U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

[danae 0]

We did not evolve from apes- we are apes.

Well yes, I can honestly say there are people on this message board that fit the description. However, I'm not one of them. I'm a human, made in God's image thanks.

Oh so you see the term 'ape' as having negative connotations?

Humans ARE apes. Im an ape, you're an ape. We share over 98% of our DNA with the chimpanzee. That has been PROVEN. Quit with the superiority complex.

Can anyone recreate the big bang or evolution?

Yes thay can and have Scientists recreate big bang conditions

"recreating the conditions thought to have existed 10 microseconds after the Big Bang "

Key word there being THOUGHT.

And I already said I agree - you're an ape.

So what you are claiming there is more solid evidence of gods existence??? Please.

[*Robert* 2]

It's like arguing with a 3yo... no knoweldge what so ever, but just keeps repeating the same nonsence over and over, because that's the idea someone else planted in their head. A person has to have the ablity to think for themselves to have an actual debate, or open their minds to science and reality.

Hmmm... let's recreate the big bang and start the universe fresh... there's a good one!

The expanding universe is also fact, not fiction, as evidenced by red-shift, but not like a certain person around here would understand that.

[Ric Flair 0]

Woooooo!

All you need to do is show the American kids a picture of Ric Flair and read them my bio. They'll be believing in evolution in no time cause Ric Flair is the best thing going today.

Woooooo!

[rclouse 0]

Woooooo!

[PlatyPius 5]

We did not evolve from apes- we are apes.

Well yes, I can honestly say there are people on this message board that fit the description. However, I'm not one of them. I'm a human, made in God's image thanks.

So god is a petty, bratty 3 year old?

Well, yes....that pretty much fits with what I got out of the bible each time I read it.

[incanada1234 0]

So what you are claiming there is more solid evidence of gods existence??? Please.

No.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I know it is a cliche but the 'world is flat' really applies here. Represents a fundamental paradigm shift between the broad validity of scientific observation vs stubborn superstition.

"The world is flat" was not and is not a biblical doctrine ( was "church" doctrine yes), creation is.

Isaiah 40:22

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Sure it took a man to prove the earth wasn't flat, regardless of what the bible says.

[Mirorgate 0]

I know it is a cliche but the 'world is flat' really applies here. Represents a fundamental paradigm shift between the broad validity of scientific observation vs stubborn superstition.

"The world is flat" was not and is not a biblical doctrine ( was "church" doctrine yes), creation is.

Isaiah 40:22

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Sure it took a man to prove the earth wasn't flat, regardless of what the bible says.

now your battin semantics... a globe looks like a circle from a distnce too. the horizon curves.. and if you stand on a mountain top.. it does look circular. and dont forget english translation isnt perfect because of word variance.

others believe differently than everyone else.. is that really so bad to have?

[Fuzzness 2]

once again i am asking for real concrete scientific proof of creationism and once again i'm sure my question will be ignored.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's not what I said. You're asking me to agree to a set of assumptions without asking what they mean - 'perfect' and 'anything' are questions of interpretation and definition, not absolutes.

I think God created the universe according to a set of logical physical laws that mankind can observe and manipulate.

Its no coincidence that animals can't speak - any biologist will tell you that is the direct result of brain size and the lack of vocal cords. If vocal cords aren't needed to speak why bother to create them?

I do admire your way of thinking, fishdude (this post and the other post you made on the 1st page). You ask good questions that make me think, and I've often questioned a lot of this stuff too. As far as evolution though, I just can't accept it. Not just because of what the Bible tells me but also the fact that there's such a huge gap. What kind of proof is there that we evolved from, what, apes? Where's the missing link? And I mean, the thought that we started as some little tadpole like creature...come on. I can see a 5 year old believing that, but grown men and women? How could we evolve in 6,000 years? I know I know, the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, etc etc. What is carbon dating and how exactly does it "prove" that? How can anyone prove that the earth has been around for millions of years? You can't! Scientists simply cannot recreate that. They're basically guessing - so do you want to put your faith in men or God?

And yet you trust your doctor... You trust aspirin and paracetamol to get rid of a headache.

Basically the question is whether or not 2 + 2 equals 4. The problem we have is not the answer, but rather a failure to acknowledge the equation itself.

Regardless, the whole "Man in God's image" argument will be made redundant in the event that we find advanced alien life forms that look nothing like us whatsoever. Its a human conceit to think that we are at the center of a multi-dimensional universe of infinite size. Where I find fault in the major religions is that they adopt a very narrow view of God that doesn't reflect the complexity of the universe, or indeed the broad scope of creation.

