Originally Posted By MrToadWildRider >>Now that I've lived in the Bible Belt* for a few years, I think I can answer this: the fossil record is the work of Satan, as is any part of science that serves to disprove whatever the current-day interpretation of the Bible is on a scientific matter. They were put there as a trap to ensnare those whose faith is not strong enough.<< This justreminded me of Carl Everett (of the Chicago White Sox formerly of the Boston Red Sox who I am a fan of) who said that he does not believe in dinosaurs nor aliens simply because he has never seen a living one (I won't laugh at him on the alien one because there's been no proof they exist/existed) but then when questioned by a member of the sports media on his devout belief in God and whether he's ever seen God alive in person Carl quickly ended the interview. Anyway, as mentioned by others I fail to see how the circulatory system of a giraffe somehow proves it could not have evolved? If its neck wasn't that long before why would it need that system? How do you know the system didn't gradually form through years and years and years of adaptation and evolution as did the length of the neck? And you still haven't given me the other two (I'll give you the giraffe one as one since it was an attempt) sources of "Evidence" that disprove evolution? I recall there being "Sooooo" many cases of evidence that disprove it and since then you've given me a book to try to find and some article off the internet to read (which must be true...because I've seen stuff about the moon landing being fake, 9/11 being fake, a trained crocodile was the true assassin of JFK, and plans on a working time travel device online and that's all accurate as well...). To me I think those extra o's were surely not warranted....
Originally Posted By itsme >>Since deer are giraffe's closest relatives, ---- Not true, The okapi would be the only known relative to the giraffe. I was waiting for someone to defend the giraffe as we know it was the only creation of it. But look at an okapi, Its basically a girrafe with a short neck and the only animal related, Who is to say that the giraffe didnt evolve from an okapi that didnt want to live in the rain forest no more, so it moved out to the savanna and evolved into what it is.
Originally Posted By planodisney SuperDry, may i ask why you insist on belittling me and calling me names? I told you the source that I got the information from, and none of those words were my own. i hope you dont think i intended for that post to sound like i was some sort of science expert. Anyway, i dont know why i would even bother to explain myself to someone as rude and disrespectful as you. Mr.toad, I also gave you the flagellum. Also, I provided another article with other examples, as well as the tittle to the book I got the information from. Also, there is a series of videos, put out by a former evolutionist scientist called Incredible Creature that Defy Evolution. Also, just Google Animals that defy Evolution and read some of the material. If nothing else, it is interesting. Why wouldnt we want to get as much information as possible to make our determination. If you are only interested in obtaining information that supports your assertions, then dont bother. I dont think anyone is stupid for believing in evolution. That is not what i intended with this topic at all. But, in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe the whole scenario of evolution, than that of Intelligent design. Tiggertoo, I dont disagree with your comments about faith and science at all.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< SuperDry, may i ask why you insist on belittling me and calling me names? >>> You're right about the name - I apologize. I have to tell you the whole thing about the giraffe's circulation struck me as so over the top that I just reacted. I do believe that you're being genuine in what you post, which is what makes it all the more amazing to me. I just reacted, and it was not constructive.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I believe that God created us, and is behind evolution. But I also know that, despite the gaps in it, many precepts of evolution have in fact been proven, and should be taught. "Intelligent Design" is essentially a matter of faith and not provable by the scientific method, and does not belong in science class. I don't want the government in my church, or my church (even if I strongly believe in it) in my classroom. >>> This is more or less how I feel about it. I don't see why apparently a great many people feel so strongly about pushing the creationist agenda of a literal interpretation of Genesis. Let's say for the moment that all of the things that are generally accepted in science about evolution, the universe, the Big Bang, and so on are true. Nobody in science has the slightest idea what came before the Big Bang. Who is to say that the answer isn't "God"? It seems perfectly consistent to believe in God, the Bible, and Christ, yet at the same time believe in science. The notion that these are in contradiction is just an artificial problem that some create. I have to once again make the comparison with what Copernicus faced: it was generally considered in his time that not only that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but that the Bible said so, and anyone that said otherwise was not only wrong factually but was going against God. But Christians eventually came around on this issue, and nobody now things that the Christian faith is at all a lesser one because Christians now generally believe that the Earth is the one that rotates around the Sun. And for those whose answer is "well, I just believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally, for to do otherwise opens the door to all sorts of other selective interpretation, and the message could be missed", I have to ask about other troublesome things in the Bible. For example, several references to the "four corners of the earth" are made in the Bible. So where are these corners? Is it possible that this phrase was meant figuratively, and that a literal interpretation of everything written isn't necesasrily the only correct one? Or what about God's command to "take up serpents?" What are we to do with that one? Unless you actually take up the practice of serpent handling (as some Christian churches actually do, btw) and a belief in a flat earth, it would seem that there is no alternative but to accept that some things in the Bible are figurative in nature. How does this take away from it at all?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>For example, several references to the "four corners of the earth" are made in the Bible. So where are these corners?<< <a href="http://www.utah.com/playgrounds/four_corners.htm" target="_blank">http://www.utah.com/playground s/four_corners.htm</a>
Originally Posted By jdub >>For example, several references to the "four corners of the earth" are made in the Bible. So where are these corners?<< Well, the Bible is largely figurative, allegorical. That's the reason there are so many contradictions; different stories were written to make different philosophical points.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And that's the reason that the bible's lessons are lost on the obtuse. Like for instance the people who go running around looking for noah's ark.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue Here's a thought: Why not let the scientists decide what to teach in science?
