I'm back, BUT...

---

Quote:

Although a lot of you forgot to take notice that I said it was flawed.
Saying that doesn't make it any less offensive. Surely, you must know that.

Originally Posted By: HClCreationism was removed from public school curriculum a long time ago in the U.S. Are you talking about a particular place? I don't understand the link between creationism and morality anyway. Can you explain? I think it was in a Kent Hovind seminar. I said I could not recall where it was. It was just a city and they had a meeting about teaching creation and evolution in the curriculum and they voted and removed creation and started teaching evolution. He then showed graphs with all these increases in bad things from that year on. So that's where I drew the conclusion from.  Originally Posted By: HCIIt appears that there is something that causes people to be moral that goes beyond fear of retribution by a divine being. A lot of animals help each other. You're not suggesting that they've studied creationism, or believe in God, are you? What motivates a nursing cat to adopt and feed an orphan kitten? Animals most certainly do not do that. Animals live by survival of the fittest. It just so happens we're here to save the offspring that gets tossed out and abandoned by the mother.  Originally Posted By: HCIYou wonder, what makes you "moral" (or do you mean "ethical"?) if you have no religious belief. You are not really asking, though. You are actually saying it's not possible. But if you step back and take a look, you'll see that irreligious places are as moral as, or less moral than, the United States. You can't look at countries as a whole like that. You have to observe individuals. A true Bible follower will be the most moral person you'll find. A false Bible follower will do bad things and the occasional good thing. Just like everyone thinks everyone in the U.S. is obese is a stereotype. And by the way, I gave that advice because it worked for me twice before. You don't necessarily have to date a girl to get the other one jealous. Most girls and guys will feel a sense of competition when they see someone they like with a member of the opposite sex. Which is why I said that it might work in getting the girl he really wants back. He's gotta get her back somehow.

You need to understand that someone with a bias might present data in a way that supports the conclusion he has already drawn, and if you are convinced by a single data point, then there is a problem. You do have to look at the aggregate of the data. Who knows what happens in a particular case? Maybe a community is plunged into poverty because of a factory closing, and that affects behavior. Maybe there's a community down the road where creationism is still taught, and crime or "bad" behavior went up there as well.You can't avoid the truth that European kids don't act worse toward their parents than American kids do, and that violent crime (per capita) is much higher in the far more religious United States. Quote:Animals most certainly do not do that. Animals live by survival of the fittest. It just so happens we're here to save the offspring that gets tossed out and abandoned by the mother.Animals most certainly do do that. It is really not that unusual for a nursing mother to adopt an orphan, even without human intervention.You need to explain why secular people who live in secular cultures are no less moral (where morality is defined as helping other people, not committing violent crimes, etc.).In the United States, where we purport to care for babies and children, a lot of babies and children have no health insurance, which leads to great problems for many of them. Why would an irreligious place like Holland seemingly care so much more? Why is there so much less violent crime in Holland than here? Do you really think that if you were in distress somewhere in Holland, that it would be less likely that a stranger would come to your aid?_____I wonder about the strength and foundation of a relationship where you get the girl back by playing games to make her jealous. It may be possible to get her back, but is it really worth it in the end? You say you've done it twice. Were you eventually honest with the girls (I assume they were girls)? If so, what effect did that have?

My mom's boyfriend was just talking about how his sister used to work in a nursing home and she knew some Jehovah's Witnesses there and she came to take care of their bodies when they passed away. She said that they always had this horrified look on their faces. Isn't that weird? I wonder what they were seeing.

Or you could just as easily say, when we all die, that's the end of the road, whether or not we believe otherwise.The problem is that people have their religious beliefs, and see them as absolute truths, and expect others to believe them. They get frustrated when that doesn't happen. But the atheists see claims about God and supernatural, not supported by evidence, and thus irrational.Atheism is a reactionary belief. The word "atheism" would not exist were there no theists. There's no word for "lack of belief in pink unicorns", but there would be if a lot of people believed that there were.If an atheist disagrees with your assertions (about God and religion), is that disrespect by definition?At the end of the day, they debate is pretty pointless. When you argue with logic a matter of fail, you will not get anywhere. Faith is faith. I have seen some of your postings on religion, and you never let logic or reason intrude, and I respect you for it.

The people other than Jehovah's Witnesses did not look horrified when their relatives passed away? Interesting. The Jehovah's Witnesses should have been happy that their loved ones were in heaven, perhaps gotten there with a bit more dispatch because a lifesaving medical procedure was declined because it conflicted with their religious beliefs.How do you feel about a Jehovah's Witness not allowing their child to have a low-risk medical procedure (like a blood transfusion) to save the child's life because it's against their religion?How about people who won't let their child receive any medical care, because their health is in the hands of God, and it's insulting toward God to interfere with His will?

Well it's a good debate because as much as each sides like to think that they are more credible. Both creation and evolution have little evidence.

I take sides with creation because the Bible seems too perfect to me to not be true.

No I think you misunderstood me.

The dead Jehovah Witness had a horrified look on their face. Which is what made me go "hmmmm?" what were they seeing.

There is tons and tons of scientific evidence in support of evolution, while there is practically none in support of supernatural creation.You really need to further explore the topics of "evolution" and "natural selection". You may disagree with the near-unanimous opinion of the biologists, who have each studied the subject for a long time, but at least understand the evidence.If a single flaw could be shown to exist in the Bible, would the whole system of beliefs fall like a house of cards? If one thing were wrong, then that would call into question the absolute accuracy of the Bible, wouldn't it?

