in circles, no point to it. If you believe, you believe, if you do not, then  you do not,  Both are valid points to the people making them, and of either view?    Each seperate view"does not" affect anyone but the holder of the belief?

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (Both are valid points to the people making them)

        dutchman1951,

        But here is the rub - they are not equally valid points.  One thing is certain: we either have good reasons for what we believe or we do not.

        As for someone to lead a country, teach our kids, or decide on whether or not to go to war - would we want someone who has good reason and evidence for his decisons or someone who consults soothsayers, instead?

    9. dmop profile image86
      dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would like to hear the explanation for all of the skeletal remains that mysteriously become more and more like ourselves as you get closer and closer to this point in time. Were they put there by Satan to distort the truth and distract us from the path of righteousness. I mean no disrespect to religion in general, I am a firm believer that there is a God, but when you refuse to accept the facts that are staring you directly in the face you only discredit yourself and your own ability to think reasonably. If the Bible is exactly accurate in its account of the creation of the world where did all those remains come from, much less dinosaur remains, and fossils of creatures many millions of years old. Perhaps a day to God is not like our day, and the creation story is simply symbolic, as is the rest of the Bible. You never know, maybe Genesis and some other speculative portions of the Bible are part of Satan's many attempts to distract us. There are lots of what if, but to simply assert that evolution did not happen based on the Bible, in light of all of the facts, just seems plain foolish and immature.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Similar never means the same as.

      2. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @dmop, similar bones? Convergent evolution. That doesn't prove Homo sapiens came from those species. It only means similarity.

        Now, I have to agree that biblical literalists are too quick to judge and too lazy to dig deeper within the Bible for any hidden wisdom, but it's there.

        There is a biblical timeline compatible with those of science. Amazing, huh?

        It pegs the Flood at 27,970 BC. Did Noah's Flood really happen as described? I don't know, but something happened then that targeted one very specific group, because that group was interfering with God's plans (see Genesis 6). These were the "daughters" of man. We're talking genetics, here, and species.

        But this same timeline pegs earliest Homo sapiens at 10,434,130 BC. Genesis is no longer far too short, but running a bit too long for anthropologists' likings.

        Satan? I think we each have a bit of him as excess baggage. We call it ego and it's easily bruised (vulnerable), unlike the immortal, true self, asleep within.

        1. dmop profile image86
          dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you lone77star you sound very similar too me in you avenue of thought. I do not mean to discredit the Bible or its authenticity as God's divine word in essence. I just mean to provoke thought among theists who choose to believe that evolution didn't, doesn't, and couldn't happen. We know for a fact that it does, it happens all around us everyday. Take the the flu virus for example, it evolves several times a year, and we watch it very closely to help us prepare for the up coming flu season. So to proclaim the it didn't or couldn't happen is a lost argument. If we can prove that it is happening to other species at this very moment, why is it so difficult to acknowledge that it is a part of our own lineage as well.

          1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
            A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I really do not understand how evolutionists can keep saying that ADAPTATION and EVOLUTION are the same? It is evolutions' theme that one species changes to a whole other species. No can do. Mutation by a virus does not make it a different species. It is, in essence, the same being. What it does, mutate, is the nature of the being. What God intended for it to do. This is not a model for the entire earth. Not everything becomes an chameleon. Just because we go to Alaska, does not mean we are going to grow fur just because we are no a colder climate. Extra clothes would not mean anything because our bodies would be telling us we need more warmth.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image87
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Extra clothes?"  A.S.K.Preacher???  Very woolly thinking in my opinion. 

              We know where you are coming from when we have read your profile.  One moment you are trying to address science and proof and logical reasoning. The next moment you invoke t he influence of "God,"  This use of "god" is simply an attempt to carry on a conversation when you don't have proof one way or the other, don't you think?
              I have no proof that what I don't believe in will one day be proven to be correct.

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well-rounded is what the secularists call it. My profile is an etching. You seem an intelligent, though misguided, individual; I would have thought you could have surmised you did not know the whole A.S.K.Preacher.
                As so many of you who believe in evolution like to say, "The evidence is all around us." You only choose to ignore it.
                Tell me; Did we lose our fur coat all at once and decide to start wearing clothes or did we start wearing clothes and gradually lose our fur coat? Which evolutionary line do you have proof of?

                1. jonnycomelately profile image87
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I suspect the latter.  "start wearing clothes and gradually lose our fur coat." Seems logical.  We have been termed the "Naked Ape."

                  1. Druid Dude profile image61
                    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So...if you wear a hat you go bald?

                  2. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You have a beard. If you shaved it off in the middle of summer your face would be hotter than if you had kept your beard. If you shaved it off in the middle of winter your face would be colder than it would hav e been if you had not shaved.
                    We with beards know this to be true. I always get an amazed look when I tell people my face would be hotter if I shaved in the summer. The point is- Why would evolution choose to take away fur when the body would be more comfortable, temperature control wise, with fur? Doesn't sound very efficient to me?

    10. Adams-ebooks profile image72
      Adams-ebooksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, i grew up in the West of Ireland where Catholicism was forced upon you from an early age..
      I grew to reject it.
      I am now more interested in the Eastern religions.
      Of course we Evolved!
      We evolved to become the dominant species on this planet!




      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6167826_f248.jpg

      1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
        A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Words are wonderful. They can also be presented in a horrible way. It is unfortunate about your past, but this is the way the world is. I once left the church because of such evil. But God showed me I cannot let those people deprive me of eternal life.
        When you choose to twist the Word, in the way the above definition of Christianity is done, you are going to give the wrong impression. If you endorse the above definition; you have become the very thing you hate.
        It is still easier for me to believe a creator, with intelligence, made everything around me, including me, with amazing design than to believe we became intelligent by chance from a primordal soup.
        Hey you have to do what you have to do. It is your choice. Can soup do that?

        1. mischeviousme profile image59
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He's got a few lectures on youtube. look up the dellusional christians.

          1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
            A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you talking about me? If you are; then you have the wrong person. I wouldn't mind knowing how to use youtube, but I do not have any lectures there.
            I am interested in reasoning with anyone to try and get them to think - on their own - about the afterlife, what the Bible stands for, God and Jesus. I write on hubpages and a little, very little, on another site. What I write is meant to bring an understanding of the Bible for non-believers and spiritual growing information for those seeking Jesus.
            It is not my personal interpretation; it is what the Bible reads. I honestly do not want ANYONE to be where I was. I want as many as will to seek out the truth, to do so.
            You want to know why I do not use my picture? In truth I am not important. I have had "positions," not impressed. I do not want anyone thinking I am something I am not. I am a bottom dweller. It is only by God's grace, forgiveness, mercy and love through Jesus Christ that I am alive right now.
            I urge you to seek out the truth. Research the Bible. See if you can find God within the pages, but you must seek Him earnestly.
            But do not doubt; I will defend God's Word. I an interested in the truth. I will research or whatever is necessary to weed out deception in order that others might see some reason.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image87
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Preacher, you said "....It is not my personal interpretation; it is what the Bible reads."

              What self delusion do you live by?  What nonsense!  You and every one who calls him/herself a christian, decides what YOU want to accept in the bible and what you don't want to accept.  Those that sit in groups and use "ex-temporary prayer," and sit around discussing verses and texts from the bible, often totally out of context, interpret what they see in a way that suits their preconceptions. 

              It's a cunning way of judging your fellow humans!  I see your whole attitude to the bible as blinkered.  You know what is good for everyone else, because your "god" is backing you up.

              Pure self-delusion and ego.

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ego? I very much doubt that you have even taken the time to see what I have written.Twice now you have come off with the attitude that you seem to know me. I assure you do do not. It has been my experience that there are those who DO twist the scripture in order to fit their own needs. This is why I study what the Word means. I look up the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew. I look for the usage of particular phrases in other books within the Bible.
                You assume too much about me. You might call it a self delusional, self interpretation of someone you do not have any clue about. I guess you are judging yourself.
                READ IT, THEN MAKE AN EDUCATED JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF A SMUG ASSUMPTION. Either read my articles and point out where I have "misinterpreted" or get a new argument. Read the Bible, study and try to understand it, or argue about something you know about.
                I have made it clear in several posts that I am the least of you. It does not matter if you believe it; I know it. My intentions are to clarify and to reason with all who I can in order to cause them to think, to read the Bible and to make an EDUCATED decision. But anyone who reads the Bible must read it with the attitude of seeking out the truth.
                In my articles if I have a personal opinion; I state it as such.

                1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ASK Preacher, 
                  I'm searching for the Truth in the Bible regarding Esau and his nation  Edom.

                  Does these verses below make any sense  for you?

                  Romans 9
                  New King James Version (NKJV)
                  Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose

                  6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

                   7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 

                  8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 

                  9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

                  10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac

                   11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 

                  12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”

                   13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

                  Preacher,

                  Does your God hates people even before they have been born? 

                  And your  works don't matter?

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Firstly I want to thank you for this question.
                    To answer your question we must first look at the usage and meaning of this word that is translated "hate." The Strong's says this Greek word "miseo" pronounced (mis-eh-o) comes from a primary word that means to hate or detest, BUT this word and how it is used actually means to "love less."
                    When I was going to college I had several foreign exchange students tell me that English was the hardest language to learn because it is such an exact language. We have words for just about everything. This is not the case with other languages. How the word is used even the tone in which the word is used can give the word a totally different meaning. For instance we can say, "see" and it can mean - to look or do you understand now. How "hate " is used in this instance is equivalent to our having a favorite child. We love them all but we have a favorite.
                    The text could have read - Jacob I loved and Esau was not my favorite. This SAME word is used in Luke 14:26. If any man come to me and HATE NOT  his father...etc.
                    This does not mean you are supposed to hate those you love in order to love God. It means you are to love God more than these. He is to be your favorite.
                    Do works matter? No. I am saved; have the hope of salvation not because I am sooo goood and do sooo many goood things; no I am saved and have that hope because I know how sinful I am and how merciful God is.
                    Now you might site the rest of Romans 9. God will have mercy on who He will have mercy. Read Romans 9:30-33. These coincide with verses 6-7. Just because you are Jewish; does not instantly save you. Just because you are not part of the Jewish heritage; you are not instantly discarded. You are only saved by coming to Jesus.
                    The election issue is about inheritance. Jacob was chosen to carry on the lineage to Jesus because Esau gave up his right by choice, and the omniscient God knew the decision of FREE WILL that Esau would make.
                    Because of this question I am in the process of making a detailed hub about this. I hope you will stop by. Thank you.

    11. Eugene Hardy profile image60
      Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Because it requires them to change from the dogma that has been lived and taught over centuries.  True deists can see the evidence and judge for themselves and accept evolution as part of human knowledge.  Church's that live by their dogma would rather die by their dogma than change.

    12. emdi profile image71
      emdiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Please take few minutes to check my hub about the scientific truths about evolution and natural selection (hubpage rules forbid me from posting the link). There you will read about why it is irrational to believe in evolution.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Cool I'm off to read it.

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good luck in your attempts to reach new heights of ignorance!

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I never take advice from a .........dog wink specially one with bad manners.

            P.S It is a very well written hub,obviously written with researched knowledge on the topic. Well done emdi !

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So you made it, congratulations.
              It was well written, but not well thought out, but will do Good for people who cannot think for themselves.
              The only idea you got from that hub was probably "evolution is wrong and there is a higher power", and you went there just to read that much.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I read it and found it to be rubbish.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          TM That is hardly an objective answer lol

          Why?
          What was 'rubbish' and why do you think this?

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It was not researched at all, it was simply the usual tired arguments spouted by believers who have little to no understanding of evolution. You could have written it for all I know.

    13. EinderDarkwolf profile image61
      EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No offence is meant to you by this. However, your question very ill phrased. Your asking about accepting Evolution, however there is only one theory of Evolution, that's Darwin's Theory. Everything else says that we were created by a supreme being and that there was no evolution to get to the point at which we are. Even going strictly Christian, I can not understand what your asking here. According to the bible, the soul, which is the life spark, was inserted when God breathed the breath of life into Adam. Again there is no evolution here, just creation.

    14. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ************

      I believe in God and evolution.
      Evolution is plain to see.

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I also believe in evolution. I think the devil is keying on our ignorance. Religions that believe that God created the universe and everything else challenge the first cause that we came into being thru random means effectualted within this universe which has always existed. This is the ONLY part of evolution that is challenged by Christians. Of course, we believe in the survival of the fittest and adaptation by specie to its environment over eons of time...the evolution of a different looking specie. The issue of whether a specie can develop into another specie over time is controversial among all groups even the scientist themselves and amongst religious groups. It is not a religious issue.

        1. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ooops!! My previous comment is meant for TFScientist. Pardon me
          Deborah.

    15. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I blame the American education for ever allowing ID to be taught as science. I think it has permanently screwed up an entire generation. Let's hope for the next generation as the ability to separation religion from science, because reading some of these posts scares the crap out of me.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It makes one wonder how anyone survived the Dark Ages.  On second thought, had there been nuclear weapons during the Dark Ages, human beliefs would be a moot point.

      2. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
        A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Rad Man - If you were truly afraid; you would seek out the truth and let Jesus change you. Because the truth is a time is coming when, the Bible says, EVERY knee WILL bow and EVERY tongue WILL confess that Jesus is Lord of all. But then will be too late for those who refused to seek Him out.
        If there is any chance that you think there MIGHT  be a being so powerful that one day you will have to face Him, then I suggest you at least take a look at what the Bible reads.
        It is not unreasonable stuff. Love your neghbor. Believe in Jesus. I cannot think of one commandment that tells us to do something that isn't right to do anyhow.
        Why, I wonder, do so many find it such a bad thing to do the right thing?
        How can so many see so much intricate detail an say it "just happened?"

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          First of all, Preacher, posts like yours irritate me.  They irritate me because the logic within the post is circular.  What, pray tell, does "the bible says" have to do with anything other than your personal opinion?  The Qu'ran certainly doesn't say the same things.  My personal holy book, Catch-22, doesn't say that.  You have no reason and no right to intrude upon others with nothing but your personal opinion about what may be right.



          Again, why limit the search to the bible?  Why not look into Bhudda or Hindi or the Book of Mormon or my personal favorite, Catch-22?  Now there are some quotes you can get your teeth into: "Open your eyes, Clevinger. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference who wins the war to someone who's dead." Catch-22, Chapter 12, pg. 133-134.  You have not made a case for the superiority of the bible other than it is what you personally believe - so what?  My fiction is written better than your fiction.



          1) "You shall have no other gods before Me."
          That's going to work out really badly if Allah turns up at "the show".   

          2) "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
          Of course, we all know how evil artists are - maybe we should stone them.

          3) "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."
          My god is named damn - that's a tough one to keep.

          4) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
          Listen, my days off are Wed/Thurs, so am I going to be stoned or burn in hell or both?

