Would someone please prove that creationism is not a crock,

[consol]

and while you're at it please prove that ALL religions are not a crock.

Knowing what I know, I can assure you I will not be holding my breath.

 

[Justaman0000]

do not give to dogs what is sacred, and do not throw your pearls to pigs. They may trample them and then turn and tear you to peices.

 

[consol]

do not give to dogs what is sacred, and do not throw your pearls to pigs. They may trample them and then turn and tear you to peices.

So your lies are sacred, but truth tramples lies and tears them to pieces,
and as creationism and all religions are nothing but lies what else can you expect?

When I lie to you and people tell you I lie to you, tell them I told you they would say that I lie,
either way you're stuffed, but you're gullable so who cares?

 

[AV1611VET]

...

Um --- Consol --- I'm ahead of you on this by about 2 1/2 years --- qv please: 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your lies are sacred, but truth tramples lies and tears them to pieces,
and as creationism and all religions are nothing but lies what else can you expect?

When I lie to you and people tell you I lie to you, tell them I told you they would say that I lie,
either way you're stuffed, but you're gullable so who cares?

How can you say "creationism" is a lie, when you don't even understand what it is, or how it works?

 

[Sophophile]

[Prove creationism is not a crock] and while you're at it please prove that ALL religions are not a crock.

Knowing what I know, I can assure you I will not be holding my breath.

Modern science is almost exclusively a materialist and reductionist enterprise.

However, there are many varieties of human experience that are not understood to be reducible to material causes; for example, ethics, the arts, free will and the nature of consciousness.

Moreover, at the frontiers of science some are questioning the usefulness of strict materialist reductionism, such as in cosmology, quantum physics, chaos/complexity and psychology.

Most religion, in my view, is an attempt to explain certain phenomena in terms of agency i.e. as arising from the choices of an agent. Creationism, strictu sensu, is the view that all natural and psychological phenomena are caused by a conscious agent having enormous power and intellect. This has the advantage of offering an explanation for the origin of ethics, free will etc. (i.e. they are derived from a consciousness having those attributes in some form), and it does not necessarily conflict with materialistic science as presently understood. I do not believe this is a "crock": whenever we perceive some phenomenon it is reasonable to suppose it has a cause whose characteristics are sufficient to cause the observed effect.

Note I personally do not have this view, as I doubt whether the origin of all that exists can be characterised as a conscious agent. I am open, however, to this possibility.

Cheers
S.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Evolution: biodiversity, biogeography, molecular genetics, observed speciation, paleontology, plate tectonics, anthropology, liguistics, radiometric dating, geology, astronomy, physics, microbiology, taxonomy ... just to name a few of the fields, that, when totaled together provide Mt. Everest sized proof of evolution.

Creationism: Zilch.

 

[KWCrazy]

and while you're at it please prove that ALL religions are not a crock.

The interesting thing about Evolution is that it requires the rejection of over 5,000 years of interaction between God and man. It has at its core the requirement that God does not exist. If God does exist, then evolution is a lie. If you believe in both God and evolution then you have a firm understanding of neither. The Bible could not make it any more clear that God created the universe in seven days. From the works "Bokah" and "Yom" which, taken together, always mean a single calendar day, to the description of and evening and morning as one rotation of the earth, to the sequence of creation which cannot possibly follow any evolutionary pattern, to the fourth commandment from the mouth of God himself, to the fact that Jesus personally affirmed the validity of the Scriptures, to the fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are mentioned over 200 times in the New Testament, even a cursory reading of the text will leave no doubt that the creation as depicted in the Bible was a supernatural event that took place over a six day period.

So then, let's look to the world of the evolutionist; or evo. He must first begin by calling God a liar, or to assume that God does not exist. Certainly if the Bible is not true then mankind has spent his entire existence praying to vapor. Interesting that 5,000 years of civilization must be wrong so that poorly educated people who subscribe to a false religion they do not fully comprehend can be right. However, let's cast that aside for the moment and ask what we must believe to be an evo.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but the universe somehow exists. There are no valid theories of origination.
2. Life somehow exists. There are no valid theories of abiogenesis.
3. The simplest of life forms is comprised of 200 proteins. Proteins can be formed under perfect conditions in laboratory, but those conditions do not exist in nature. Proteins may be right handed or left handed, but only left handed proteins are compatible with life. The likelihood of 200 left handed proteins being created by random causes is such a mathematical improbability only a lunatic or an evo could give it credence.
4. There is no provision in science for the formation of new genes or the addition of genetic information from nothing. Yet, evolution requires this impossibility to be repeated billions of times.
5. Adaptation is a conservative process by which beneficial traits are accentuated and deleterious traits are extinguished. Evos must somehow believe that repeated subtraction = addition.
6. The change of diet of bacteria is help up as proof positive of evolution, simply due to the lack of any other such "proof."
7. The fossil record shows a record of animals that lived and died. There are no transitional fossils. Evos now claim that the lack of transitional fossils is proof of evolution.