I know it is a cliche but the 'world is flat' really applies here. Represents a fundamental paradigm shift between the broad validity of scientific observation vs stubborn superstition.

"The world is flat" was not and is not a biblical doctrine ( was "church" doctrine yes), creation is.

Isaiah 40:22

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Sure it took a man to prove the earth wasn't flat, regardless of what the bible says.

now your battin semantics... a globe looks like a circle from a distnce too. the horizon curves.. and if you stand on a mountain top.. it does look circular. and dont forget english translation isnt perfect because of word variance.

others believe differently than everyone else.. is that really so bad to have?

Of course not. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument. If you accept 'literal creationism' it logically follows that you have to question the majority of scientific and empirical reason. That is a fundamental paradigm shift that few people are willing to make. Why is that? What was before empirical reason and the scientific method? Lets think - witchcraft, sorcery, alchemy, superstition.

Like 'Flat World' theory Creationism is essentially a castle of superstition under siege by an ever advancing army of logic and reason. It's a bizarre argument to make that the laws of physics and empirical reason should be accepted at face value for every issue EXCEPT creation.

Edited August 11, 2006 by erekose

[danae 0]

And yet you trust your doctor... You trust aspirin and paracetamol to get rid of a headache.

Basically the question is whether or not 2 + 2 equals 4. The problem we have is not the answer, but rather a failure to acknowledge the equation itself.

Regardless, the whole "Man in God's image" argument will be made redundant in the event that we find advanced alien life forms that look nothing like us whatsoever. Its a human conceit to think that we are at the center of a multi-dimensional universe of infinite size. Where I find fault in the major religions is that they adopt a very narrow view of God that doesn't reflect the complexity of the universe, or indeed the broad scope of creation.

[Mirorgate 0]

Of course not. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument. If you accept 'literal creationism' it logically follows that you have to question the majority of scientific and empirical reason. That is a fundamental paradigm shift that few people are willing to make.

Like 'Flat World' theory Creationism is essentially a castle of superstition under siege by an ever advancing army of logic and reason. It's a bizarre argument to make that the laws of physics and empirical reason should be accepted at face value for every issue EXCEPT creation.

yes questioning is good... i dont think otherwise.

just sometimes you gotta have faith that what you believe is truth... even without an answer to it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Of course not. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument. If you accept 'literal creationism' it logically follows that you have to question the majority of scientific and empirical reason. That is a fundamental paradigm shift that few people are willing to make.

Like 'Flat World' theory Creationism is essentially a castle of superstition under siege by an ever advancing army of logic and reason. It's a bizarre argument to make that the laws of physics and empirical reason should be accepted at face value for every issue EXCEPT creation.

yes questioning is good... i dont think otherwise.

just sometimes you gotta have faith that what you believe is truth... even without an answer to it.

There's a difference between truth and fact - something that many can't seem to grasp.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course not. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument. If you accept 'literal creationism' it logically follows that you have to question the majority of scientific and empirical reason. That is a fundamental paradigm shift that few people are willing to make.

Like 'Flat World' theory Creationism is essentially a castle of superstition under siege by an ever advancing army of logic and reason. It's a bizarre argument to make that the laws of physics and empirical reason should be accepted at face value for every issue EXCEPT creation.

yes questioning is good... i dont think otherwise.

just sometimes you gotta have faith that what you believe is truth... even without an answer to it.

I agree. I just don't understand why science does (or should) undermine faith. People should be celebrating scientific discoveries - because it shows that the scope of creation (and God's universe) is broader, more complex and dare I say it, more profound than what is described in the specific verbiage of various creation stories.

Edited August 11, 2006 by erekose

[danae 0]

Of course not. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument. If you accept 'literal creationism' it logically follows that you have to question the majority of scientific and empirical reason. That is a fundamental paradigm shift that few people are willing to make.

Like 'Flat World' theory Creationism is essentially a castle of superstition under siege by an ever advancing army of logic and reason. It's a bizarre argument to make that the laws of physics and empirical reason should be accepted at face value for every issue EXCEPT creation.

yes questioning is good... i dont think otherwise.

just sometimes you gotta have faith that what you believe is truth... even without an answer to it.

But sadly the consequences of blind faith can be quite devasting. And Im not just referring to the obvious things we can all think of- I consider them to lie far deeper in human society, and in the footsteps we leave on this planet.