          I have to admit, those are compelling reasons to believe the bible is the word of the one and only true supernatural superpower.  However, I still prefer my god damn and Catch-22:

          "The chaplain had 'failed miserably', had choked up once again in the face of opposition from a stronger personality. It was a familiar, ignominious experience, and his opinion of himself was low." Catch-22, Chapter 20, pg. 208

          1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
            A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            AKA Winston
            And likewise posts like yours irritate me. Those like you always like to take the Words of the Bible and twist them to mean some hateful thing. You want to believe teddy bears are the answer to all your problems and worship them that is your business; but when you die; that teddy bear will not save you, or give you life.
            Believe what you want; that is your God given right to choose, but lucky charms will not save you on the day of His arrival.

            As for the posts directly below; God was setting rules for a society that had already acquired bad habits. They were not to make slaves of men for the rest of their lives. Since it was hard to take care of a family, wasn't it better for the man to have his family taken care of than to be left to beggery?
            And by the way, aren't you trying to pigeonhole me into agreeing your beliefs are right? You would call me a hypocrite. You are not any better than I am, except I am presenting the truth and you are twisting it into something you want so that you can make yourself righteous. I have plainly said on many occasions that I am no better than anyone else. You are the very thing you would accuse Christians of being. What a shame you cannot look at yourself with the same scrutiny you view Christians.

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A god that needs ridiculous justifications from his followers in vain attempts to explain irrational, immoral actions is not a god to worry about.  What one needs to worry about is the crazy believers.

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It is not God who is irrational or immoral. It is humans and God has given us a way back to Him. You are comparing God to a human. He is Holy. You have the wrong idea. The picture you choose to represent yourself with is a testamony to that.

            2. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You only said you are right while others are not. You only said while you were special because you are right while others need yours or your stupid books guidance. And for making that special claim your only authority is your stupid book.
              In the book of warthog it is said that warthog is the creator is the whole universe and warthog gives immortal life and those who don't believe in warthog are doomed and those who say warthog is just a boar is ignorant idiots, so do you believe it, to be saved, or you continue to believe in 'your version of teddy bear' who won't be there when you die to save you and give life?

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And you are implying the same but with an acid attitude. Once again I will say, Jesus is the only way to life. This is what the Bible says. It is your choice to believe what you want. Now just because I believe this way, are you passing acrimony because I do not believe the way you do? If you know I am wrong then why the acrid response.
                It seems to me you would just pass me off as eccentric. Your remarks are not going to change my mind and to be quite honest, anyone who has read the Bilbe knows those like you are misusing the scripture in order to create a hate.
                You do not like my belief, tough. For the time being we are still a free country.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And you are implying the same but with an acid attitude. Once again I will say, Warthog is the only way to life. This is what the book of warthog says. It is your choice to believe what you want. Now just because I believe this way, are you passing acrimony because I do not believe the way you do? If you know I am wrong then why the acrid response.

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Let's go back and re-read our posts, shall we? I never took the book of warthog and twisted its words so that I could hate it and its teachings and to try and misrepresent the book of warthog in order to get others to hate it.
                    If you are going to insist on pointing the finger I suggest you make sure your slate is clean first. If you find my responses to be somewhat acrid then I suggest you first try and understand what the Bible is saying instead of pulling out some scripture to suit YOUR own need to belittle my desire to believe.
                    My whole point in writing and defending the Word is to enlighten and help people to understand the Word of God. The truth hurts. The truth is sharper than any two-edged sword.
                    I will say it again; believe what you want that is your choice. You will find out the truth in the end. But have no doubt I will defend the Word, because it is the truth and the only way to salvation.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          After reading this message I decided to give the bible another chance. Most of what it says is good right.
          You said "I cannot think of one commandment that tells us to do something that isn't right to do anyhow. "

          Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
          If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.

          If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.

          Wait, this is pretty sick stuff. I can buy a Hebrew slave (racism), but I can't keep him for more than 6 years unless I give him a wife and let them have kids. Then I set him free after 6 years. I tell him to leave, but I keep his family. If he wants to stay with him family I brand him and keep him for life. WHAT A PLAN!!
          I see what your saying. This book is great.

          saiah 13:15-18 NLT
          Anyone who is captured will be cut down—run through with a sword.
 Their little children will be dashed to death before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked, and their wives will be raped.

          “Look, I will stir up the Medes against Babylon. They cannot be tempted by silver or bribed with gold.
The attacking armies will shoot down the young men with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies
and will show no compassion for children.”

          Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT
          Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must die. In this way you will purge the evil from Israel.

          Leviticus 21:9 NLT
          If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father’s holiness, and she must be burned to death.

          This is all great stuff. I'll keep reading and follow these instructions to the word.

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I never knew bible was this great, thanks!

          2. aguasilver profile image87
            aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ....suggest you move on to the new testament, very different and you will have some considerable difficulty making snide remarks, you may even find the truth if you put aside your scorn and rebellion against God.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is it that there are two different gods or god decide to mend his ways?

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                God knew from the beginning there was a need for a perfect sacrifice. Because of the free will God gave man;and man's refusal to exert that free will in a becoming manner, Jesus appeared.
                The approximately 4000 years previous - God required animal sacrifice, which was a fore runner to Jesus. These sacrifices were meant as a sign to man of God's promise to present a true sacrifice that would save man, which goats and sheep could never do.
                When Jesus finally came, they did not get it. By your words you do not either. instead of trying to understand you want to argue or provide a flippant response.
                If you choose to continue to be willingly ignorant the day of His coming will occur, and you will bow your knees and acknowledge Jesus is Lord of all - reguardless of what you have proclaimed. But then will be too late for you. I hope you will change your mind.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And there is the threat!!!!!!!!! Someone just asked in a post how often this threat of hell comes and here it is again. Backed up against a wall and out it comes.

                  Do you read the stuff you right?  (God knew from the beginning there was a need for a perfect sacrifice. Because of the free will God gave man;and man's refusal to exert that free will in a becoming manner, Jesus appeared.)

                  Your claim is that your God knew he would have to make the perfect sacrifice. Those words don't even go together. How can any sacrifice of any life be perfect? According to you God gave us free will but he is not happy with our refusal to exert free will in a becoming manner. Well then it's not free will then is it. Did your God say, you have free will to think and do for yourself, but you must listen and obey and pray to me?

                  Don't you see the hypocrisy?

                  saiah 13:15-18 NLT
                  Anyone who is captured will be cut down—run through with a sword.
 Their little children will be dashed to death before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked, and their wives will be raped.

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Once again you are taking scripture out of context. Using it to generate a hate for what you do not understand. That is bigotry. If a Christian did that you would call them a hypocrite.
                    These happenings in the Old Testament were to show us how wrong behavior just begets wrong behavior. Have no doubt. God is good and everything good comes from Him. What you are seeing is not a decree by God but a prophesy of what will happen because of initial sin. We see this very thing today. You want to hate what you do not understand, but God through His Word is trying to teach you something.
                    Rad Man, don't put your hand in the fire you're gonna get burnt. Over and over with God's infinite patience He is telling us all. Yet we still refuse to listen to Him, so He sent a sacrifice because He knew we wouldn't listen to Him. This sacrifice is the only way to God.
                    If God were as mean spirited as you and others are claiming - you would not be here right now. It is His patience, hoping that ALL would come to the knowledge of Him.
                    If you are going to continue to use OT passages at least you should understand that the NT covenant was meant for all to find a way to God through Jesus. You do not see the OT scripture you are presenting; in the NT. The OT scripture you see in the NT contains prophecy of future events because we choose not to change. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training, but OT scripture is for our instruction in the result of sinful behavior. NT teaches salvation from our sinful nature and how we should act.
                    You want to call dicipline hypocrisy, but would you allow a child to continue to disobey you when you know their disobediance is going to be detrimintal to their health? Besides that hypocracy implies you want someone to do something or be something that you yourself will not do. God is Holy and a righteous judge. He does this in His own time because He is God. He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy. God/Jesus do what they ask us to do and they give us plenty of time and patience to accomplish this BY THEM. You cannot do this on your own.
                    Hell is no threat. It is a promise. You say you do not want to do things God's way. Then you have chosen the way He has warned you about, Hell.
                    Next time you use OT scripture maybe you should look at the content and study why those things were said. If you are honest you will find out those bad things came upon those people because of their disobediance.
                    Hey this is the fact. God is the creator, He is peacful, He wants peace with you, but it will be His way. Isaiah 1:18

                2. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow. What about those people who god created to not accept things without evidence? Why should i be punished simply for lack of beleif and more to the point, why did an omniscient, omnipotent being create me like this and then make sure i went to hell?

                  Sounds like an arsehole to me.

                  Wait, why do you WORSHIP such a being?

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Who are you, O man. Should the pot say to the potter why did you make me like this? The point is you could have a great relationship with the creator if you choose.

                3. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Why does god need sacrifice?
                  What is it he really want?
                  Is it the soul, but isn't he the creator of it and can create as much as he wants?
                  Or is it that he like meat? Can't he create some, with out the need to give life to some animal for the sole purpose of killing?
                  And how do you know this god need sacrifice in the first place?
                  Isn't it sick and barbaric to ask to kill somebody just as a sacrifice, especially ones own son? And what is the purpose of sacrifice? To forgive human? Then can't he forgiver without the theatrics?
                  If Jesus is god, then what did he sacrifice?

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not nearly as sick and barbaric as what humans do to each other with just the words they speak.

                  2. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    God did not want robots. He wanted a creation that would willingly work with Him and have a chance at becoming Sons and Daughters of God. It is a shame that so many would rather deny God than choose to become a Son or Daughter.

                  3. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                    Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You see Jomine,

                    the true God of the Bible never needed sacrifice and niter require one for Himself, especially human sacrifice.

                    In the covenant with Noah and his children God clearly said:
                    "Genesis 9

                     1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 

                     5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

                     6 “Whoever sheds human blood, 
                       by humans shall their blood be shed; 
                    for in the image of God 
                       has God made mankind."

                    The true God never expected human sacrifice.

                    In the Book of Job,  we read:

                    Job 1

                    Prologue

                     1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.

                     2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 

                     4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 

                    5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. 

                    Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” 

                    This was Job’s regular custom."

                    You see Jomine, Job "would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them", however, it wasn't animals sacrifice, but a frankincense. 
                    Burning of frankincense is still preformed in Catholic churches and in the region of Dhofar in Oman, where Job died and where his tomb is located.

                    Burning of frankincense is what in fact we need, not what  God needs.

                    Now we know that Frankincense is good not only for disinfecting purpose, but also for fighting tumors. 

                    All the true God, the Creator wants is to stay in touch with His creation; don't you expect the same from your own children?

                    However, the God of Israel - the Destroyer, it is all different story;  he needs a lot of meet and is pleased 
                    equally with abortion or any other kind of slaughter.

                    It looks like Preacher is confusing those two Gods, and it puts him in he category of deceivers not teachers of the true God. 

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why, are they not both the word of God? Do you really think I can't find similar repulsive passages in the new testament. You have nothing to say about how repulsing the word of God can be? Do you dismiss some?

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I believe I have already explained this. You refuse to hear because you WANT to hate the truth. If you would find the truth; it would make you wrong and you cannot have that , can you?

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't hate the truth. I know the truth. You are living a lie. Open your eyes and ask yourself what is the most likely scenario? I've done this and have come to the correct decision. You're god is a illusion, but I do hope it makes you a better person.

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The most likely senerio is unfolding before our very eyes. The Middle East is in the most opportune time to actually fulfill prophecy. No where in the world is safe. Our freedoms are being stripped away from us by flatteries. If you cannot see that we are slowly being consumed by someone elses selfish desires and that the prophecies of the Bible are, as it were, like chess pieces being placed for the final check; then you are blind.
                    The truth, is usually the most strange event, but instead people are more willing to believe a lie (everything is O.K. and peace is on the horizon).

            3. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
              Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I find revelation great when I need a laugh

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Laugh now, cry later.

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think I fancy my chances that there will be no crying.

                  You just made me think about revelations again...

                  lol lol lol

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Fancy chances? Poetic I think. It is too bad you are willing to gamble "chances" with your life. Literally.

  2. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Like A Troubled Man said, those who reject probably don't understand it.  Or they understand it, but are so blinded by what their church "leaders" have told them that they reject it still. 
    Some theist will respond and attempt to point out the "problems" in evolution (showing they don't understand science is a peer-reviewed, observational, GROUP endeavor) and then expect us all to have a eureka moment where we suddenly see evolution is false and 7 day creationism is true!  The only question is when this will happen.

    1. TFScientist profile image92
      TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Case-in-point: It is ONLY a theory...

      *sigh* *roll eyes*

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Evolution is a theory with supporting evidence, i.e. DNA. There's a difference between a theory and a hypothesis (an educated guess based on observation and study). It's funny how some people will dismiss overwhelming physical evidence and rather support Biblical myths and stories because it's written in the Bible, Torah, or Quran by someone with a wild imagination. The Jews, who were the original authors of these Biblical stories do not take these stories literally and were written to serve as a moral or metaphor.

        1. emdi profile image71
          emdiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          really? check my hub about the scientific truths about evolution

    2. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
      A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There seems to be a general consensus that is misinformed about Christian knowledge of the Bible. Not all believers are under the thumb of a leader that says everyone must believe as I have interpreted the Bible. That is not so.
      A "preacher" that would be worth his weight in gold, would tell anyone to not take his word for it; READ YOUR BIBLE and read what it says.
      TF Scientist - Roll your eyes all you want; that is no answer to a question of fact.
      Paul Wingert - DNA? Really. Most junior high school students know that features, hair color, skin color etc. come from the information in your DNA. So, little Suzie can have some similarity to great grandma. Including a white couple having a dark brown child because somewhere in the past, African DNA was introduced into the mix. There has NEVER been a birth by a HUMAN of any sort of APE by natural occurances. Ya know what? There isn't ever going to be. Why? Because it is not in the sequence of human DNA.

  3. TFScientist profile image92
    TFScientistposted 4 years ago

    I work in a Catholic school and have had a number of great discussions with the Chaplaincy, as well as the visiting Bishop, who all have said that the Bible must be seen as a teaching tool. With God being so magnificent, the tool He uses to teach us makes use of typical teaching tools - metaphor and analogy. All these Church figures have said that the Bible should not be taken literally and fully accept my teaching of Evolution in their school. I have had similar reactions from Anglican Church clergy. I wish those who refute evolution would look at the evidence with an open mind. At no point does evolution preclude the existence of a God

    1. Phoenix Jay profile image59
      Phoenix Jayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I love this attitude toward evolution and religion, trying to show how they can be applied together rather than separately. No one is trying to change people's faith, and in fact I'm glad they indulge themselves in such freedoms, however it is imperative to be open minded to the progression of science.

      So glad that you are out their teaching this viewpoint.

    2. Andrzej Basaj profile image61
      Andrzej Basajposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You know that subject like science and religion in catholic schools are sometimes taught by the same teacher.

    3. 0
      ecoethicalveganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey that's plagiarism or something!

      "At no point does evolution preclude the existence of a God"

      Right here:
      ecoethicalveganposted 12 days ago in reply to this
      I believe in ID, which does not preclude evolution.