So then, we have a supernatural creation that was brought about by God in defiance of the physical laws of the universe that He created. Or, we have a theory which must ignore the fact that all theories of origination are equally impossible, that there is no process by which increasing complexity can happen, that benevolent mutations, which are extremely rare, must be the driving force of life in the universe and that anything which cannot be proven physically must not exist.

The fact is, evolution is not scientific. It's tautology.
The fact is, creation is MORE scientific than evolution, since by nature a supernatural creation cannot be validated or invalidated by natural law. Evolution, however, IS invalidated by the same laws.
The fact is, man comes to salvation through faith in God and belief in His word. He must accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as atonement for sin. God is real. He may be found, by those who seek Him. The truth may be revealed by those who seek it. The presence of the Holy Spirit may be felt by those who open their hearts to it. God may never be found in science. Science is the study of the physical world. God is supernatural. A fourth grader knows the difference. Funny that evos do not.

 

[Hespera]

An awful lot of "facts" with nothing but a lotta nothing to back them up.

 

[Nathan45]

Nutrider, Welcome to the forum. Please stick around, we don't really have enough creationists in this part .

The interesting thing about Evolution is that it requires the rejection of over 5,000 years of interaction between God and man. It has at its core the requirement that God does not exist.

That is not a core requirement of Evolution. Evolution says nothing at all about God. Simply not mentioning God, is not the same as asserting that he doesn't exist.

If God does exist, then evolution is a lie. If you believe in both God and evolution then you have a firm understanding of neither.

It really depends on your definition of God. I suppose you are correct if you define God as the Biblical God only, and take genesis literally. However there are many people who believe in God or even the Christian God who see Genesis as an Allegorical not as literal history. I'm not going to comment much more on the religious aspects of your post because I'm not christian.

However, let's cast that aside for the moment and ask what we must believe to be an evo.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but the universe somehow exists. There are no valid theories of origination.

I don't see why this has anything to do with evolution.

Firstly, you don't have to believe "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" to be an "evolutionist". That's completely unrelated science.

Second, if you posit that God created the universe, you're left with the inevitable question, "What created God?" I do not see how the theist's position in this issue is any stronger than the atheists.

Third, I think you post a false dichotomy above, either the bible is 100% true and literal or God doesn't exist, when really there are many more options. It is possible to believe that God initially created everything, and then evolution later occurred. If you define God simply as a first cause, without referencing the bible, there's nothing about the concept of a First Cause that contradicts Evolution and nothing about Evolution that contradicts the idea of a First Cause.

2. Life somehow exists. There are no valid theories of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is not really the same as evolution. Evolution generally refers to the diversification of life after it originated.

At the same time, it is very difficult to find evidence for the origination of life from non-life, as that would have been a one time event, on a microscopic scale, which would have occurred 3-4 billion years ago. So, we shouldn't expect to find any physical evidence for abiogenesis even if it happened.

3. The simplest of life forms is comprised of 200 proteins.

The problem is that you're talking about the simplest existing life form. There were probably much simpler life forms in the distant past than the simplest life forms today. (they've all been eaten or degraded by now, though)

For life to work, what you really need is a molecule that catalyzes it's own formation. A self-replicator. A molecule that, when it comes into contact with some other kind of matter, will tend to create copies of itself, or start a cycle which will eventaully lead to copies of itself.

Once the first self-replicator appears, even if it isn't capable of descent with modification, it's going to fundamentally change the playing field, in that it could be used as raw materials for another self-replicator to appear. Eventually to have life, all you need is something which can replicate itself and also randomly be slightly different. Then natural selection will take over, as the fittest variations of the replicator will tend to become more common over time.

Proteins can be formed under perfect conditions in laboratory, but those conditions do not exist in nature. Proteins may be right handed or left handed, but only left handed proteins are compatible with life. The likelihood of 200 left handed proteins being created by random causes is such a mathematical improbability only a lunatic or an evo could give it credence.

again, few really suggest that a 200 protein organism appeared out of nowhere in one stage. There were probably multiple stages, abiogenesis is about researching what those stages were.

