Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So... you're asking for an entire population of fossils. How do you expect an entire population of apes to be fossilized together? Fossils are extremely rare. That's seriously the minimum evidence you need to see evolution as the most viable explanation of the incredible variation of living things we see?
We know microevolution occurs. We know species evolve over time. We know populations that are isolated evolve separately, and those populations slowly drift genetically apart. We know we are 97% genetically identical to chimpanzees. We know that no fossils of modern-like humans have been found prior to a certain date, and a gradual change can be seen from the fossils we do have. We know that a plethora of calculations comparing data among many scientific disciplines all work together to shape the current theory of evolution. All scientific disciplines fit harmoniously with the theory of evolution.
None of this proves that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but it makes a lot of sense - a lot more sense than "despite all of this, I still think we were just poofed into existence 10,000 years ago."
I am sorry the Bible did not explain how God made us and everything else but, I can tell the scientists are hard at work on figuring it out.
You make it sound like creation could never be the answer but think about this, go back a hundred years and try to convince the masses that we would put people on the moon and we would be able to communicate with each other around the world with a little box. Do not discount the possibility that science ends up proving the Bible correct.
Would anyone scientifically say that woman was "probably" made from the rib of a man?
If the rib was were the DNA was harvested then yes. You see...God did not tell us how he did everything but someday we will know.
I can see where people who lived in caves so long ago could not conceive of a world like today and yet, here we are. Where will we be in another 100 years at the rate we are advancing? Is it possible that science may be able to prove how God made us.
Science knows how to clone animals and they probably know how to create humans, was this by accident or learned knowledge? How smart did our maker have to be thousands of years ago, and how could anyone think it was just an accident?
God...the ultimate scientist, man will never catch up.
If the rib was were the DNA was harvested then yes. You see...God did not tell us how he did everything but someday we will know.
I can see where people who lived in caves so long ago could not conceive of a world like today and yet, here we are. Where will we be in another 100 years at the rate we are advancing? Is it possible that science may be able to prove how God made us.
The thing is, if you follow that reasoning, it will lead to an evolutionary explanation. Not from a rib. I agree to an extent. The people who wrote the Bible were unable to concieve of modern science, and what it would show. It was written according to the knowledge and customs of the times.
The thing is, if you follow that reasoning, it will lead to an evolutionary explanation.Not from a rib.
How so?
Quote:
I agree to an extent.
Sorry, you are confusing me.
Quote:
The people who wrote the Bible were unable to concieve of modern science, and what it would show. It was written according to the knowledge and customs of the times.
How so?Sorry, you are confusing me. I agree but, what is your point?
The point is that all scientific discovery supports an evolutionary explanation. Where I agree is that science may find that the probability of a God is high. The problem is that the Bible could never take into account discoveries that have advanced scientific reasoning. So if we agree that science may one day find the answer, and also that science endorses evolution far above the Adam and Eve story, would it not be reasonable to assume that if science comes closer to a God thereom it will look more like an theistic-evolutionary model?
That's where the sentence, "Some people believe that a God created the Universe" comes in, without all of the confusing, unbelievable, unreproducable stories of biblical creationism. Not to mention the fact that there are many different views among those who believe in a God. Should all of them be taught? I have my own theistic-evolutionary view that I think all of the little children ought to know about. Where is my representation in the school district?
This crazy idea that the state can teach children that creationism in all its forms is false by endorsing a competing and mutually exclusive theory and presenting it as though verified fact while also claiming religious neutrality by remaining silent on creationism is a sham. Teaching any accounts of the Universe's birth without teaching all possible explanations establishes religion even if that religion is Atheism.
This crazy idea that the state can teach children that creationism in all its forms is false by endorsing a competing and mutually exclusive theory and presenting it as though verified fact while also claiming religious neutrality by remaining silent on creationism is a sham. Teaching any accounts of the Universe's birth without teaching all possible explanations establishes religion even if that religion is Atheism.
So should the Bible be opened in the classroom? There are many other religious explanations of origin that would be unrepresented if so. And atheism is not necessarily represented through big bang/evolutionary doctrine. That is only the case if you are a Bible literalist. What the idea is, is to only teach the observable. That is only in contradiction to the religious if you are a blind, uncompromising Bible literalist. Good luck with a science class.
So should the Bible be opened in the classroom? There are many other religious explanations of origin that would be unrepresented if so. And atheism is not necessarily represented through big bang/evolutionary doctrine. That is only the case if you are a Bible literalist. What the idea is, is to only teach the observable. That is only in contradiction to the religious if you are a blind, uncompromising Bible literalist. Good luck with a science class.
Teaching only the observable limits the scope of the lesson and makes for dumb kids.
One of two things happened at the beginning of the material Universe's birth.
1) a supernatural entity caused the Big Bang
2) a supernatural entity did not cause the Big Bang
Right now exploring the possibility that "1" is the case is rejected as religious dogma while "2" is claimed to be religiously neutral, but remaining religiously neutral by choosing only one is not even possible given the subject matter. The only way for the state to remain religiously neutral is to present both concepts without endorsing or rejecting either.
Put it out there and let people decide for themselves.
No, its not sunday school. However schools also have scripture lessons as well and they can learn it there too. The bible is not an scientific book, so science and religion do not mix.
Last edited by other99; 07-07-2010 at 02:13 AM..
Reason: edit
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