      Well OK, it isn't plagiarism but incredible minds think kinda alike? lol

  4. Mark Pitts profile image60
    Mark Pittsposted 4 years ago

    You make an assumption without proof to justify your point. For the church leaders to express agreement with evolution by necessity means that the largest aprt of their followers do also. Otherwise they would not remain as the leaders. Therefore, most theist do accept evolution. The noisy ones simply still make noise. Just like most atheist and agnostics accept theist, except the ones who feel a need demonstrate superiority and an open mind by  judging those who disagree.

    1. TFScientist profile image92
      TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ah yes. Good point, well made. There is regional variation in the number of theists in any country that accept evolution. And in most developed countries acceptance evolution is a non-issue However, in a 2006 poll of 32 developed countries, only 45% of americans accept evolution as fact - a minority. Only Turkey came lower in the poll.

      With the US being such a scientific powerhouse, the fact that most of the population do not accept evolution as fact is worrying, wouldn't you agree?

      I do, however, fully accept your point that we notice the loud atheists, and theists the most, and there happen to be more of the latter than the former.

      1. TFScientist profile image92
        TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose I should source this! Here is the link:
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 … ution.html

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hmm...IF we take that article seriously, then it seems that George Bush and the rest of us "fundamental" Christians are the only thing maintaining America's common sense (including Biblical sense) on this issue.  Wow.  I didn't know that the atheist world considered him and us that influential!  Rock on. LOL.

          And I still find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church considers God's creation of humankind a "metaphor".  Or that any Church does, for that matter.  If they do, then they're in great error.

          1. TFScientist profile image92
            TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            With all due respect, if the Pope and Archbishops do not call the Bible inerrant, and says the creation story is precisely that- a story - what makes you think they are in error? I guarantee they are more highly versed in theology and scripture than the huge majority of the planet.

            1. TFScientist profile image92
              TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              After all, the Pope is meant to be God's go-to-guy on Earth - the closest one to the Most High.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's supposedly what the Catholic Church believes, yes; that's how their leadership is set up.  But many aspects of that aren't what was supposed to happen according to the Bible.  It's not unusual for "highly-versed" and well-read people to totally overlook the fundamental Spiritual basics as well as the literal basics.  And what people are "supposed" to be isn't always what they are.
                That being said, I think it's very possible that the Pope's words were either misunderstood or deliberately taken out of context.  But then, I'm not Catholic, so I haven't researched that.  It's just that the quotes I went and looked up don't prove the Church believes in evolution.  More like that they're too tolerant of heretical teachings in some of their schools...

                It would be nice if a Catholic hubber would maybe give us more facts about the Catholic beliefs...

                At any rate, no matter who or what Church accepts evolution, doesn't make it so.

                1. TFScientist profile image92
                  TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Humani Generis (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_ … is_en.html) outlines the Catholic church official stance on evolution, saying those "who diminish human reason" in favour of following the word of God, "the greater they spurn the Church, which has been instituted by Christ"

                  Pontifical address: (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm) states that evolution may be how the human form arrived, but does not deal with the metaphysical issues of consciousness, self-awareness, freedom. The key point is that science and religion are reconcilable.
                  "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Why all the links? You think all that crap makes it true??

                    "New" information..

                    Scientists must correct "everything they know" because of single underlying overlooked details year after year..

                    And you think they are right THIS time??

                    I've studied your evo theory, and we do "evolve" it's part of "learning" and "adapting" not macro evolution as you claim.. study the eye once again, then come explain evolution through it and i'll consider a debate.

                    I accept the big bang theory, and know who caused it.. and everything here was made in a flash, verified by your scientists ..

                    Come see me when YOU can explain something.

                    cool

                2. TFScientist profile image92
                  TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Anglican position is neatly summed up by this:
                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … death.html

                  It is doubtful that either of these Church's positions have been misunderstood or taken out of context

                3. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Out of the mouth of babes.

                  Brenda, all we have to do is put a space in your words and it applies to any belief.

                  (At any rate, no matter who or what Church accepts _____, doesn't make it so.)

                  We could put god, Jesus, Jains, or Joseph Smith in the blank and they all fit nicely.  I wonder why that is?

              2. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL!  The Pope is an elected official, and there is nothing sacred about being a "lost, out-of-touch-with-the-real-world imbecile" with a title.  Arghh...  When I hear about the Pope this and the Pope says that, it makes my testicles twinge in disgust; no offense, of course.  lol

                1. TFScientist profile image92
                  TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do people always say 'no offense' immediately after saying something extremely offensive wink

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sarcasm, uh, duh!

          2. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "And I still find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church considers God's creation of humankind a "metaphor".  Or that any Church does, for that matter.  If they do, then they're in great error."

            Really Brenda? Jesus only spoke in parables - metaphor. Revelation is totally symbolic - metaphor. Why not Genesis? Must that be the exception and be read literally?

            1. TFScientist profile image92
              TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Excellent point, well made!

          3. kerryg profile image89
            kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Brenda, I guarantee you that the Pope does not consider "God's creation of humankind" to be a metaphor but rather the book of Genesis to be a metaphor for how He did it.

            I'm sure you agree that God would be smart enough to realize that explaining a concept like DNA to a bunch of illiterate Bronze Age sheepherders would be rather difficult, thus He told them a story about the creation of the world that made it easier for them to understand. As Disappearinghead points out, Jesus was quite fond of using this particular teaching technique to explain difficult moral concepts, so it stands to reason that His father would be, too. wink

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Those "Bronze Age sheepherders" would've been just as intelligent as we are today!  Maybe they didn't know anything about DNA, as you said, but lack of knowledge doesn't mean lack of intelligence.  And even some of modern man today claims to not understand the creation account.  The Bible states matter-of-factly how He created mankind.  Nothing difficult about understanding that.  Infinitely easier, even, than the thought that mankind came from some random explosion of the nothingness caused by the no one or even that we came from some apelike creatures like evolutionists would have us believe.

              Honestly, I could accept evolution IF there was any tangible (or even any intangible!) proof of it.  There is none.  Yet there is plenty of proof for God being the Creator of the earth and of the animals and of mankind.

              1. kerryg profile image89
                kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sure, they were just as intelligent, but they lacked knowledge of the 5000 intervening years of scientific advancement, not to mention the technology to see microscopic stuff like cells or strands of DNA. Even modern humans have difficulty comprehending the existence of such tiny things and we now have the technology to actually be able to see them. The ancient Israelite did not.

                "The Bible states matter-of-factly how He created mankind.  Nothing difficult about understanding that.  Infinitely easier, even, than the thought that mankind came from some random explosion of the nothingness caused by the no one or even that we came from some apelike creatures like evolutionists would have us believe."

                Brenda, that is exactly my point. Even modern humans with the benefit of 5000 more years of scientific and technological advancement find it easier to believe that God created life than that some random blob of goo three and a half billion years ago started replicating itself and mutating. The ancient Israelites didn't even know that single celled organisms existed, let alone that they are the ancestors of all life on Earth. They certainly couldn't have understood the concept of abiogenesis (with or without supernatural involvement), so God explained it to them metaphorically. Genesis is a metaphor to make the origin of life easier for the limited human mind to comprehend, not the literal truth.

                "Honestly, I could accept evolution IF there was any tangible (or even any intangible!) proof of it.  There is none. "

                There is plenty of tangible and intangible proof of evolution, so either you haven't looked very hard or you're lying about being able to accept it. tongue

                "Yet there is plenty of proof for God being the Creator of the earth and of the animals and of mankind."

                Unfortunately, with the sole exception of abiogenesis, there is nothing about life on this planet - human and otherwise - that can't be explained as well or better by natural causes.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not so.  No one has ever explained how the world came from nothing.  That's what the "Big Bang" would be, something from nothing.  If you say an atom or tinier particle than that, even, then I will ask you where THAT came from.  And if you say it came from something else, I'll ask you where THAT came from.  Do you have an answer?

                  The only thing that makes sense is that there's something intelligent that has always existed.  It (He) is called God.

                  1. TFScientist profile image92
                    TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Quantum wave interactions

                  2. kerryg profile image89
                    kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The Big Bang Theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. Evolution is simply the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

                    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti … ition.html

                    As for the Big Bang itself, as Insane Mundane says, I can regurgitate verbiage all day long about quantum crap. Not being Stephen Hawking, I don't necessarily understand it, but it's awfully cool! smile

                    As I understand it, the problem with the Big Bang is that it wiped the slate clean and reset the clock, both metaphorically and literally. Time as we know it started with the Big Bang, therefore, we don't (currently) have any way of knowing what came before (if anything) and probably never will. I know there is some speculation that the universe may be in a continual cycle of expansion and contraction and with the discovery of possible alternate universes, I imagine there's also the possibility that one of them could have somehow spawned the singularity that started our own. This kind of stuff is fun speculation, but speculation is all it is. The laws of physics suggest that the Big Bang ought to be able to occur naturally, but they also dictate that we (probably) can never know what came before, so it may as well be God for all we'll ever be able to prove. That said, it may as well not be, too. If you believe God has always existed there is technically no reason why you couldn't just as easily believe that the universe has always existed.

                  3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You totally and completely contradict yourself.

                    Using your logic, that "something" that started the Big Bang could have always existed, too.

                  4. Disappearinghead profile image89
                    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Brenda have a read of the book "the Language of God" by Prof. Francis Collins. He was the director of the human genome project and spent his career studying genetics, as well as being a devout Christian after many years as an atheist. In his book he explains how genetics proves evolution including the common human/chimp ancestor, then glorifies God for it.

                    Evolution is nothing for the theist to be worried about but simply gives us the methodology of creation.

                  5. dmop profile image86
                    dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The Big Bang doesn't pretend to create anything, all the matter that exists in the entire universe existed then and will continue to exist for all eternity. By all the matter I mean everything, every atom and sub-atomic particle. The Big Bang is only the moment in time when those atoms were broken apart in an explosion  that began the current state of expansion that our universe is in. There was nothing created from nothing, in fact matter can never be created or destroyed it is only change through interactions with other matter.

      2. Mark Pitts profile image60
        Mark Pittsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        45% is not "most," but it is still too many. But I think most of all Americans (regardless of religious or philosophical belief) are intellectually lazy, and don't think before expressing an opinion. Then once an opinion is expressed by them, they are too burdened with delicate egos masked by false pride to accept a valid argument, or proof, to the contrary and change their minds.

        1. TFScientist profile image92
          TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          45% refers to the number of people in the US who accept evolution as FACT

          55% of people do not accept evolution as fact - that is most.

          I agree with your point on intellectual laziness totally, and have come up against it in many debates.

        2. dmop profile image86
          dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am an American, and at first I was offended by the previous two statements, but after careful consideration, I reluctantly agree that you could very well be correct. I personally do not follow this trend, but I must admit that it does seem to exist in many cases.

    2. parrster profile image87
      parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't always work that simply. Like governments that remain in power even though they do not serve the majorities will or best interests, so too many religious leaderships; I.e.: there may well be many thousands of Catholics who disagree with their pope in many matters, but that will have little impact on his position.

      If one desires to place their confidence in the authority of man, then let's compare apples to apples (scientists with scientists). Just because a church leader agrees with evolution is of little consequence. What is far more intriguing is the growing number of scientists who are rejecting evolution.
      http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

  5. Insane Mundane profile image60
    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago

    I've never understood how religions and the theory of evolution has anything to do with one another - when conflict is concerned.  I mean, beings can acclimate to their surroundings and evolve over time, without effecting creation theories or beliefs about the origins of existence, right?  The only religion I see in evolution, is those rare chaps that speak about how they spawned and evolved from a single-cell amoeba. WTF? Using evolution with a little common sense, is actually simple-minded science with very little to dispute, in my opinion.  To say that we can't evolve, is like believing in a stagnant existence.  Even the cosmos is always changing, so why can't we?  Regardless, it still shouldn't be a science versus religion issue, as it is obviously not, once you understand the basics behind it.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That would be nice, if over one billion Catholic disbelieve in Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs or thinking the Flintstones is a Christian history documentary

      Jesus did have a great run of Popularity

      About 80% of the world's population believe in Evolution. Lets now start to evolves with a true worldwide democracy that surrounds the last restless settlements places like Turkey and the USA in which only a tiny a mount of people who are sincerely believer in Creationism anyways.

      Then Darwin will be more talk about than Jesus without the  premonition and contrived concept  involving all living things

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What is up with everything having to be Jesus or Darwin, as you say?
        What in the hell is there to "believe" in evolution?  Everthing evolves and changes, like, yeah!!!  BUT, when you try to say that the Homo sapiens spawned from single-cell amoeba, you make Adam & Eve look more believable, to say the least.  What about the Home Erectus, Homo Floresiensis, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon man, etc.?  Hell, explain how all the different Dinosaurs spawned from one single-cell amoeba!
        You see what I mean, if ya take evolution as a defense against creation theories, you make no sense, but if you involve evolution as a part of life, it makes perfect sense.  Oh, please, enlighten me on this subject, as I obviously need some education about single-cell amoeba and trilobites, and so on...  hmm

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was just imagining if you had to be a teacher in some school Like Mr, Garrison in South Park

          Here is your similar attitude toward the 80% [the kids in class, including a new girl, see Ms. Garrison arriving, not too happy to teach them evolution] 
          Ms. Garrison: All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution. 
          Butters: Oh boy! 
          Ms. Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bull crap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this... 
          [she goes up to a large poster of evolution and begins pointing things out with her pointer] 
          Ms. Garrison: In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... 
          [she waves her left hand limply] 
          Ms. Garrison: ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. 
          [she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent] 
          Ms. Garrison: Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! 
          [she faces the class, with the new girl among them looking around] 
          Ms. Garrison: So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations! 
          Cartman: [impatient for a Nintendo Wii, hops out of his chair and leaves the room, shouting] Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah! 
          Ms. Garrison: [thinking Cartman understands evolution] Yeah? You see? I *knew* that would happen. 
          Share this quote

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            By your statements, it seems that you know a LOT about butt sex and retards; go figure...  Hey, if that's your forte, so be it...  But trust me, your fetish for bizarre animal sex, has nothing to do with evolution...

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I learn a few things about Christians on the bizarre cartoon called South Park

              ms Garrison is an example of a  Fundy Christian attitudes toward evolution. A lot of Christian would think butt SEX is for sinful gays thing, yet plenty of religious people do it too. Sex and retards

              Yes, has most every thing for evolving evolution species has to do with SEX

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You said: "I learn a few things about Christians on the bizarre cartoon called South Park."

                Well, there's ya problem, right there...  Ha-ha!  As for the other... Yep, your favorite word 'retard' is definitely a sign of self-awareness, eh?  lol

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh my what we do without South Park and Family Guy...( oh we might think for ourselves) Nahhh, how crazy is that lol

                  Insane Mundane, You seem to take a bit of flack on these forums,but whether I agree with you or not ,I'm thinking your'e quite a smart guy ;)creative avatar

                  1. getitrite profile image80
                    getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    SMART?!  Then why does his/her rants sound like childish, incoherent, impertinent nonsense?