Originally Posted By ElKay Using a poll to determine science is ludicrious. I'll bet you can do a poll that gets a simple majority of people who think that space aliens routinely visit Earth. Does that make it a reality? Polls are popularity barometers, not proof of what real or fantasy. Suppose a poll has a majority of respondents concluding that mathmatics is unnecessary in the schools, would it be right to ban math based on a poll? I have no problem in the belief that God is the actual creator of life on Earth or in the rest of the Universe and that s/he uses evolution to further the development of life. The problem I have with ID is the logical extension of its "believers" that their poltical will in forcing their theology intellectual diciplines, like biology will ultimately scientific progress over the past 500 years. Don't forget that during the Dark Ages, it was theology that nearly distroyed all scientific advances of the Classic Period. Much of modern science and technology was first "discovered" more than 1500 years ago, but was burned, repressed or forgotten because it challenged Church teachings. Imagine what the 21st century would be like today, had the Classical knowledge not been distroyed during the Dark Ages? There could have been flying machines in the 13th Century and Leonardo da Vinci would have been just another mechanic with a painting hobby. Do we really want to experience a neo-Dark Age personified by "Intelligent Design"?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Don't forget that during the Dark Ages, it was theology that nearly distroyed all scientific advances of the Classic Period.<< To be fair, it was also theology that protected it in the Muslim world.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 That is the biggest load of bunk I have ever heard of. Did it ever occur to you that some of the greatest scientific minds of the 1700's and 1800's were professing Christians. Google Sir Isaac Newton (or even Copernicus) if you don't beleive me. Even Darwin professed to being Christian. Only in the 20th Century did the majority of scientists pick up the trappings of Atheism. Revisionist Bunk.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Disneyman is right - religion is not antithetical to science. Religion deals in "whys", science deals in "hows". There is room for both. Fundamentalism is antithetical to science, because it moves religion from explaining "whys" to explaining "hows". And any science that tries to explain "why" without having evidence to show "how" is pseudoscience.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ I'm not sure what your point is Disneyman55. I haven't seen anyone talk about Atheism - we're talking about Creationism vs. Evolution, science vs. fable. As you point out, many great scientists have been Christians. Darwin is the perfect example - apparently Christianity didn't prevent him from developing the theory of evolution. It's interesting that I haven't seen a single person in this thread claim that evolution is the correct theory because God doesn't exist. In fact the opposite has been true: many people have pointed out that evolution is entirely consistent with Christianity. But you come out of left field with comments about Atheism and revisionist bunk. As I have recommended to others, please turn off your radio. I would guess that you've been conditioned by others to associate evolution with Atheism to further an agenda of theirs, so much so that can't read what is written here without the "triggers" firing and the actual discussion being replaced by someone else's dogma.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 LOL, SuperDry. Let me pick myself up off the floor after laughing so hard. I always love the brainwashing arguement, it's so classy because it implies that not only is the person ignorant but also incapable of thinking for themselves. Honestly, I don't associate evolution with atheism, as I know quite a few Christians who beleive in evolution or some form of it. What I was countering was ElKay's anti-Christian rant as he made it sound as if the only people who have contributed to science were "NOT" Christians. As for my statement about scientists embracing atheism, I think a poll would support that one...overwhelmingly. I always enjoy seeing the predictable responses from some people. Keep the laughs coming.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<As for my statement about scientists embracing atheism, I think a poll would support that one...overwhelmingly.>> I think that the evidence would support that. But there is also evidence that more intelligent people tend to be less religious, so I don't know that scientists as a group are less likely to be religious than other people of high intelligence. <<Conclusion The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.>> Source: <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm" target="_blank">http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/ L-thinkingchristians.htm</a> P.S. I present this information to add some factual data to the discussion. I’m sure there may be studies showing the opposite. I do not necessarily agree with the conclusion presented. I think I’ll get some popcorn and sit back and enjoy the show.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Like I said, keep the laughs coming. 3 points I would like to make about your post RoadTrip. 1. There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Which begs the question regarding the source of the knowledge. Also there are different attributes which make up "intelligence". 2. Change the wording of the article and the wording of your post from "people who are religious" to "minority of your choice" and it is so blatantly racist that it would be a joke. 3. That anyone could beleive this way and try to justify it is hideous, unconcienceable, and flatly ridiculous. Sounds like something I would have expected to find on a Nazi website regarding Jews.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<3. That anyone could beleive this way and try to justify it is hideous, unconcienceable, and flatly ridiculous. Sounds like something I would have expected to find on a Nazi website regarding Jews.>> I never said I supported the conclusion of the article or of the studies listed. I presented it for discussion and nothing else. In fact I said that I was certain you could find studies that showed the opposite. You were the person who initially made the contention that scientists as a group were not religious. That statement is in just as questionable taste as anything in the article I linked to.