Either way, evolution isn't about the creation of the first organism it's about the continued evolution of existing organisms. You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. After the first organism forms, however it formed, creating another organism with those same 200 proteins is simply a matter of following the instructions encoded in RNA.

4. There is no provision in science for the formation of new genes or the addition of genetic information from nothing. Yet, evolution requires this impossibility to be repeated billions of times.

This is incorrect, the genetic code is constantly changing. Look up "Mutation". A mutation is a random change in the genetic code of an orgamism... simply copying errors in the DNA. These occur fairly frequently, 99% of mutations have no noticable effect, most of the other 1% are harmful, however some are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are rare as the organisms are usually already fairly well optimized, but when they occur, they by definition cause the species to reproduce more than it would otherwise. Thus, beneficial mutations, even though they don't occur very often, produce species that are more likely to reproduce and thus species with those rare beneficial mutations become increasingly common. This is how evolution progresses.

and the possibility is repeated billions of times... first, there are a lot of mutations.

Say that each individual organism has 100 mutations. Say there are 100,000,000 organisms in a species. A generation is one year. The time given to evolve is 1,000,000 years. We could be talking about rabbits, or something like that.

so that's 100,000,000 organisms times 1,000,000 years, times 100 mutations per organism... or 10,000,000,000,000,000 mutations to work with. How many of these mutations are beneficial? i don't know, but i think you've got plenty of mutations to work with, really.

It should be noted though, that if a beneficial mutation appears anywhere, it tends to spread throughout the entire species through sex... the organisms with the beneficial mutation will interbreed with other organisms without the mutation, until after a few hundred generations most organisms in the species are descended from the organism that produced the mutation.

Note that the 1 year generation figure i was using is very generous... bacteria can in some cases reproduce every 9.8 minutes. Bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The total number of bacteria on earth has been estimated at 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 BBC News | Sci/Tech | Planet bacteria

The number of possible mutations or possible combinations of mutations for a species like bacteria is simply astronomical. They're simply evolving all the time.

5. Adaptation is a conservative process by which beneficial traits are accentuated and deleterious traits are extinguished. Evos must somehow believe that repeated subtraction = addition.

I think this was addressed above with my discussion of mutations.

as stated, the genetic code randomly changes (mutates). this is the source of new information. Random mutations is what adds additional traits. You are correct that natural selection alone doesn't add information, it only acts on existing information created by random mutations.

6. The change of diet of bacteria is help up as proof positive of evolution, simply due to the lack of any other such "proof."

"Changing diet"? If a bacteria evolves that can eat nylon, that's obviously an evolutionary change because your every day bacteria cannot eat nylon. It's not like any bacteria could eat nylon if it wanted too, just the ones that evolved to eat nylon.

7. The fossil record shows a record of animals that lived and died. There are no transitional fossils.

It's kindof funny, every time "Evos" find a transitional fossil, creationists claim 2 more gaps .

There are plenty of transitional fossils, anyway, just google "transitional fossils" or go to Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Evos now claim that the lack of transitional fossils is proof of evolution.

I wish you'd be more specific.

So then, we have a supernatural creation that was brought about by God in defiance of the physical laws of the universe that He created.
Or, we have a theory which must ignore the fact that all theories of origination are equally impossible, that there is no process by which increasing complexity can happen, that benevolent mutations, which are extremely rare, must be the driving force of life in the universe and that anything which cannot be proven physically must not exist.

I don't understand how you can say "there is no process by which increasing complexity can happen" and at the same time mention "benevolent mutations". You do understand at some level that beneficial mutations are where the increasing complexity occurs, am i correct?

The fact is, evolution is not scientific. It's tautology.

evolution is not a tautology. Natural selection, however, can be stated as a tautology, "That which is more likely to survive is more likely to survive".

It should be noted, however that all tautologies are true. Natural seleciton, stated tautologically, simply begs the question: "does anything exist that is more likely to survive than others?" and the answer is an emphatic "yes". So the fact that the concept of natural selection can be stated as a tautology is not really a problem.

The fact is, creation is MORE scientific than evolution, since by nature a supernatural creation cannot be validated or invalidated by natural law.

For a proposal to be scientific, there must be some way of determining whether it is true or false. Creationism, as you admit, does not fit the bill,therefore it is not scientific.

Evolution, however, IS invalidated by the same laws.

Go ahead and show your work on how evolution is invalidated by any natural laws.