                  2. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I find the forum flack hilarious, and it is always nice to drop down just to see "what's up," if you will...  big_smile

                2. Castlepaloma profile image23
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Mundane is not smart enough notice I have never directed the word retards towards anyone, except once, when I was age 8. Yet I  have heard plenty of Christian use to word retard which made it funny on the cartoon.

                  So I give back the gift of the word retard, back to it's rightful owner,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Mundane

  6. TFScientist profile image92
    TFScientistposted 4 years ago

    Ah. There is the problem. Evolutionists would not have you believe anything. They provide you with evidence. If evolution was a belief system, it would have been disproved by now! Evolution can be proven with experimentation, fossil record analysis, and genetic analysis.

    If we have not evolved from ape-like creatures, how do you explain that apes and humans share 99% of our DNA...or that we share a significant proportion of our DNA with frogs?

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It sounds like you're missing a link of some sorts; ha!

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I guess that 1% just makes all the difference! wink
      God made things how He wanted to make them.  He made mankind the way He wanted to. If He had wanted to make our bodies from metal or all water or wind or whatever He chose, He could've done so.
      You're asking questions about origin instead of accepting the most obvious answer via visible/mental/emotional/spiritual proof.

      Frogs too?!  Oh...
      Well, you've udderly wink convinced me now!  I've made the leap wink of knowledge!  We all came from frogs!  My proof is that we do all croak at some point! lol  wink

      1. TFScientist profile image92
        TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Quite right, that 1% makes all the difference. It does make us human. But the vast similarity of our genetic structure to that of apes is one piece of evidence out of many that humans did not spring into existence fully formed.

        I can see we are at an impasse, but I have enjoyed debating you - its nice to meet someone who can passionately argue their point of view without resorting to insults, and has a sense of humour about the whole thing smile

        Fortunately I didnt post the question to try and 'convert' anyone, I am just curious why people take opposing views to the heads of their religions, when both have the same holy text as their frame of reference.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for discussing.  I see your point, as I also wonder how any Bible-based religion or group or group of leaders could hold opposing views on something so fundamental as creation.

      2. TFScientist profile image92
        TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You're asking questions about origin instead of accepting the most obvious answer via visible proof.

        I would say the same of you too smile

    3. parrster profile image87
      parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Homology is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer.
      We share this world with many creatures that have similar requirements to us, it makes sense then to re-utilise what works in one on another. Human designers do it all the time.
      Also, that 97-99% should be presented in its context; from what I've read it's closer to 96%.
      This is the equivalent of approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

      http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

      1. kerryg profile image89
        kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really?

        The estimated mutation rate of the human genome is ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation (0.000000025). Humans have ~3.2 billion base pairs, so ~6.4 billion bases. I'm not a geneticist, but if I understand those numbers correctly, that means there's 160 mutations per 20 year generation, aka 160 mutations per zygote.

        The estimated date of the split between the ancestors of humans and the ancestors of chimps is usually said to be between 4 and 10 million years ago, with 7 million being the most common number I see, so take 7 million and divide it by 20 and you get 350,000 generations. 160 x 350,000 is 56 million mutations just in one single family line.

        When you consider that scientists estimate about 106 billion humans have walked the planet since humanity came into being, not counting the untold numbers of other Homo, Australopithecus, etc. species in between, it seems more surprising that it's only 120 million mutations.

        1. parrster profile image87
          parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Putting aside that such randomly-complex successive molecules-to-man mutations just don't occur, even if they did, there are several assumptions that have to be made for your statistics to work;
          1. The majority of those mutations would have to be beneficial
          2. Every positive mutation would have to survive against the odds
          3. Every beneficial mutation would have be past on to successive generations
          3. Their would be billions of non-mutated relatives (transitional stages) left in the wake, or they would have to simply disappear.

          Science has shown that
          1. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare and make up the tiniest percentage of mutations
          2. The odds of a mutation surviving are even slimmer
          3. The odds of it successively being passed on to successive generations are even slimmer again
          4. There is no evidence of the billions of stages of evolutionary development.

          The probability of this occurring is so hugely stacked against evolution as to make it feasibly impossible regardless of how much time goes by.

          http://www.icr.org/article/creation-mutation-variation/
          http://www.icr.org/article/mutation-stu … evolution/
          http://www.icr.org/article/can-evolutio … rotection/

          1. mischeviousme profile image59
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            http://youtu.be/l1msS71xL00

            Is this your template for your above statements?

            This guy is a chemist and I would go so far to say that he just picked a degree, that he thought pertained to evolution... In short, everything he says is based on James Usher's miscalculations.

            1. parrster profile image87
              parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nope, never heard or seen him before. I provided links

          2. kerryg profile image89
            kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Putting aside that such randomly-complex successive molecules-to-man mutations just don't occur,"

            A mutation is simply the substitution of one base for another. We're not talking about a donkey suddenly sprouting wings.

            "even if they did, there are several assumptions that have to be made for your statistics to work;
            1. The majority of those mutations would have to be beneficial"

            False. They would have to be beneficial, neutral, or harmful in a way that didn't take effect until after reproduction. For example, that's one of the reasons cancers are so common in middle age and beyond, but relatively rare among children and young adults. There's no selective pressure against developing cancer at 55 because if you're going to reproduce successfully, you've already done it by then

            "2. Every positive mutation would have to survive against the odds"

            True. There is a certain degree of luck in your survival even if you are the best adapted creature to your niche that was ever born.

            "3. Every beneficial mutation would have be past on to successive generations"

            Let's see, there's a 100% chance of that in asexual reproduction and a 50% chance in sexual reproduction, plus if you're a single celled organism you can pass it on not only to your relatives but also to other single celled organisms from completely different species, so I wouldn't call those bad odds at all.

            "3. Their would be billions of non-mutated relatives (transitional stages) left in the wake, or they would have to simply disappear."

            You misunderstand. Everything is mutated. Statistically, by those figures, there have been ~160 mutations in every single human zygote that ever existed, whether it miscarried at 8 weeks, died in infancy, or lived to have 12 kids, 96 grandchildren, and 447 great-grandchildren.

            1. parrster profile image87
              parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As I understand it, mutations are the result of negative effects upon the DNA, either damage from environmental agents such as UV, nuclear radiation or chemicals and/or errors occurring when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

              Biology textbooks teach that mutations added the high-quality genetic information needed to transmutate (for example) a fish eventually into a monkey—even though experiments have shown that mutations merely corrupt the information that is already present.

              A recent study by microbiologists from Uppsala University in Sweden put to the test the theory that mutations could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on the growth rate of bacteria. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect.
              How could a fish transmutate into a monkey by losing 'fitness' each generation?
              It can’t, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticised the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.”

              I quote, “The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura. These all point in one direction: downhill. Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarised the problem: Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information."

              Another problem with the molecules-to-man mutation hypothesis is the built-in error-check system (mutation protection paradox), that, I quote, “maintain the information's integrity, which would otherwise be eroded by constantly accumulating random mutations.”
              And, “if a DNA base—analogous to a computer 'byte'—is mutated, it is sometimes corrected by referring to backup copies in the cell. The incorrect base could be repaired by referring to its paired base on the opposite strand (since DNA is double-stranded), or the alternate copy on its sister chromatid, or yet another copy found on the second chromosome. DNA detection and repair mechanisms are very robust in cells, and a few repair enzymes add whole new DNA 'patches.' A few hundred others work hard to detect and correct mutations.”

              The dilemma this poses for macro-evolution is obvious. Mutation repair mechanisms guard against the very changes macro evolution requires; genetic alterations, such as certain mutations, and the wholesale addition of new information-rich sequences are. "So, in order for evolution to proceed, mutation protection has to be put on hold. And without mutation detection, errors quickly build up and wreck the system—hence the mutation protection paradox.”

              http://www.tutapoint.com/knowledge-center/view/156
              http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml
              http://www.icr.org/article/mutation-stu … evolution/
              http://www.icr.org/article/can-evolutio … rotection/
              http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/ … OEVOLJ.pdf

  7. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    I believe that the answers lies between these two arguments but evolution can not be accepted in its entirety. I believe each creature is specific to its specific creation but has many variables and possibilities unto its self. All of this is specified by intelligent design and we are only beginning to learn the truth from DNA to proof of intelligent design occurring in the universe. The current evolution theory is a long way from proven any facts and is based on conjecture and little if any real science that proves anything. The more we learn the less it will become plausible and refusing to accept other possibilities will keep you from the truth and stuck in the dark ages believing in agendas that promote bad science.

    1. TFScientist profile image92
      TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "The current evolution theory is a long way from proven any facts and is based on conjecture and little if any real science that proves anything"

      If this were true then in the 150 years since Darwin published his work, someone would have disproved it. They haven't. A refusal to accept evolution merely shows you have not looked at or made an effort to understand the evidence.

      If we were intelligently designed, why were we designed so poorly - shoddy designer not paying attention, or random mutation acted upon by natural selection creating work arounds? Which would you rather accept - the fact that God did an incompetent job, or He had little to do with the physical design of the human body and instead designed created and made the human soul?

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Poor chaps always got to bring up God with their science, which we applaud, as you need both to think straight or crooked~~~  However, even though you're not talking to me, I can't help but tell you that Darwin didn't prove anything against a divinity or a divine consciousness or hell, even worse, the whole theory doesn't explain anything really, except that things adapt and acclimate to their surroundings.  I would hope so!  This is not some stagnant pool of water, as the cosmos demonstrates recycling and change on a regular basis!  LOL!  Answer me this:  Do YOU THINK  that you spawned from a single-cell amoeba???  Just answer the freakin' question without apes or God involved, and we'll progress in this evolution debate...

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Alas, you couldn't even answer my simple question...  sad

          1. TFScientist profile image92
            TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            who are you asking?

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, this forum does have an "in reply to this" function and I was hoping you realized this, but in the case you were unaware, I was asking YOU...

            2. TFScientist profile image92
              TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do I think we evolved from ameoba. Yes. It is undeniable fact.

              I did not say that Darwin said anything against divinity. I said he published work on evolution by natural selection 150 years ago and it has not been disproved.

              The fact you say it doesnt explain anything is blatantly false - it explains where the biodiversity on our planet came from. It explains how superbugs have evolved. It explains how dogs can come from wolves. It explains how 99% of species on Earth could have gone extinct whilst still leaving the volume of biodiversity we have. It explains how animals adapt to change and what drives this change. It explains how agriculture became possible.

              Getting touchy will get you nowhere.

              1. TFScientist profile image92
                TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Using your own argument and the concept of geological time makes your point irrelevent.

                Billions of years ago ameoba adapted to their environment to survive change.

                Eventually these changing ameoba were so different from the original ameoba that they couldnt interbreed with them anymore.

                They had become a new species.

                This species (and the original ameoba) continued to adapt to changes splitting from the starting species. The ameobas managed to survive becuase they were best at surviving in certain conditions on the planet.

                Eventually this response to change resulted in multi-cellular organisms that could swim around in the water. But these organisms kept responding to change,, kept changing into different forms.

                Why. did they keep changing? The engine of evolution is mutation. DNA is not copied exactly. Every change in the genetic code brings can be acted upon by the environment. Some changes make survival easier - these organisms survive and pass on their superior genes. Other changes make surival harder - these organisms die and do not pass on their genes. Over time, the organisms start to show physiological differences that are so great that they cannot interbreed with their 'original' species.

              2. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Superbugs?  LOL!  Okay, you just said that you believed you evolved from single-cell amoeba...  Okay, lets start from, not the beginning, but early on...  Explain how the giant Dinosaurs from one species to the next, evolved from amoeba, and we'll work our way up to the hominids, which it will get more complicated from there...

                1. TFScientist profile image92
                  TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  why are hominids more complicated than dinosaurs?

                  I am getting weary of this. I have just explained how one species evolves into another very clearly and you think you have laid a trump card by asking me to explain how ameoba evolve into dinosaurs.

                  They did it in the same way multicellular organisms evolved from single celled organisms. Step by step, extremely slowly, in response to environmental change that selected for advantageous mutations which were passed on to offspring over geological time.

                  Where are you having trouble?

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are having great trouble.  The Dinosaurs lived a very long, long time without major genetic advancements, albeit evolution must have been sluggish back then, while the hominids had a great leap within a few years that defies all laws of evolution, to say the least.  Oh, please, carry on, as I might learn something from brick-packed scientists, for once, although you guys we're always kicked out of our laboratory within two weeks, but just saying...

        2. kerryg profile image89
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Strictly speaking, amoeba are members of the Amoebozoa group of Unikonts and humans are members of the Opisthokont group of Unikonts. So they're more like really distant cousins. tongue

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Distant as in being "very distant," being the keywords.  Hey, technically we are all star dust, so maybe we should start with the origin of the cosmos and work our way towards Earth?  Genesis?  Oh, Gawd!  Hmm, here I was trying to make things simple...  tongue

          2. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You do realize I'm joking, right?  You can believe you're from a group of Unikonts all you like, at least you sound peaceful within your ignorance of actuality; ha-ha!

      2. parrster profile image87
        parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not all scientists share your confidence.
        http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

        Like theories before it, such as Spontaneous Generation, I believe that evolution will eventually be dismissed. It already has so many holes in it that I'm surprised it hasn't sunk already. That so many continue to uphold it is a wonder akin to the 40year Piltdown man hoax.
        http://www.unmuseum.org/piltdown.htm

  8. rasta1 profile image89
    rasta1posted 4 years ago

    Evolution is a theory that tries to become relevant by the integration of Trans-generational adaptation.

    Evolution falls down because it is not validated by the molecular clock classification.

    Using cladistic analysis also shows up the biggest problem of evolution. There is no starting point!

    1. TFScientist profile image92
      TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A theory is a collection of evidence and data used to support a given series of events or facts.

      Evolution does not fall down. Anyone who can prove that evolution is false will win the Nobel Prize - that scientist would be set for life.

      There is a starting point, that starting point is just no longer extant. Biomolecular analysis shows that life likely started with a variant of RNA that then encapsulated itself for protection - the first cell.

    2. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You must forgive TFScientist because his/her religion is:  "Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth originally arose." 
      ---Basically, the rock talk to him and he believed it...

      1. TFScientist profile image92
        TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ad hominem abuse is the sign of a failed argument.

        It is sad really. You cannot come up with a logical and novel response to my statements so you attack my character trying to discredit me.

        If you want to continue debating, do so rationally with logical, reasoned arguments - exactly as Brenda did - rather than stooping to dealing out insults

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I thought the only people that claim they are under "Ad hominem" are the ones fearful of ridicule because they must always uphold the law of standard science, which is almost always wrong and having to change, in due time.  I'm sorry, poor weakling, for I must have offended you in some sort of way.  Please forgive me, and may God rid you of the benign
          "Ad hominem" that may cast down upon you in the forums - in the future...  What a bunch of unqualified sissies that spout this crap!  Go get an education, dear sensitive one...     big_smile

          1. TFScientist profile image92
            TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My dear person. I have an outstanding education.

            It is simple and straightforward. You cannot think of a logical argument to any of my points so you fire off insults - 3 in this post alone. I have not once stooped to this. I have given reasoned arguments and have not spouted the same argument over and over.