Gimme the evidence for evolution Only micro-evolution has occurred. That's it.

I don't know if you've ever been with a person when he died, but in real life it's not the tidy affair that you see in the movies. It appears that when a person loses consciousness as the brain is starved of oxygen (whether or not death ensues), the brain goes through a process that causes a common experience among a lot of people (light at end of tunnel, etc.).It's hard to make heads or tails about the subjective report of a single person's casual observations. Perhaps her own biases affected the way she saw things.When people have a religious belief, they lose their skepticism if someone tells them something that supports their belief system. Political belief works exactly the same way.

Are you serious? Have you ever read anything about evolution and natural selection from a non-religious source that was critiquing it? In any case, if evolution is wrong, that in no way supports creationism. But if it is right, then creationism cannot be right. That is why creationists strive so hard to try to discredit the idea of evolution.Before we explore the scientific perspective, would you say that, if God creating all living things, that the design of those living things is perfect?

I'm not relating it to creation at all.

There is no evidence supporting evolution. It has as little evidence as creation.

The design was perfect until man sinned in the Garden of Eden. That's why life is a mess. But thankfully Jesus came and died for our sins so we could be forgiven by God.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2Gimme the evidence for evolution Only micro-evolution has occurred. That's it. You have just opened a whole big can of whoop-ass... I mean worms, on yourself!You agree that micro-evolution occurs? Well macro-evolution (neither of which are actual scientific terms, there is only "evolution") is simply micro-evolution over a longer period of time. The religious stance of saying that only micro-evolution occurs is like saying that you can walk 5 feet but you can't walk 30 feet.Evidence for evolution can be seen in the fossil records. We have examples of species from a long time ago and we have species today. Uncovered in strata of rock, layered and dated with the oldest fossils underneath and the newer ones higher up (geological exceptions have been explained, strata splitting and even flipping as a result of tectonic plate activity), showing transitional species, many that led to a dead end but others that continued to evolve and led to modern animals, plants, fungi, bacteria... And we ourselves are not the final stage as the ego would like to think, we are simply transitional forms of animals yet to exist.DNA evidence completely, fully, 100% supports evolution. The human genome and the chimpanzee genome have both been unravelled and mapped. When it first done there was a problem, chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes (as do gorillas and orangutans) but humans only have 46, which at the time was bad news for evolution as it says that we are all great apes (taxonomy actually decides this, something that also verifies and supports evolution, but the genomes didn't fit with the theory). It was decided that 2 genomes must have fused at some point after we split off from the other apes, but to prove this they needed to find the fusion point. If they couldn't find it then evolution was wrong and we were back to square one (not back to creationism, as many would like to think, as that still has no evidence whatsoever). And guess what? They found it. Its at Chromosome #2. Or to be more exact, the fusion point is at base number 114,455,823 and 214,455,838. Now these are just 2 very general pieces of evidence in support of evolution and there are many more. I think that most people don't even bother to read my posts when I write in detail about this stuff, but if you'd like to know more about these or just want even more evidence, feel free to ask and I'll fill another few pages in this thread.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2There is no evidence supporting evolution.There is no evidence supporting evolution.What do you think motivates all those biologists, all those people with PhDs, many of them Christians, all of them scientists, to believe what they believe? There may be some who don't believe in evolution, but I don't know where they are. Can you help me find them?You really think there is no evidence in support of evolution? None whatsoever? Not one iota?The "design" of the the human body and the animals hasn't changed since God created them, correct? I mean, we still have two arms and two legs, and horses have four legs and a tail. Would you agree with that?

Here's the definition I'll use for macroevolution - a change to a new species Ok, when you cross a horse and a donkey you get a mule (a new species).The mule cannot reproduce. Therefore we can't get a whole new species from that.I'm not totally qualified to answer this so I'll have you read this article. Lets end this discussion and bring it to messages instead. It's easier to communicate.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

I've asked a lot of questions that you haven't answered, so I'm not going to throw more information on the table now.

Do you think that the fact that life hasn't been found on Mars or in other parts of the universe proves that evolution is wrong? Does that mean that as soon as some form of life is found elsewhere, that evolution will be proved correct? Do you think the author of that Web page is using the standard definition of "proof"? His article is full of factual errors, and it is evident that he has no real training in evolutionary biology. Do you think all the scientists, almost all biologist, are that dumb, and the author is so much smarter than they are?

And do you believe that God's knowledge and ability is infinite, that he created all living things, and that the design of all living things is perfect?

Originally Posted By: HClDo you think that the fact that life hasn't been found on Mars or in other parts of the universe proves that evolution is wrong?No.  Originally Posted By: HCIDoes that mean that as soon as some form of life is found elsewhere, that evolution will be proved correct? I don't think we're ever going to find life anywhere other than earth. Astronomer Hugh Ross estimates the probability of one planet, suitable for life, arising by natural processes is 10-42 (that's 10 to the negative 42nd power). The most generous estimate for the maximum number of planets is 10 22 (10 to the 22nd power). Multiplying the probability of a planet suitable for life times the maximum number of planets10-42 x 10 22 = a number far less than 1. That's the absolute of rare.  Originally Posted By: HCIDo you think the author of that Web page is using the standard definition of "proof"?Well, what's the standard definition of proof?  Originally Posted By: HCIAnd do you believe that God's knowledge and ability is infinite, that he created all living things, and that the design of all living things is perfect? Yes I believe God's knowledge and ability is infinite, that He created all living things, except I don't think all living things are perfect. Humans are not perfect. God set that up in the Garden of Eden so that Jesus could come to earth to die for our sins.