The fact is, man comes to salvation through faith in God and belief in His word. He must accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as atonement for sin. God is real. He may be found, by those who seek Him. The truth may be revealed by those who seek it. The presence of the Holy Spirit may be felt by those who open their hearts to it. God may never be found in science. Science is the study of the physical world. God is supernatural. A fourth grader knows the difference. Funny that evos do not.

First of all, we "evos" do know the difference, i don't think it's very productive to pre-emptively insult everyone by comparing them to fourth graders.

I am reluctant to turn this into a religious debate, but You say "Science is the study of the physical world." and "God may never be found in science".

At the same time you say "He may be found, by those who seek him". However, as you mention, he has not been found in the physical world, or else science would have found him, and as far as i can tell, there is no where else to look.

 

[MoonLancer]

do not give to dogs what is sacred, and do not throw your pearls to pigs. They may trample them and then turn and tear you to peices.

of course that may be just a saying developed so you don't have to feel threatened when you cant defend you position.

 

[Bytemeister]

Get ready for a harsh reality.

The interesting thing about Evolution is that it requires the rejection of over 5,000 years of interaction between God and man.

Well, you can either reject the 5,000 years of interaction, which may seem like a lot, or you can reject the majority of 3.9 BILLION YEARS of solid rock which points to the Earth being created about 4.5 billion years ago. My bet is on the rocks. Just a comparison of those numbers. 5000:3,900,000,000.

Actually, thats a low blow, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the earth, it only deals with the developement of organisms.

It has at its core the requirement that God does not exist. If God does exist, then evolution is a lie.

Darwin said that evolution does not disprove the existence of god, but that God is not needed for evolution to happen. An extreme example is, if all of the cows with brown spots died from a strange brown spot eating bacteria, then one would find that there are no more brown spotted cows to make more brown spotted cows (It doesnt work exactly like that, there are alleles and other factors to consider) and the species has evolved because the number of brown spotted alleles has changed, a change in allelic frequency is the textbook definition of evolution.

So then, let's look to the world of the evolutionist; or evo. He must first begin by calling God a liar, or to assume that God does not exist. Certainly if the Bible is not true then mankind has spent his entire existence praying to vapor. Interesting that 5,000 years of civilization must be wrong so that poorly educated people who subscribe to a false religion they do not fully comprehend can be right. However, let's cast that aside for the moment and ask what we must believe to be an evo.

First, I'm glad you understand the basis and main frustration when atheists try to understand Christianity, but we don't believe that there is even a vapor.
Second, Oldest human remains were found about 200,000 years ago, this is verified via carbon dating. My number is bigger
Third. Evolution is not a religion, its a theory.
Most importantly, don't call us poorly educated. Without faith we have nothing but our education, it is worse for you to mock my education than it is for me to mock your religion because you can have both faith and knowledge and I must always second guess myself.

There is no provision in science for the formation of new genes or the addition of genetic information from nothing. Yet, evolution requires this impossibility to be repeated billions of times.

Mutation is the scientific provision you're looking for. It happens naturally, when a cell doesn't copy DNA correctly, or when a carcinogen damages DNA, or a ray of ultraviolet light strikes DNA and damages the molocule... The list of sources of mutation goes on and on.

Adaptation is a conservative process by which beneficial traits are accentuated and deleterious traits are extinguished. Evos must somehow believe that repeated subtraction = addition.

5-(-5)=5+5? I'm pretty sure it is. But those extinguished traits can hide in DNA. Did you know that only 2% of your DNA is actually coding? 40% is structural alone. So far we know the whole human genome, except for a little 3% which is unidentified. There could be a whole other "you" coded in that 3%

The change of diet of bacteria is help up as proof positive of evolution, simply due to the lack of any other such "proof."

Go get last year's flu shot and let me know how well it works. Another classic example is the coloration of moths during the industrial revolution, they changed from white to black to better blend with soot laden trees. Mainly because all the white moths stuck out like a sore thumb and were eaten, which prevented them from making any white-colored moth offspring.

The fossil record shows a record of animals that lived and died. There are no transitional fossils. Evos now claim that the lack of transitional fossils is proof of evolution.

Tiktaalik, look it up.

So then, we have a supernatural creation that was brought about by God in defiance of the physical laws of the universe that He created. Or, we have a theory which must ignore the fact that all theories of origination are equally impossible, that there is no process by which increasing complexity can happen, that benevolent mutations, which are extremely rare, must be the driving force of life in the universe and that anything which cannot be proven physically must not exist.