            O and by the way, it is who's laughing at whom, and God is spelt with a capital. I did not say that science proves there is no God - I said science does NOT prove their is no God. Don't twist my words just because you can't think of anything else to say.

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Basically, you have no argument because you think all life spawned from a single-cell amoeba, which is asinine.
              I spelled God with a capital, and what are you talking about with your other statements?  In fact, I can say Gawd or g-o-d or however I want to spell it, actually.   What insults?
              You are being a sissy and weak and spouting how you are suffering from "Ad hominem" and whatnot, and you really do seem to lack a solid education, so I'm just telling it how it appears.  In fact, you spew google quotes quite often, eh?  All ya got to do is copy & paste and you'll find the same, similar crap that you guys post all over the web from amatuers that didn't even graduate high-school.  I'm sure you at least graduated and you may even have lots of college experience (yikes! for the system), but that doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, since it seems that a lot of people goes to college and hardly anybody learns very much at all, nowadays.  Things are different now, as the education system sucks, in general, especially when looking at the careers that it often leads to.   Oh, let me guess, I suppose that is part of evolution as well?

              1. TFScientist profile image92
                TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                O.K Petal. If that makes you feel better. If calling others sissy and weak make you feel strong. If attacking others and having a pathological need to 'win' an argument to validate your existence is what you have to do then fine. Everyone knows those who attempt to bully others are truly cowardly and weak.

                If evolution scares you so, if it shakes your belief system to the core, then your belief system is not solid. That is truly sad. If you don't agree with evolution then move on; the fact you so vehemently attack it suggests that you need to disprove it for some infantile reason. It suggests true weakness on your side.

                I see the same tantrums from pupils. They protest innocence because they are so abrasive in their day-to-day that they don't recognise when they insult someone.

                I know from experience that when a child starts spouting nonsense, the best thing to do is ignore it.

                Although I expect you will not be able to resist another few snipes at me, protest innocence on your part and then make another puny swipe at my evidence base. I expect you to call me weak, or a cissy or some synonym. I expect you to attempt to defame my character. I forgive you in advance.

                I may be agnostic, but I am carrying myself in a much more Christian manner than you.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not adhered to any organized religions and if you had comprehension skills, you'd have read earlier how I don't understand how evolution even relates to religion, when it comes to debunking one from the other.
                  By the way, if "attacking others," as you say, makes a person weak, then I suppose people who win wars for freedom, are also weak?  Go blow that hooey towards the military and see how hard they laugh at you, dear "strong" one.  LOL!

                  1. TFScientist profile image92
                    TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    My case rests.

                  2. Mark Pitts profile image60
                    Mark Pittsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I was in the military over half of my adult life, and we did not belittle, call names, or insist in standing on someones neck because they were smaller, or even if they disagreed. Those of us who were there quit being schoolyard screamers by the time we were done with boot camp. In my opinion, evolution relates to religion because humankind is capable, because of the gifts bestowed by God, to see a small part of the mechanics involved in the accomplishment of His miracle. But it is still a miracle, and I still feel no need to attack someone who disagrees. One day we will all find out what is the correct answer, I'm just not in a big hurry to do that, yet.

  9. 2uesday profile image88
    2uesdayposted 4 years ago

    This is not a theme park it is a real place on the coast in the UK -

    http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/lym … ossils.htm

    but maybe they have a shed somewhere and make them up in the winter months.

  10. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    "God made things how He wanted to make them.  He made mankind the way He wanted to."

    Then He is either an idiot or a psychopath. There is nothing in human anatomy that points to a plan. We look exactly like the product of 3.5 billion years of trial and error.

    Just one example: choking. What kind of incompetent designer would put the food, breathing, and talking tubes in the same orifice?

    1. parrster profile image87
      parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I actually think it's remarkably clever that we can do all three (eat, breath and talk) in such a small area, and speaks to me only of design, not chance.
      Do you do a lot of choking?

  11. Insane Mundane profile image60
    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago

    kerryG says:  "Your insistence on my ignorance is pretty ironic given that you're the one whose statements fly in the face of both fossil and genetic evidence."

    This is coming from the same guy who thinks the human race of today consists of Cro-Magnon men.  LOL!

    1. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Cro-Magnon man is a layman's term for the first anatomically modern humans found in Europe. (Note that anatomically modern does not mean culturally modern, but biologists do not define species - even hominid species - by culture.) The name comes from the cave where the first remains were found and has nothing to do with them being a different species, or even sub-species, as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is now considered.

      I would be interested to see you attempt to prove me wrong.

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The Cro-Magnon man is long gone...
        I suppose I can dig up some scientific info if you really need it; in fact, I wrote a web page (and even a couple blog entries) about such things but it involved other bizarre stuff that would blow your mind, so we'll just start with a simple hypothesis page from Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertha … hypotheses

        1. kerryg profile image89
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How is that supposed to blow my mind or disprove my argument? I was already aware of all of the major hypotheses proposed on that page, and most of the minor ones. Additionally, it specifically states that Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans (Cro-Magnon man) in Europe.

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, that wasn't suppose to blow your mind, but other "theories" would, if you are really that limited in thought.  Yep, Cro-Magnon man faded to black...

            1. kerryg profile image89
              kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And yet you've still provided no proof of that...

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What kind of proof do you want?  You still think Cro-Magnon man exists?  How about those Homo Floresiensis, do they still exist, too?  LOL!

                1. kerryg profile image89
                  kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  At this point I'd settle for anything, since you've provided none of any kind.

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I repeat:  You still think Cro-Magnon man exists?  How about those Homo Floresiensis, do they still exist, too?  LOL!

  12. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    Why does my theory generate argument and why does a theory go beyond one and become a fact? I do not condemn the theory I only point out that it is and remains one. There is no logic to those who worship them selves in being right about something that does not offer the proof you defend. The reality is no one has the proof or knowledge yet to determine the correct answer. The mystery is far greater then the answer we think we our searching for and all theories our worthy of being considered to include the theory that we may never find out the answer.

    1. TFScientist profile image92
      TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hypothesis. You are suggesting a hypothesis.

      "The reality is no one has the proof or knowledge yet to determine the correct answer."

      As has already been pointed out, yes we do. Fossil Evidence, molecular biology, experimental evidence all backs up evolution by natural selection.

      Relativism (all hypotheses being equally valid) is not scientific - astrology and astronomy are not equally valid; intelligent design and evolution are not equally valid.

  13. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    Ahhh, yes. The missing link. A concept that has no meaning outside of a Creationist talking point.

    But go on and keep using it anyway. It's cute.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Believe it or not, the creationists doesn't like the "missing link" either, so you're not alone...

  14. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    Its not a missing link but millions of missing links that defy researchers in the theory of evolution in Darwins theory. Clearly something else occurred in all transitions of life on our planet. Darwin did not come close to the actual theory in his own words and this has been well argued. He made it clear that it was only a theory towards a greater science and research into this mystery. How many dogs exist today due to selective breeding from a few existing species? Yet no one can naturally turn a dog into anything else more or less reverse the process and make it an amoeba. I would love to see the proof of how you turn a single cell and turn it into a man. Even if you could and you can not I doubt that it would be any man we would know.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ain't that the truth!  But yet, we still have "followers" out there "believing" that they came from a single-cell amoeba!  The theory of evolution was not meant to be a religion, yet some of these folks take it for just that!  Arghh...  Whatever...  I suppose it is better than that one guy, Castlepaloma, who believed only in animal butt sex and retardation.  hmm

    2. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "I would love to see the proof of how you turn a single cell and turn it into a man."

      Take single celled organism. Add ability to mutate. Sit back for 3.5 billion years and watch.

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Add the "ability" to mutate?  WTF?  Add?  Ability? Say whaa?  Anyway, a single cell from various terrains and waters and molten rocks does all that, eh?

        1. kerryg profile image89
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty amazing, isn't it?

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, gawd...  Does this relate to the age-old question:  "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"  lol

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That one's easy.  The egg.

              Prior to the egg that produced the first animal we would call a "chicken" it was something else - call it an "unchicken".

              The unchicken laid an egg that had DNA just a little different than it's own (and that of the associated "unrooster") in that there was a mutation.  That mutated egg grew into the first chicken.

              It's how evolution works.  It's also how an amoeba becomes a man, by doing this a billion times.

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                An "unchicken" and an "unrooster?" Where do you people come from?  Out of the comic strip from a rejected magazine via the Enquirer?  Un-un, unintelligent, to say the least, but it was not the most, but second to it, humorous thing I heard all day, albeit I did nearly choke to death with the mere stupidity of it all.  Dang, talk about desperate ways to try and make their religion work.  It's a shame I'm not a Christian or into organized religions, because they are looking better every single day, and especially with these "unrooster" claims like I just read from above; ha-ha!

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well that didn't take long - the bible belt theologist style of debate comes into play.

                  Take a perfectly good and understandable answer, but one that unfortunately is limited by the English language in discussing scientific matters.  One that has a truth you don't like.

                  Ridicule it, and in case that doesn't work, ridicule the person as well.  Then try to call science a religion of faith instead of a method of discovery because you don't like what is found.  Just in case none of that works, throw in laughter - it's always good for a diversion.

                  Well done.  I applaud your fine creationist debating skills if not the knowledge base or desire to expand that base.

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry, poor chap, but almost everybody knows the "egg before the chicken" statement is a setup for a joke because only a fool would claim to know which came first.   I haven't went fishing lately, but you took the hook, line, and sinker, as they say, and I applaud you for being the first sucker.

      2. parrster profile image87
        parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Speculation. You haven't seen this, nor has it been validated scientifically. variations within kinds, yes. Macro-evolution, no.

  15. TFScientist profile image92
    TFScientistposted 4 years ago

    Simple. Fertilise and Egg cell with a sperm and leave for 9months. A single cell turning into a man.

  16. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    "I would love to see the proof of how you turn a single cell and turn it into a man."

    It happened to you. It took about 19 years. Unless you're a stork theorist, too.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I realize that you're talking to someone else, but I can't help but laugh.  Do you even know what a cell is without rushing for resources?  I mean, as tiny as an atom is, quantum mechanics has got it down to even smaller "things," as I'll say without trying to sound "higher up" or whatever I get accused of these days.  Just saying...   Many people that delve into science, and actually understand it, see more religion than most ordinary religionists will ever see, if that makes any sense to ya.  Oh, it doesn't?  Well, I'm sorry to hear about that; praise be!  Good luck figuring out your individual cells while ignoring the whole.  Just look around at nature and, if that doesn't work, take a glimpse at the cosmos, and tell me what ya see...  roll

      1. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I see God, my lord and saviour Jesus Christ. Is that the right answer?

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If it works for you, and you do not harm others, then sure it is!  Personally, I never understood the whole Jesus thang, but oh well...

          1. getitrite profile image80
            getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What about the veracity of my perception?  You should scrutinize my beliefs just as you have the nonbelievers.

            Since you declared that you are neither a believer or nonbeliever, your scrutiny should be objective for both sides.

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, you have to at least give me something to work off of  besides saying "I believe."  WTF?

              1. getitrite profile image80
                getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Have a nice day.  http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/BabyGif/hahohi.gif

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Loser... yikes

                  1. getitrite profile image80
                    getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Any coward can hurl silly, childish insults from the safety of a keyboard.  You sound like you are merely a prepubescent child playing on your mom's computer.

                    WARNING!:  Stop with the silly abusive language!

      2. scottcgruber profile image92
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When I take a glimpse at the cosmos, I see an amazing, complex, beautiful, and dangerous universe held together by natural laws we've only just begun to understand, governing the actions of the largest red giant down to the smallest bacterium, and all the quarks that comprise it.

        I don't need made-up stories and anthropomorphized dieties to appreciate the wonder of it. Reality is enough.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          None of us need it (knowledge) to see the realities of this amazing world,but some of us are in awe of its beginning and purpose.

          Even Science cant make something out of nothing wink

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And, believers can make up anything from nothing.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol  Gotta love that answer!

      Of course, the creationists are stork theorists, too.  They just call it "God" instead of "stork".

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And yours is "dork?"

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Might as well be; there isn't much difference in the three or in the believers in them.

          Isn't it fun to insult faceless internet words rather than learn or debate?

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Debating with you would be like, what, talking to a barbie doll that refused to sit upright?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I guess it is.

              Sorry, I never got much gratification from that pursuit.  Have a good evening.

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Obviously, you're in need of "gratification," if ya will, as that might alleviate your cognitive constipation.

  17. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I'm a little leary of opening myself up to the childish bickering going on in this thread, but the OP doesn't take into account the fact that it is quite easy to resolve the two. I know a lot of Christians who accept creation, on some level. They also accept evolution. They simply question whether that which makes us unique is a product of the evolutionary process.

    Making fun of them seems pointless. Unless, of course, someone can explain why we are so very unique and different from every other life form we know.

    I would need a caterpillar, or some other similar creature to provide the explanation, please. I think that would clear it up for all involved.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think your "childish bickering" comment cleared everything up quite nicely.  That's it, right there.  The puzzle of the universe has been solved, by simply pointing out the cries of mankind.  lol

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        K. smile

      2. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Insane Mundane

        Man o man, I have not heard anyone speck so all over the board like some scare crow out of hell, since BO, at least BO tries to study one book

  18. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 4 years ago

    Yep.  GODDUNNIT!!! lol

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well ain't that an educational statement that mocks thine evolutionary rejects?

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image76
      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      God certainly did !!

  19. brotheryochanan profile image61
    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago

    Darwinism fails. Darwin himself mentions circumstances and situations that would prevent his theory from being true and those circumstances and situations have been satisfied in; the cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, just to name a couple. We can see a developing process in species over years but certainly not across species. common elements do not speak of common ancestry but common materials like in building a house.. wood, siding, glass etc. this does not eliminate design, buildings have common elements but don't all look the same.

    We must never believe what the pope says because really all catholicism has ever been is a people pleasing religion - pleasing the pagans, pleasing leaders, pleasing themselves - not pleasing orthodoxy at all or jesus and they usurp even God.

    Darwinism cannot be accepted as fact and that's the bottom line. Read darwins black box or some other credible sites that refute darwinism. Recall 100 noted professionals in all areas of micro this and macro that, chemistry etc rallied together to dispute darwins theory - they did not agree.

    A sensible theist accepts evolution where evolution makes sense but to replace darwinism with creationism is not a discussion.

    Let there be LIGHT.. and there was a big bang. no problem there.

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In other words, Goddunnit, but not literally the way it's written in Genesis.

      1. dmop profile image86
        dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        These forums are difficult to follow, I'm not sure at times who is replying to whom and so forth. I have no answers, I have read the Bible perhaps 7 or 8 times and found it to be full of contradiction, yet full of enlightening information that we would all do well to live by. Also, I have read hundreds of scientific journals, articles, and books and have found their evidence accurate and overwhelming, so where does one stand in this light. I believe there is a higher power of some sort, is it the God proclaimed by the Bible I don't know, but I do know that there is something that all the science in the world can explain. Yet there is science that all the religion in the world can't explain. Who knows what the true nature of the universe is, certainly not me, nor the Pope, or any religious leader of our time, and likely no one writing in this forum, but I am enjoying following what everyone has to say.

