Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

spendi wrote:

The only "religious writings" you're talking about is the bible which has its own problems with consistency, errors, and omissions. How can you arrive at such a conclusion that is science derived from religious writings when science continues to advance while the bible remains static?

There's nothing more static that scientific data. It's the aim of science to render everything static. The Bible is flexible. I reinterpreted the story of the Flood earlier this week. You ought to have dissented to that if you think the Bible is static.

There's nothing to dissent other than that your belief in the comic book called the bible has lived out its usefulness centuries ago; like 2000 years.

I have already explained that in my posts about the Bishop of Brixen. I don't consider saying that I was talking out of my arse and suchlike as serious dissent. Aside from that infantile type of response there was no dissent.

Perhaps you were "away".

Now you're being frivolous.

No, I'm not. For anybody to believe in the bible, the individual must throw away logic, common sense, and existing science.

You obviously didn't bother reading my interpretation of the Noah story. I can understand that of course as ignoring it allows you to continue with idiotic statements such as the above without looking to left or right.

Noah's ark is fiction; that's been proven by geological science. That you wish to believe in fictional stories is your problem, not mine.

Sheesh!!

Thank you Spendius." Like I said, "I think that I would also have to be wrong as well at times.

All that I know comes from my environment! My language, belief and my understanding of things. "You and many others are my environment!

Your Quote: { It is ridiculous to keep going on about "advancing" in the field of ethics without offering some ideas about the direction of the advance which add up to more than a few trite sentimental platitudes or guidance on how it is to be done.}

What would be wrong with all of what Jesus suggested?

Maybe you have a different view of what a heaven would be like than I would, but why not teach that your view of heaven should be done on earth as it is done in heaven. Why would you teach anything different?

Thank you farmerman for the extensive reasearch that you have shared with me.

fm's post was aimed at me rl. He doesn't care for recognising my existence.

Are you speaking in absolutes or could you be wrong? "I know that I can be even now!

de nada.I had to check cause I didnt recall that it was Keplers mother who was burnt at the stake.

Thank you any ways, I will now go back and rewatch the video to see if I misunderstood or if I was given bad info!

I only used YOUR definition spendi. It's funny how I was able to say the opposite and you still think your argument was valid but mine was not.

Ok it appears to be I who misunderstood the video! Could all of you misunderstand each other just as I misunderstood what I thought that I had heard in the video?

You are one dumb bunny. Perhaps you should research a topic and see how many Catholic priests have also been scientists. Just going by country bumpkin religious nuts in the USA is not the full picture. I might as well say to be an atheist you have to throw away common decency and be a rapist and a murderer.

Perhaps FM can comment on how they have dug up the entire world to prove the validity of your statement ? No ? Pity.....

Why not just say that you are a bible believing person and his comments are offensive to you?