The fact is, evolution is not scientific. It's tautology.
The fact is, creation is MORE scientific than evolution, since by nature a supernatural creation cannot be validated or invalidated by natural law. Evolution, however, IS invalidated by the same laws.

Science is a method used over and over to develope a testable theory that is correct in every given situation. Creation is no where near science because: Number one, IT IS NOT TESTABLE. Number two, IT CANNOT BE USE TO MAKE PREDICTIONS. Number three, it has been incorrect at least once and has not been refined and therefore cannot be correct in every situation.

Also, how has evolution been invalidated by science?

Now, thats over I have to say, props to nutrider. You've put together one of the better compiled arguments against evolution I've seen. Some of you out there may wish to point out that I in no way said that the earth was not made in 7 days, or that God does not exist. Frankly, no one can prove that God does not exist except for another God, and I dont see why the Earth couldn't have been made in 7 days, but I still find it highly unlikely. Please keep the opinions and differences coming. If nutrider is as argumentative as me and as determined, I welcome him/her to post a reply blasting my reply to bits with stinging comments and facts that I left myself open for by writing this post in the first place.
-Bytemeister-

 

[ragarth]

Modern science is almost exclusively a materialist and reductionist enterprise.

However, there are many varieties of human experience that are not understood to be reducible to material causes; for example, ethics, the arts, free will and the nature of consciousness.

Moreover, at the frontiers of science some are questioning the usefulness of strict materialist reductionism, such as in cosmology, quantum physics, chaos/complexity and psychology.

Most religion, in my view, is an attempt to explain certain phenomena in terms of agency i.e. as arising from the choices of an agent. Creationism, strictu sensu, is the view that all natural and psychological phenomena are caused by a conscious agent having enormous power and intellect. This has the advantage of offering an explanation for the origin of ethics, free will etc. (i.e. they are derived from a consciousness having those attributes in some form), and it does not necessarily conflict with materialistic science as presently understood. I do not believe this is a "crock": whenever we perceive some phenomenon it is reasonable to suppose it has a cause whose characteristics are sufficient to cause the observed effect.

Note I personally do not have this view, as I doubt whether the origin of all that exists can be characterised as a conscious agent. I am open, however, to this possibility.

Cheers
S.

Hiya, and insightful post, however I must disagree. I believe that all experienced phenomena will ultimately be explained by science. Let's start with your list:

ethics - Neuroscience is making headway on a distinct explanation on this, as it is related to cognizance, free will, and these other questions. But right now our best information on ethics comes from a combination of Anthropology and Evolution. We are social animals, and through our social constructs we gain a competitive advantage in the wild. This tends to be a trait shared by many primates and so there is evolutionary proof of this. Along with social evolution comes morals, because a social group that kills each other isn't a social group for long.

the arts - The fuzzy philosophy on artistic endeavour has distinct value, I will give you that. This is the only topic listed here where I might say science has little value, however it can be explained from a materialist perspective. It's evolutionarily advantageous to find some things aesthetic, and so the question is not 'how did the world come to be beautiful' but 'how did we come to find the world to be beautiful' and the simplest answer is that we evolved this way- a sense of aesthetics has competitive advantage, a fellow who builds his house on a barren wasteland because it's pretty to him will not survive as well as a fellow who builds his house in rolling green pastures.

free will - Neuroscience! We don't have the answers yet but there is no reason to say we wont. I personally am not a believer in randomness except at best at the quantum level (and that may be perceived randomness instead of true randomness, considering the caveats of the heisenberg uncertainty principle), and there is nothing in the structure of the brain showing that it is effected by quantum forces, therefore without a source of true randomness we have a chaotic system. If we have a chaotic system, then the output is a result of it's inputs both spatially and temporally so it may appear random and 'free willed' but it is in actuality not.

the nature of consciousness- Neuroscience. We are making major headway on this and may have an answer as to why we think, how we think, and the extent of our capacity to think in all those unique properties- cognizance, original thought, free will, self-awareness. If you study neuroscience you'll find that computational neural networks are creepily similar to us. I look at a hopfield neural network and it's properties and... *shiver* The building blocks of thought are there, we just haven't figured out the fine points yet.

As per your 2nd point, theoretical physics is often about going beyond the empirical nature of reality and into the logical and hypothetical models of it. Take string theory and all it's spawns, we can't test this stuff, people believe it because it answers a lot of questions, and people don't like it because it can't be explicitly proven, however in the future we will probably be able to prove it. Relativity was similar, when originally conceived we had no method of directly testing it and so it was not evidential, however we eventually had a method- the bending of light around the moon during an eclipse, and so the hypothetical had a pathway to become the evidential.