        1. dmop profile image86
          dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I believe there is a higher power of some sort, is it the God proclaimed by the Bible I don't know, but I do know that there is something that all the science in the world CAN explain. Sorry I meant can't.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            At least your mind if open to learning, that's always a good thing (IMO) smile

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why are completely irrelevant statements made by creationists, or ones that are patently false?

      Darwin never indicated that the cambrian explosion showed evolution to be false; had he done so the entire theory would have been ignored.  What Darwin indicated was that he was unable to understand how the period was possible with the theory.  This kind of thing is exactly why theories are submitted for peer review, and why theories are a dynamic, growing understanding of nature - there is always new information to be found, new understandings to be made. 

      Darwin also never indicated that irreducible complexity invalidated the theory; in fact he discussed the eye (one of the more famous examples of the concept), indicating that there was no problem with evolution developing the eye.  The one statement that he made to the contrary is often quoted, but is taken completely out of context and was rhetorical in nature and he goes on to say that "the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real".  This can hardly be considered as proof that we don't understand how an eye can be formed by natural selection.

      Evolution has nothing to do with creationism; Darwin made that abundantly clear in numerous instances.  The Origin of Species does not attempt to address the origin of life or any part of our universe.  Why then, is the claim that evolution (Darwinism) does address the issue continually made?  To provide an emotional argument that the theist will instantly take to mean the theory is false?

      You are right, though, that to replace Darwinism with creationism (or the reverse) is not an argument; it's like debating about replacing a pumpkin with a car.  The two are totally unrelated and neither one can fill the functions of the other.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        agreed there is always new information to be found when it applies to darwin and the cambrian but never does this leeway apply to the matters of God. 100+ yrs later and the new information to alleviate the cambrian dilemma has not been found. It can always be said that things are possible but often this possibility crosses a line of becoming impossible.

        To quote Darwin in the origin of species. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". page 154. and of course on the cellular level, biomechanical machines meet this criterion of failure.

        Natural selection can only use what has already been formed. What part of the eye do we figure was not formed in mankind first? Natural selection is limited to a narrow field of applicability, but it cannot evolve an eye and neither does it have the foresight to improve intentionally and on purpose. Are we to think that mankind bumped into things often and those died because their eyes had not evolved?

        That's right darwinism does not attempt to explain the origin of life or our universe but yet many people think that it does, which is not a correct thought at all.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol And yet, your faith based convictions do not stand up to the scrutiny and rigor of scientists who have easily shown how and how long the eye can take to evolve in various species, some taking as little as 250,000 generations while others up to a half-million generations, depending on the complexity.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why do you have the faith to believe in a theory that old? I mean whoever recorded all of those details was just a man?

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                These modern men are smarter than those goat herders, 2000 years ago

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I wouldn't be so sure of that...as humanity seems to be currently moving backwards, as a whole...  Hell, most people of today can't even function without some electronic device telling them what to do or how to live; blah!  roll

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It isn't that old and it isn't faith. It is science and rigor, not some medieval belief system filled with invisible entities swirling round our heads.



              Or woman. Who wrote the Bible, Aardvarks?

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry - we will have to agree to disagree here.

          The Cambrian "mystery" is no real mystery; only the intimate details are.  That the creationist demands that every such detail be explained is insufficient reason to declare the entire theory non-viable. 

          Nor is an eye, or any of the other "irreducible complexities", any different - that the creationist believer demands to know every small change that occurred and when it happened to each animal does not validate the argument at all.  We all know and understand very well that all such answers will never be found outside of the time travel of science fiction.  Indeed, the quote above from Troubled Man quotes Darwin on the subject - the real, complete, quote and not the abbreviated portion the creationists like to put forth. The "biomechanical machines" you reference are not proof of anything except that we don't yet completely understand them and their histories.  Our ignorance isn't proof that they are "irreducibly complex" and Darwin's own words on the subject show that very well.

        4. kerryg profile image89
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "100+ yrs later and the new information to alleviate the cambrian dilemma has not been found."

          False. The so-called Cambrian "explosion" is now considered a rather out-dated concept because in the ~150 years since Darwin we've found some pre-Cambrian precursors that weren't known during his time. Additionally it is worth mentioning that the "explosion" took place over about 80-100 million years. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, so that should be a useful point of reference for how much things can change in 80 or 100 million years.

          "Natural selection can only use what has already been formed. What part of the eye do we figure was not formed in mankind first? Natural selection is limited to a narrow field of applicability, but it cannot evolve an eye and neither does it have the foresight to improve intentionally and on purpose. Are we to think that mankind bumped into things often and those died because their eyes had not evolved?"

          Humans didn't evolve eyes separately from other creatures, we got them in the early Cambrian when we were still ~550 million years from turning into a human. Wikipedia has a decent overview on the evolution of the eye - it's fascinating stuff, so perhaps you should read it before throwing up your hands and saying "Goddunnit." He certainly may have, but if He did, it was through the mechanism of evolution, not by waving a hand and making them appear from thin air. tongue

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

      2. parrster profile image87
        parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting you mention the eye. I was just reading about the Trilobites amazing eye. For a creature supposedly 500 million years old

        Riccardo Levi-Setti, the world-renowned expert on trilobites, wrote these words about their eyes:

        "In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction. The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure (1993, pp. 54,57, emp. added)."

        Interesting he uses the word 'design' to explain it, the word 'evolution' sure can't.

        One does not get a law without a lawgiver, a painting without a painter, a poem without a poet, or design without a designer. Try as they might, evolutionists simply cannot escape the evidence that points to the intricate design inherent in these amazing creatures. And, as even evolutionists admit, design implies a designer. The question every evolutionist must face then is this: Who designed the trilobite’s eye lenses? “Nature” certainly did not, because nature cannot design anything. Nature is simply “what’s there.” Who designed “what’s there“? The writer of the book of Hebrews answered that question when he wrote: “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (3:4).

        http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte … rticle=996

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol If anyone, theist or otherwise, compares evolution with creationism, then they aren't sensible at all. True, it isn't a discussion.

  20. Jokylu profile image61
    Jokyluposted 4 years ago

    In the beginning God created:........
    There are too many questions with evolution. ????????????????????
    It is easier to accept that a powerful and mighty God did create everything perfect.  The earth at just the right distance from the sun so we dont frizzle or freeze. The days and seasons broken up in a perfect way so that we can enjoy rest when it is needed.
    Everything is too perfect to be just an accident of atoms colliding in space and gradually, over million of years becoming what we have today. That is  a far more fanciful concept than just believing that God did create it all as He said.
    If I am cooking, following a recipe but forget to put in the eggs it will be a flop, I guarantee it. If one species or set of chromosones got mixed up with the wrong lot goodness knows what we would have had here on earth, not to mention in the universe.
    An amazing guy called Louis Giglio explains it all really well. I suggest if you are interested then check him out.

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q217/BobK_photo/jesusmo.jpg

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The made us stuff are called theories and there are millions of them.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just as there are millions of made up creation myths.

          The big difference is that the theories use observed facts coupled with our knowledge of how the universe works and the laws therein, to come up with a plausible and possible scenario.

          No religious myth has ever concerned itself with fitting any observations into the laws governing nature; on the contrary they are deliberately violated whenever it is convenient to make the story sound impressive.

          Some people appreciate the mundane but possible explanation; some prefer the impossible but far more dramatic explanation.

          1. getitrite profile image80
            getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You mean God didn't dunnit?  sad sad

            This is gonna traumatize Bro Yo. sad sad

        2. artblack01 profile image82
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          People confuse theories with guesses.  A Theory in science is a model based on a set of observed phenomenon,  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, and the puddle of water woke up one morning and said, "This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

      lol

      1. dmop profile image86
        dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just wondering if TFScientist had any idea what a great debate we would all have when this forum was started ?

        1. TFScientist profile image92
          TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nope. Was hoping for a sensible discussion about the differences between clergy and their congregation. The thread sort of lost its way and go hi-jacked by hard-heads.

          Hence I have unsubscribed to this. If I could delete the whole thing I would. The petty bickering is not what I envisaged - there are plenty of other forums for discussing the veracity of evolution. People seemed to have missed my point.

      2. dmop profile image86
        dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I just though I'd throw this out there for anyone to contemplate. There is no question as to whether Evolution happens, it happens all the time all around us. For example, take the flu virus it evolves several times a year; we watch closely as it happens to try and prepare for the next round of viruses during peak season. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact of life, the only question is does God control it or does it just happen due to environmental pressure.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think you have answered your own question.

          God designed it all. Unique and powerful as it is. Since man has progressed in knowledge and understanding of the creation around him, His world gets bigger each day.

          Do you know for example,that scientists are still discovering new animals every day? that just blows my mind,and is more evidence that there is always so much more than mankind wil ever fully know.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            While the world of religious fantasies and delusions gets smaller every day.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then, God would be changing the flu virus in order to make sure we are always sick.

        3. parrster profile image87
          parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The problem with the term 'evolution' is that when you use it to refer to the inherent adaptivity of an organism. That is a very different thing than using it to refer to changes that are beyond that natural adaptivity. In other words, organisms can adapt to their environment, but they still remain of their kind, they do not become different kinds of organisms. As example: humans can come in all shapes, colours and myriad other variations, but we are still humans. I hold that evolutionist are claiming more than they are able to prove. They point to random examples of variation and say that is an example of an organism on its way to becoming something other than what it is (mosquitoes, finches, horses etc) but they cannot scientifically prove that. It is pure speculation.

          http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-bi … mpossible/
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -evolution

  21. Disappearinghead profile image89
    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago

    In answer to the original question, I think many theists reject evolution out of fear of the perceived consequences. Man is unique above all animals and thus requires a special creation. To accept that God used the vehicle of evolution somehow lessens the man. Evolution also casts doubt on the concept of original sin because if we are evolved from apes then there can be no fall of man. (Incidentally the fall of man is a term not found in the bible.) So no original sin then casts doubt on the need for a saviour.

    At least all the above represents a common thought process of many Christians. However it doesn't matter how hard we believe something (like young Earth creationism or intelligent design) if the facts and observation disprove such beliefs there can be no credibility to hold on to them.

    I am content as a believer in God that evolution is the most likely explanation. Our genes prove that man and chimps have a common ancestor and man came out of Africa. Original sin is a catholic invention and contradicts many Hebrew scriptures. Nevertheless at whatever point that modern man came into the concious awareness of God's existence, then it was not long after perhaps it all went pear shaped. The creation account in Genesis represents the best explanation that Israel had at the time and need not be taken literally.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You do understand that with your post comes the knowledge and understanding that all of scriptural writings and knowledge need not be taken literally? 

      Including the very existence of one or more Gods?  That an immaterial and supernatural God was simply the best explanation that Israel had in the early days for a whole lot of things and need not be taken literally?

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (Man is unique above all animals and thus requires a special creation.)

      Disappearinghead,

      The above exemplifies all that is wrong with most religious belief - that man is somehow unique and therefore special.   How special man is depends entirely on the definition of special - in regards to the ability to adapt and survive, insects are far above man in their degree of specialness.  Further down the evolutionary chain we find bacteria able to live in undewater thermal vents that would parbroil a human in seconds.

      About the only thing that makes us special is our ability to delude ourselves into thinking we are special.  And what happens when we think ourselves special?  Everything and everyone else becomes unspecial.

      How arrogant is that?

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why isit arrogant that one is above the other? such is the circle of life.

        And when was the last time you heard an ant complain that he was just an ant?

        He is what he is ,and we are what we are smile

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You mean an ant can't

          Or

          A man can

          Just do what we can, or the big guy will crush us like a bug

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, ants fight with each other, sort of like humans do, except they have no access to nuclear technology.  *Sigh*

      2. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        LOL!  I don't see insects or other forms of intelligent mammals out there spouting drivel on the internet, like you.  So, in that aspect, man must be special.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Can I check your ID, are you old enough to be playing around on this forum?

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ...Such a shrivelling response from a coward with poor intellect, but yeah, I'm an adult; thanks for asking.  You're the one stuck in cartoon-land, and obviously so...  LOL!

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As entertaining as you may be, is there some reason for the lack of courtesy when conversing with the other hubbers? We all get a little rank from time to time, but few do it with your consistency. smile

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm glad that you asked this question.  I totally respect certain and, uh, most "hubbers," but if you ever pay attention to me, I go after the ones that do not deserve respect.  Call me a "catch-eye observer," if ya will.  I know the smelly from the roses, and the foul from the pristine...  I have my reasons, trust me, and you are currently in the clear, for example, but many are not...  Oh, I suppose one could say "who am I to judge?"  LOL!  Just look around and observe and at least be semi-astute, as you'll see who has bad intentions on these forums, as I do not...

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand where you are coming from. And I can respect your reasons, but overzealous might be an understatement. I hope you know what you're doing. smile

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What's Zeal got to do with it?  Dang, that sounds like a good title for a song, never mind; lol

            2. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Insane Mundane

              There is a difference between childlike and childish.  I want to teach you how to delivery a decent insult rather than your flash egg head comments.

              Maybe start by reading their hubs and asking decent questions first , get to know what the hell your talking about, and make sure your own hands are clean.

              Only then, you can join The Society for Decent Insults

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Awesome!  You mean that if I play by YOUR rules, I can learn to become a degenerate that insults aimlessly while watching cartoons all the time while fantasizing about a place that doesn't so closely represent your inbred heaven of animalistic butt sex and retardation?  I'm totally freakin'  fascinated by your notion of the candlestick maker meeting the gingerbread baker.  Wow!  Thanks, fellow nutjob, as you have ultimately helped my success @ HubPages via your gobbledegook!  big_smile

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks Castle. Your conversation helped me figure out whose hand is stuck up the back side of that sock puppet you're talking to.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, great... Castlepaloma has a sock puppet? Oh, please, let me know who, as I'll be glad to give them some feedback, as well....   If I ever decide to have a sock puppet on this site, it would probably be one that created hubs, as I have yet to do so, under this "name" of mine.  hmm

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    smile Carry on. Your secret is safe with me.

      3. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Of course humans are special. When was the lastvtime you saw an aardvark recite poetry; an albatrose produce a beautiful work of art; an ant ponder the deep meanings of the life the universe and everything; or an antelope invent some high tech labour saving gadget. So some bacteria can survive in a pool of hot mud, but that is all they will ever be. Only humanity can push beyond the limits of inagination or achieve the impossible.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Only humanity can push beyond the limits of inagination or achieve the impossible.)

          Disappearinghead,

          You will have to explain that to the 44 people in Oklahoma who were killed when an F5 tornado ripped their homes apart and sent debris flying about like shrapnel - I suppose for just a moment, there, they weren't special enough to stop nature?

          How special is Down's Syndrome?  Have you ever taken care of a human with Huntington's Disease?  How about Alzheimer's - it's pretty special to sit in excrement in diapers and drool because the brain doesn't work any more.

          Can you special mankind survive the radiation from the original Nevada nuclear test blast?  No, I didn't think so - but some beetles did.  Can a special human regrow his amputated arm?  No, but a salamander can.

          I will spell this out again slowly in case you didn't understand it the first time.  How special humans are depends on what type of specialty is being discussed.  As far as intellect, there is no doubt humans sit at the top of the evolutionary ladder - as far as survivability and adaptability, that case isn't nearly so clear.

          And as far as the specialness of regrowing body parts, we are dead last in the special department.

      4. parrster profile image87
        parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you aren't already, I wouldn't recommend becoming a father if I was you Winston. Children are special because they are the unique procreation of their parents; and there is no arrogance on their part in believing they are special. Christians believe they are the unique creation of God (created in his image), there is no arrogance in such a belief, only wonder, joy and great hope... until that is, we start heeding what you would have us believe.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Children are special because they are the unique procreation of their parents; and there is no arrogance on their part in believing they are special.)

          parrster,

          Have you ever worked with the poor - the truly destitute?  Have you seen a crack baby screaming its lungs out in a hospital nursery?  Can you explain what is so special about Down's Syndrome?  How about cleft palate - is that deformity a gift from your god to special kids? 

          We live in the real world - not one of disneylike fantasy of perfection and special creatures who commune with god.  Nature is remorseless.  There is nothing special about us other than we sit at the top of the intellectual pyramid. 

          But in a sense you are right, as it seems only humans have that special ability to delude ourselves into thinking we are special and more important than other creatures.

          If you think you have dominion over nature, try jumping into the middle of the ocean from the back of a ship and see how far a human can swim and then compare that to a jellyfish for specialness - or walk unarmed to face a hungry tiger and compare how special you are in relationship to an elephant in the same position - or try to see how long you can survive with a plastic sack tied over your head and then compare that time to the length of time an anaerobic bacteria can live without oxygen.

          Man is simply another creature that shares this planet with other life forms.  We are not superior or loved better by superman.  We just are.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image87
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well put, thank you.

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for being another rational being to talk to.

          2. scottcgruber profile image92
            scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Bingo. And this is the crux of the biscuit right here. Evolution conflicts with the worldview that the universe was created for us, which is why theists who hold this view can not accept it, no matter how much evidence is shown to them.

            1. dmop profile image86
              dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              After many years of in depth research on the matter I have stumbled onto many theories and ideas that might bring light to those religious fanatics who hold firm to their assertion that evolution could not have taken place because the Bible forgot to tell them that it did. That is of course, if they would only let their guard down long enough to let those ideas into their minds and intelligently digest them for a time. One of those theories is that of parallel universes, which is explained by the frequency of motion with-in the atomic structures that make up those universes. The theory states that it is possible that there are many (perhaps millions) of alternate parallel universes side by side, with atomic structures all existing at different frequencies of motion, which is why they never come in contact with each other, and can not be perceived by each other. The theory continues to speculate that perhaps one or more of those universes are at a much more stable frequency than ours, which allows for the inhabitants to exist much longer than ourselves, or our stars, or any of our molecular structures. Thus producing entities that might exist infinitely, and ultimately give rise of an intelligence that allows them to learn to observe and even manipulate the other universes. This is just a theory of course, but it is a much better starting point than arguing that the Bible didn't mention evolution so it could not have happened.

              1. dmop profile image86
                dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There are many more theories that might help explain the possibility of how God and evolution could both be legitimate, but I will leave that to each of those interested in possibility to discover on their own.

          3. parrster profile image87
            parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, the bible doesn't teach that the universe was made for us. It teaches it was made "by and for" Christ. It presents a legitimate first cause for everything, as well as a reason why things are currently far from perfect, and an ultimate solution to the problem that even transcends the here and now.
            I am yet to see reasonable evidence to the contrary.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Except the "cause" of god/Christ.

              Because it was made for and by Christ?

            2. dmop profile image86
              dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Where in the Bible does it state that the world was created "by and for" Christ, I'm interested to know?

              1. dmop profile image86
                dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                To begin, don't try to say that Christ has always existed as God has because in Proverbs 8:24 it says “When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. This passage speaks of Jesus and a point in time when he was brought forth. Furthermore, if the world was created "by and for" Christ, than why and how was Christ created to be sin for us as stated in 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

                1. parrster profile image87
                  parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi dmop.
                  Proverbs 8 is poetic literature in which wisdom (not Christ) is being personified.
                  The first three verses prove this;

                  Proverbs 8:1-3
                  Does not wisdom cry out, And understanding lift up her voice?
                  She takes her stand on the top of the high hill, beside the way, where the paths meet.
                  She cries out by the gates, at the entry of the city, at the entrance of the doors:..

                  The passage in 2 Corinthians is not speaking of Christ's creation or birth, but his purpose in coming to earth, to become our atoning sacrifice.

                  1. dmop profile image86
                    dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your own quoted passage "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." proves that Christ was created at some point in time so to attempt to argue that he is not temporal as God is not; is futile. Furthermore, you are misguided to believe that "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." simply refers to his purpose for coming to earth. That was his purpose for being created. If you step back and examine the conundrum that has been created by just these few passages you would start to think that sin was the purpose for the universe, Christ, us, and all of creation, which begins a whole new chapter of this discussion.

              2. parrster profile image87
                parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "by", in the sense of through or via Christ.

                Colossians 1:13-16
                13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

                John 1:1-3 (and verse 14)
                1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

            3. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Remove the surgically implanted Bible from your eyes, first.

          4. parrster profile image87
            parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Winston
            All those terrible things you mentioned do not annul Gods existence, they merely challenge us to ask why? And I suggest the answers are only found in seeking God more diligently (try it), not rejecting him on the basis of ones ignorance.
            The bible does not present or pretend the world is a perfect place, quite the contrary, the bible says its an ugly reality we live in. But it does not lay the blame at natures feet, but man's.
            To have dominion over nature has nothing to do with duplicating its prowess, but harnessing it. Only man has been given that authority.
            Man is both superior and more loved than any other creature, for he is the only one created in God's image. And what an honour it is to serve him in that capacity.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image87
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, Parrster, we make "god" in our image; each one of us conjures up that image in our mind what we want "god" to be.

              I suggest you just come down to earth with your reasoning.  Real understanding can bring new insights for you.

              1. parrster profile image87
                parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ahh, but the view is so much clearer and better up here smile

                1. jonnycomelately profile image87
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  On the Pedestal, where you sit in judgment and self-righteousness, in Jesus' name?!

                  1. parrster profile image87
                    parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If to disagree and say so is your interpretation of judging, then yes.
                    If standing beside ones convictions is self-righteous in your book, OK.
                    I prefer to call it standing up for what I believe in the face of opposition.
                    Are you sitting in judgement by calling me self-righteous?

  22. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    I think you mean some theists....unless you simply are lumping everyone together. That is a bad move, and very propagandist. God evolves, thinking about God also evolves.

  23. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    "None of us need it (knowledge) to see the realities of this amazing world,but some of us are in awe of its beginning and purpose."

    Why does the universe have to have a purpose? Why can't it just be?

    As for something from nothing, what science has been demonstarting recently is that there's no such thing as nothing.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Quantum, quantum, quantum mechanics; praise be?

  24. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Funny how the creationists can never cite legitimate scientific sources.  It's always something like Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute.  Goes to show they don't have any evidence on their side!

    1. parrster profile image87
      parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So the scientists that write the articles for these sites are not scientists because they disagree with other scientists?
      And I assume a legitimate site to quote from would be one that agrees with evolutionary doctrine.
      Thanks for the unbiased appraisal.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A legitimate scientist can disagree with evolution I suppose.  But there are fringe elements in all groups.  There were medical "authorities" who said there was no link between smoking and cancer.  And homosexuality in the past was considered a disorder before it was discovered there is a biological basis.   Neither of these positions has any basis now.

        So you can still find scientists who will be shills for a certain cause in order to make money or because their own bias is so deep they cannot see past it.  But when the majority has solid evidence on their side, and there are currently no good reasons to question whether evolution actually occurred, then fringe scientists are not going to be reputable.  If you were to cite a leading scientist in evolutionary theory saying he/she was questioning it all, then you may have a case.  Instead, your sources will start with the conclusion, which is that evolution did not occur, and then attempt, feebly, to show that God is responsible for the variety of life on earth.

        I also hope you understand that a "theory" in science is not used in the same way as everyday lingo.  It has evidential backing, like the theory of gravity.  And also, abiogenesis is not evolution.  God could still be the ultimate cause or creator, but the variety of species is best explained by evolution.

        1. parrster profile image87
          parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You agree that a legitimate scientist can disagree with evolution (that's a relief). However, in the  same breathe you are claiming them to be in same category as others in the past who are wrong... Sorry, but that simply sounds like pure bias.

          You speak of scientists “who will be shills for a certain cause in order to make money or because their own bias is so deep they cannot see past it”. As far as I can see,  you could be talking about evolutionary scientists. 
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ … atest-hoax
          http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
          But let's put that aside.

          You claim that the majority of scientists have “solid evidence on their side”, and there is “no good reasons to question whether evolution actually occurred ”. May I suggest that the evidence isn't as solid as many may hope (just as in the example of the Piltdown man; forty years they thought they had solid evidence), and that is why there is controversy; genuine scientists are questioning the so-called evidence. Just check out the scientific credentials of some of these evolution dessenters; http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/  (or are they simply bigoted stooges in it for a quick buck? I don't think so. And I think they would be deeply insulted to have that suggested of them, as would you.)

          But then you  present an interesting quest, to find quotes from leading scientist in evolutionary theory saying they question it all. That, you tell me, will make a case.
          I bet though, if I quoted creationist scientists who used to be evolutionary scientists, you would disregard them. Am I right? That's right, because they have to be “leading” scientists in evolution (whatever that means: paid more... quoted more... more doctorates... biggest book sales?). You've presented a very slanted challenge I can't hope to meet.

          You claim that scientists who reject evolution “start with the conclusion, which is that evolution did not occur, and then attempt, feebly, to show that God is responsible for the variety of life on earth.”
          Do you personally know all these scientists to make such a claim about them. Many of those that have placed their name of the dissenters list (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ ) are not even religious. And we are not dealing with a few, but multiple tens of thousands (http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm).
          All highly trained deluded flunky's? I don't think so.
          That haven't “started with a conclusion”, instead they have vigorously examined the evidence and determined, to quote from the triple doctorate Dr Wilder-Smith, in his opinion, “the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.”

          So, in science, a theory is something that has evidence backing it... hmm, reminds me of the Spontanteous Generation theory.
          http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … generation

          you may find this article interesting. http://www.afaithtoliveby.com/category/evolution/

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ONLY, if the scientist had a legitimate reason, with legitimate evidence and a legitimate alternative based on the evidence, but that has never happened, ever.





            No, every scientist who understands evolution and understands how evolution is based and affects their field of science would be excluded from being a shill.



            Suggest all you want, but you have to at least actually understand evolution before you make those suggestions.



            That was a well-known hoax exposed by scientists. So what?

  25. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago

    There are plenty of legit scientific sources if you are willing to compare the science that is in the Bible to the abilities they had at the time. For instance a certain scripture refers to gold "perishing" even though it is refined by fire. This is a clear referral to the deteriorization of metal at a molecular level. Something that was not known as a fact until our time. There are many other references to science especially in the Book of Job when God replies.
    These pieces of evidence are just as significant as finding a rough type of battery in a dig. The information is there if you are willing to study it.
    Futhermore; most all of our accepted science was first  a theory. Theory was then made fact by scientific observation. There has never been any accepted solid data to confirm evolution is solid science. Ignoring certain data because it does not fit into your personal point of view makes bad science. The science is only as good as the gauge used to measure it.
    Science today proves the science of the Bible.

    1. mischeviousme profile image59
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is no way possible that the earth is 6,000 years old, that's just another defunct tactic christians use to prove an unprovable point.

      1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
        A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really. Were you here 6000 years ago? How about 60 billion years or whatever the evolutionists say the timeline is? The Bible is a written account of that timeline.

        1. mischeviousme profile image59
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think it's possible to guage any of it. I'm here right now and that's all that matters. Trying to prove that the earth is a certain age is a waste of time, time I have to focus on the important aspects of life.

          1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
            A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Then taking a stance that the earth cannot be 6000 yrs old is not the best argument for you.

            1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
              A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              mischeviousme.
              I reread what I had just written. Hey, it did not come out they way I intended. It sounds way too condescending. Please accept my sincere apology.

              1. mischeviousme profile image59
                mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Accepted.. I didn't see it as a jab though, you have a right to feel the way you do.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "There has never been any accepted solid data to confirm evolution is solid science".

      There has never been any accepted solid data to confirm special acts of creation or a 6000 year old Earth.

      1. mischeviousme profile image59
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Both sides have there limits... Both science and religion break down at creation, there is no explaining how or why this reality came into existance.

      2. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
        A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Disappearinghead. True, but that does not mean creation is not true. You seem quite content to accept evolution without solid data. Is evolution then considered a religion? Are you defending a belief instead of science?

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution is not a belief, it is demonstatrated continuously all around us. Viruses and bacteria spontaneously mutate and some of these mutations provide them with resistance against drugs; ergo they are evolving. Mapping the human genome has provided definative proof that we evolved from a common ancestor to chimps. We even share some junk DNA sequences with mice which have the same mutations, thus there is a common ancestral small furry animal. Unless of course you think God put these junk DNA mutations in both humans and mice to confuse us.

          A religion is a set of beliefs for which there are no natural mathematical, physical, chemical or biological laws that can prove them to be true. Hence religion comes down to faith built upon our interpretations of our experiences. Evolution is not a religion because there is real world testable and verifiable evidence.

          1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
            A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Demonstrated all around us? I have yet to see viruses or bacteria become a higher life form. The mutations are adaptations not evolution. The junk DNA you are referring to is intelligent design in action. Only an intelligent being could have put such a single similarity together.
            The Bible does say that because of those who choose not to retain the knowledge of God, that He would send them strong delusions.
            Faith does not need science, but as you are proving, science needs faith. You are blinded by what you have been taught about evolution. There is no real world testable and verifiable evidence, as you say, otherwise evolution whould be known as fact.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What is an adaptation by mutation if not an evolution?

              Given a few hundred million years anything is possible by genetic incremental mutation.

              Since when did science and evolution find themselves contrary to the knowledge of God thus provoking a strong delusion?

              Faith is the substance of things hoped for; it is not the denial of scientific evidence in the hope that believing hard enough will make it go away.