Finally, while it is a possibility that any phenomena may have an intelligent creator, it is fellacious to make this assumption in the absence of proof. We can seek proof to it, but we cannot make the claim and remain scientists if we have no proof for it. Anthropology as a science is the study of intelligently designed things, they have empirical methods of telling a chiseled rock tool from a weather-worn rock, they can tell a wooden spear from a branch, and a cooking fire from a lightning strike. Creationism provides no such methods and is different from theoretical sciences in that it really is impossible to falsify- both now and in the future. If you make a claim of omnipotence or omniscience you are eliminating the possibility of proof and therefore the possibility of evidential and logical analysis (trickster God, for example). Further, just because something gives you answers and seems all nice and fuzzy is no reason to believe in it, it's a poor reason to believe in it. It makes me feel all nice and fuzzy to think I have pirate treasure buried in my backyard. I don't know where it's buried so I can't dig it up, but I sure as hell wish I could take a loan out on it! Yeah- somehow I think the bank wouldn't buy that, just as I don't buy the idea that god exists. Further, the idea of god existing provides as much value to me in the modern day as the idea of me having gold buried in my backyard provides value to a bank.

 

[milkyway]

The fact is, evolution is not scientific. It's tautology.
The fact is, creation is MORE scientific than evolution, since by nature a supernatural creation cannot be validated or invalidated by natural law. Evolution, however, IS invalidated by the same laws.
The fact is, man comes to salvation through faith in God and belief in His word. He must accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as atonement for sin. God is real. He may be found, by those who seek Him. The truth may be revealed by those who seek it. The presence of the Holy Spirit may be felt by those who open their hearts to it. God may never be found in science. Science is the study of the physical world. God is supernatural. A fourth grader knows the difference. Funny that evos do not.

Of course! Over 150 years of research, virtually all of it supporting evolutionary theory, and yet those tens of thousands of scientists from all over the world are wrong.

If only they'd spoken to you first!!

 

[AV1611VET]

If only they'd spoken to you first!!

They don't have to speak to anyone --- they just have to read the Bible.

 

[milkyway]

They don't have to speak to anyone --- they just have to read the Bible.

Yes.....

Take a look around you. Just about everything you use is the result of scientific research: that's guys saying "hmm, maybe there's another way, let's investigate".

If those same people had said: "NO. Stop there. No need to ask questions, just read the 'ol bible", I think we'd still be living in mud huts to a ripe old age of about, umm, 28.

Science won - a long, long time ago.

 

[Ectezus]

They don't have to speak to anyone --- they just have to read the Bible.

Yeah, if you want to gain some great insight, just read an ancient book writen by men who thought the world is flat and slavery is ok!

 

[Hespera]

They don't have to speak to anyone --- they just have to read the Bible.

Yes, the bible... why research anything? Just read the bible. Welcome to the dark ages.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.....

Take a look around you. Just about everything you use is the result of scientific research: that's guys saying "hmm, maybe there's another way, let's investigate".

If those same people had said: "NO. Stop there. No need to ask questions, just read the 'ol bible", I think we'd still be living in mud huts to a ripe old age of about, umm, 28.

Science won - a long, long time ago.

Yeah, if you want to gain some great insight, just read an ancient book writen by men who thought the world is flat and slavery is ok!

Yes, the bible... why research anything? Just read the bible. Welcome to the dark ages.

Okay --- what does any of this have to do with evolution --- which is the topic I was addressing?

Did I say anything about mud huts, a flat earth, slavery, or the age we're living in?

I've already shown that if you guys ran this world the way you interpret the Bible, we'd all be in trouble.

But the point I was addressing was evolution.

 

[Hespera]

Okay --- what does any of this have to do with evolution --- which is the topic I was addressing?

Did I say anything about mud huts, a flat earth, slavery, or the age we're living in?

I've already shown that if you guys ran this world the way you interpret the Bible, we'd all be in trouble.

But the point I was addressing was evolution.

"you guys, you guys you guys..." Cut it out, ok?

You have not shown anything at all. As for how the bible is interpreted, I'd guess that every single person who read it interprets it differently, atheist or christian. But basically, you are totally off in this whole idea, because, the bible is just totally irrelevant. May as well say we'd all be in trouble if "we", uh, "ran the world" according to how we interpret the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Now, simply stated, what is your point about evolution?