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You keep talking about evidence, but you have none. We have been given an account of history by God through man. You cannot prove a million years has passed since the beginning of this earth. Now you will say I cannot prove the earth is only around 6000 years old and you would be right. But this account is the physical evidence I have for this belief. Faith is all I need to believe.
                If you would take the time to genuinely search out science in the Bible you would find some extrodinary information. This isn't about me changing your point of view. It isn't about forcing you to believe what I believe. By all means believe what you want. God gave us free will for that purpose. All I am asking is for you to consider ALL possible sources instead of casting them off because of selfish and mislead people.
                Why is it so easy for those like you to believe we came to be by accident instead of created.
                Philosophy is the forerunner of Physics. Yes some of those philosophers convinced themselves there was no God, BUT some of them found, through thoughtful consideration, that there HAD to be a God.
                Our science says that an object must have force exerted upon it in order for it to move. This is what some of their thinking led them to believe in God.
                A Big Bang could not have occured unless something instigated that initial movement. How is it, that there are those who would believe in this and cannot believe that the vibratory movement of sound could have started the whole universe? He spoke.
                God is not against science. He is science. He is the greatest mathamatician and scientist. All those intricate numbers lie in the spin of the earth. It is in the electomagnetic forces that keep Orion and Pleiades where they are and all the planets and stars where they are. Numbers are the universal language. God is not separated from science.
                Perhaps those who are taking God out of the equation and putting our existence all in the hands of chance and evolution are the same ones who are trying to make Him go away. Intelligent design is in everything around us. From the smallest living creatures to the forces controlling the planets.
                It is not I who is delusional.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Really? And you know that how?



                  Exactly, you rely entirely on faith that those men claimed they received an account of history from God.

                  Interestingly enough, accounts of history have been claimed by other men and other religions and those accounts differ dramatically.

                  But again, your "faith" is all you need to reject their accounts over the one you embrace.



                  If you claim that "Faith is all I need to believe" then there is nothing else one can conclude.

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I know that because I have experienced God. I really wish you could. You have no idea what is in the afterlife. Choosing to ignore what is around you will not stop death from coming. It will not stop the eventual meeting of your ideas with reality.
                    God is all forgiving, but you must make a choice to accept Him as the King of the whole universe. This is more real than you can now comprehend. I wish there were something I could say or do that would cause all who see my words to at least entertain the thougt of God. At least then there would be a chance.
                    Instead with bullheaded assurance you walk a plank of your choosing.

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No.  You are misunderstanding what theory is first of all.  As usual, that's what theists do.  I'm also not going to use a book that says the sun stopped for a whole day and homosexuals should be stoned to death as my source of science.
       
      Second of all, give me reputable scientific sources now that are not the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis to show evolution is false.

      1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
        A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I do not have a misunderstanding of theory. Theory has SOME basis in fact but not proven as a whole. Is this theory or not? In theory there are some assumptions made but they have to be proven.
        As far as the sun stopping; this is a matter of faith, belief. The EXAMPLE of sexual immorality you have given is Old Testament examples of what sin does in reality, in our lives. The New Testament was given so that those who repent, no matter what they have done, can be saved by the perfect sacrifice given by Jesus.

        If you use the Bible, then at least you should understand what the difference between the Old and New means.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, that is a misunderstanding of theory.

          1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
            A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I can back up what I write with dictionary definitions. Can you do anything other than to make pointless jabs and bounce off others responses?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So what? It is blatantly obvious you have no understanding of what a theory is.

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Say what you will. The definition on my computer says a theory is, and I quote, "speculation: abstract thought or contemplation." Not fact. It is you who is lacking understanding. bye.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No one said a theory was a fact. I have no idea where you got that definition, but here is one that defines theory much better...

                  "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

                  A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena."



                  lol

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The idea came from people like you.

        2. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You understand, that you take inerrancy as a doctrine, so you cannot escape any of the troublesome verses.  Furthermore, you weaken your case completely when you show you misunderstand the basic scientific method!  If you cannot even understand how scientists attempt to arrive at their conclusions, I have serious doubts you can offer any sort of honest critique of evolution at all.

          Here is the definition of a scientific "theory."  "A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves." - http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/sci … ethod.html

          1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
            A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nice, but these must still be proven to be true, hence, an educated guess. I haven't shown I have misunderstood anything. If I have shown any knowledge of this - it is the ability to put it in simple terms instead of muddying up the understanding with the implication that theory is fact. It MUST BE PROVEN. It is as simple as that.
            Example: I see planes flying overhead all the time. There is plenty of air current; therefore all planes must be gliders. That is a theory, but it is not fact because it can be proved, eventually, that all planes are NOT gliders.

            1. scottcgruber profile image92
              scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Wrong. That is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. The word "theory" only applies after there is ample evidence in support of the hypothesis

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Once again I must point out that you are missing the point. Theory is not proven.

                1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                  A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Let us please stay out of semantics.

                  1. scottcgruber profile image92
                    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's cute.

                    You're redefining words to make them mean what you want them to mean, then whining about "staying out of semantics?"

                    Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Words have specific meanings. You cannot simply redefine them at will and then use your redefinition as the basis of your argument.

            2. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I couldn't find the word "proof"/"proven" in the definition, can you, please, point out, Mr. Preacher.

              1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I like words, don't you? To be able to take a particular saying and change the wording so that it says the same thing differently. That is why I like to write poetry. Word usage is part of the experience when we listen to a movie or song. One of my most recent, favorite lines of word usage is, "I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request." Simply put this means, "no."
                As entertaining as word usage can be, it can also be used to manipulate and lie.
                There are those in our society and in fact in the world, who work the words to present the best possible view to their cause. But no matter how you put it; no matter how you say it; ultimately seeing the word proof and knowing that it is a necessary step in transitioning from theory to fact can be two totally different things.
                You cannot tell me you believe something without proof? Do you? That would make evolution a religion instead of science.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll repeat.
                  A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena

                  This was the definition. You said it must be proven.
                  My question is, where in the definition is the word "proof/proven" comes?
                  Now regarding your question, "You cannot tell me you believe something without proof?"
                  I don't believe something, I believe or not believe statements/events. But what has it got to do with 'theory'?

                  1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Please get your dictionary out and look up the word, "theory." Then reread what I have written previously. Just as a lawyer will present a case in a specific light so will scientists who would prefer evolution be true. Unsavory as it may seem, people are people. Choosing the right words to make your case "acceptable" is not truth.

                  2. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                    A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Please get your dictionary out and look up the word, "theory." Then reread what I have written previously. Just as a lawyer will present a case in a specific light so will scientists who would prefer evolution be true. Unsavory as it may seem, people are people. Choosing the right words to make your case "acceptable" is not truth.

  26. skinsman82000 profile image85
    skinsman82000posted 4 years ago

    Whoa, this is quite a long thread....and of course with the subject matter a heated one.  I was religious at one time, than a staunch atheist.  I realized they're pretty much the same.  No one really KNOWS anything.  I think a step in the right direction for mankind is admitting this.  I try to be open to all sides because again, I really have no idea one way or another.

    I do think most organized religion through the centuries has been a lot like anyone that gets in charge.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  People are inherently corruptible.

    That being said, no one ever wants to admit they are wrong.  No matter which side you're on, neither side is going to want to admit something they've staked their whole lives on is flawed.  Then they'll think they're flawed.  It's much easier to throw dirt at the other side.

    So, in short, haha, there IS evidence for evolution, but does anyone really know one way or another how it happened?  Someone could have hit the switch.  I don't know.

    1. GeneralHowitzer profile image58
      GeneralHowitzerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good day thread maker... It is not about religion. My answer is plain and simple... the chance that life springs forth from evolution is ZERO, NADA and NIL...

      1. GeneralHowitzer profile image58
        GeneralHowitzerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Read this "Evolution by Darwin" is a "THEORY," and forever will not be a LAW and will never be proven since it surely it will not pass the Scientific Method.

        Why believe in things that are still unproven...

  27. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    "So the scientists that write the articles for these sites are not scientists because they disagree with other scientists?"

    No. The "scientists" who write for AIG and CI are spin artists, not scientists. They don't do actual research, and their work is not subject to peer review. All they do is take the work of legitimate scientists and spin it so it fits a narrow-minded literal interpretation of Genesis, using twisted logic and false dichotomies to prove their spin correct.

    Scientists disagree with other scientists all the time. It's the reason why science works. It is through this constant disagreement over the details that well-formed theories emerge.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1 - you beat me to it. Well said.

    2. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
      A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      scottcgruber.
      Cast aspersions all you will. The simple fact is all you write about in this specifiec post has been done with the theory of evolution. It is still THEORY. No solid proof.
      If you truly are unbiased then I dare you to look at the science that is in the Bible a little closer.

      1. mischeviousme profile image59
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is no science in the bible, just a bunch of conflicting stories about the origins of man. I think you have a right to practice your religion but trying to prove it's true and real, is like trying to "put a camel through the eye of a needle".

        1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
          A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is apparent you have not studied the Bible. I am no theologian, but I can tell you this; those accounts are not conflicting and they are accounts, not stories. If you had really studied the comparison between the books, you would understand how they fit together.
          Seeing the science in the bible is a bit like Archeology. When you dig you find bits and pieces of scientific evidence. It has nothing to do with religion. Just read it and be amazed.

      2. kirstenblog profile image77
        kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Gravity is only a theory... wink

        1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
          A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, but gravity can be shown to exist, though not fully understood.

          1. kirstenblog profile image77
            kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So can evolution, it has been show to exist and is simply not fully understood.

            1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
              A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not so. Adaptation is not evolution. Hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess; which could be wrong, and is , until proven by solid evidence.
              On the other hand - lift your foot off the ground. It must return to the ground unless you are prepared to hold your foot off the ground by force. Gravity exists.

              1. scottcgruber profile image92
                scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes it is. Adaptation is evolution. They are two different words that describe the same process. Adaptation is just evolution in the short term.

                1. A.S.K.Preacher profile image60
                  A.S.K.Preacherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Adaptation is adjusting to the environment. Evolution, by book standards, is a change from one species to another. Lizards became birds. Bacteria became fish. Monkeys became human. There is no sensable adaptation in this.

                  1. scottcgruber profile image92
                    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Adaptation
                    Avaptation
                    Avaptution
                    Avaplution
                    Avoplution
                    Evoplution
                    Evolution

                    Small changes add up over time.

  28. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    There is a ton of scientific evidence for both sides but both have failed to explain the science behind the true answer. The only dispute is that both theories have a right to be considered in finding the correct answer. Its my belief that DNA will actually prove the theory of evolution wrong. Right now its one of the most intriguing things in the World. Still it can be manipulated and finding its un-natural properties will create the possibility of even greater lies. I really do not believe that evolution occurred by the current theory. I think its far more complex and dynamic and that chaos did not show up by random chance. There should be a trillion failures in are fossil record if random chance was the formula.

    1. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There have been multiple mass extinctions in the past that may have killed as much as 90% of all extant species on Earth, so there have been millions of failed species, perhaps billions.

      When you count in all the individuals from more successful species that didn't live to reproduce, I'm sure the failures easily number in the trillions. Just to give one example from a moderately well studied species, scientists estimate that 106 billion Homo sapiens sapiens have walked the Earth since the human species began ~200,000 years ago, and that at least 40% of those never lived to see adulthood.

  29. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    "It is still THEORY. No solid proof."

    The word theory, in science, means that there is solid proof. And the theory of evolution is supported by thousands of studies on fossils, comparative development, phylogenic study, molecular genetics, and observed adaptation.

    That living things change over time is solid fact. That they do it via mutation and natural selection is the theory, and so far it has proven to be the most logical and best-supported explanation for this fact.

    Are there still mysteries and unanswered questions in evolution, and indeed some gaps in the theory? Sure. There will always be more questions. Every time science answers one question it creates a dozen more. That is what keeps me interested.

    As for the science in the Bible, I don't doubt that there are some scientific principles and discoveries weaved into the ancient allegories, but I can not see the Genesis myth as anything but.

  30. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    "Were you here 6000 years ago? How about 60 billion years or whatever the evolutionists say the timeline is?"

    Nope. I don't need to personally witness prehistory to know that we live on a 4.57 billion year old planet. Radiometric dating, geologic strata, and observations of distant stellar formation have provided the evidence I need to understand Earth's antiquity.

  31. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    How can a theory be a fact? You must be the best scientist having found the missing links and proving evolution and all. That is it? Your explanation has convinced me and left me with nothing to argue about.  Its amazing we can stop calling it the theory of evolution and call it the facts of evolution. Please break it down for me. Were we fish then dinosaur or did we skip to birds first? How come we never became plants? You got all the answers please Mr Beaker explain it all to us. If evolution was real wouldn't we all be walking around with our butts on our shoulders.

    1. scottcgruber profile image92
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      About twenty minutes on Wikipedia would clear up your obvious misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. And your obvious misunderstanding of the word "theory." I suggest you do a bit of research so you can intelligently contribute to the discussion.

    2. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Humans have never been dinosaurs, birds, or plants. Dinosaurs were a different branch of the reptile tree and birds are a specific branch of the dinosaur tree. Plants are a different branch of the eukaryote tree.

      We did spend awhile as fish in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian, though.

  32. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    So if life was planted here intentionally, it could have been one-celled. That truly an amazing idea! Then...whoever did it might want to keep track of the experiment. I think you might have something there. They could even have manipulated human progress in other ways too? I'm impressed!smile

  33. CHyNCHyN profile image60
    CHyNCHyNposted 4 years ago

    None of our body is junk, so there should not be any junk dna. Just that the scientist can't figure out its purpose doesnt mean it is junk.  Problem with evolution is, there are no evolution of bacteria into a new species anymore.

    1. scottcgruber profile image92
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And what in nature defines a species? Taxonomy is a human invention, not a natural one. We create species by dividing the natural world into categories. All nature does is create variations.

    2. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The transition from single to multicellular took about 2.5 billion years the first time. Why would you think it's moving any faster today?

  34. Diane Inside profile image86
    Diane Insideposted 4 years ago

    I'm a theist, and I accept evolution.

  35. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    It doesn't require a theist to not believe this. The more I learn the more ridiculous it sounds. And the proof we were fish is what? Honestly, you people believe in this crap and actually consider it to be factual? I am dying to see the fossilized human fish. How could you even prove it is beyond any current knowledge that exist, you have got to get me one of those degree that convinces me that I am this smart. Nothing you say has any validity are you just making this up or what?

  36. Kikilari profile image61
    Kikilariposted 4 years ago

    I think it is funny that you argue about something, that you don't know anything about.  Why do you do that?  What did God do to you?  Why do you mock God?  Why do you mock the Holy Bible?  Why do you mock faith?  What does the Holy Bible say?  What is church all about?  What is prayer about?  Once again you can't answer these questions because you would rather argue about it, then research on it.  Why is that?  Why are you afraid of the thought of God?  What did God do to you?  What do you know about God?  Why not answer my questions?  You are afraid to answer my questions.  Why not change for God?  What is going on?  See ya.

  37. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    Who our you talking to? I am mocking this insane theory that we all started out as fish, became a lizard, a bird, a rat, a monkey they claim to know how this all happened and I am only guessing. Even if evolution was a theory I doubt that they would know how we were a slime mould and how we eventually became king rat. I do not need any argument about God to explain how retarded this fact mind you sounds. I was OK with theory but apparently this is all fact. The scientist our only making guesses not even educated guesses due to the lack of facts but apparently this is more then a theory, give me a brake.

    1. Kikilari profile image61
      Kikilariposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think I sound more intelligent than you are because I am not the one talking about animals.  You have so much hate in your heart.  People can tell you need God in your heart.  What did God do to you?  Why don't you believe in God?  What do you believe in?  Why do you think animals control