Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

It's certainly helped prevent Creationists from trying to get a stranglehold on what is essentially a subject they have no right in meddling with.

Hi Wolf,

Citizens lose their rights if they express a religious point of view? I think not. Not in this country they don't.

When did I say that? I never said anybody lose any rights.

Quote:

Since you apparently don't understand Constitutional Law, let's leave you in science for just a minute longer:

No, Constitutional Law is something a non-American wouldn't understand.

Quote:

Maybe you should go back and explain why so many of the scientists that we revere for laying the scientific foundation that we built the last two centuries of advancement on, were believers in God.

Were they not as bright as you? When they read the Bible did they miss all those contradictions that you think you can see so clearly (but they were just poor blinded ignorant fools )?

What? You are confusing another debate we're having with this one. I've kept the one about God's existence separate from this one as much possible.

Look, God is something personal. They may believe in God, yes, but the majority tend to keep their belief separate from science. They don't let their belief influence their job.

They may have found something and then said, "Oh, I have looked upon the face of God" or "Only God could have done something like this", but that's an afterthought and they certainly didn't let it influence their work. In that respect, they kept God out of science, by keeping him separate from the work.

They cannot empirically prove God exists, so they keep him separate. They merely state those things in private.

What some Creationists are doing is to influence what has been proved through empirical evidence to be more true than its antithesis. They are trying to get schools to teach something that has no empirical evidence and hence has no place being taught in a science class.

This isn't about belief in God.

This is about, keeping him out of science as much as possible.

God is at the end of all this and we haven't even scratched the surface. To try and factor him in now could end up skewing the real picture.

Were they not as bright as you? When they read the Bible did they miss all those contradictions that you think you can see so clearly (but they were just poor blinded ignorant fools )?

real life wrote:

Were they not as bright as you? When they read the Bible did they miss all those contradictions that you think you can see so clearly (but they were just poor blinded ignorant fools )?

Are you saying there are no contradictions in the bible?

I know who the blindest fool of all is!

real life wrote:

Were they not as bright as you? When they read the Bible did they miss all those contradictions that you think you can see so clearly (but they were just poor blinded ignorant fools )?

Are you saying there are no contradictions in the bible?

Any idea how that came about?

One thing we know for certain, there is not enough water on this planet to cover the earth the way the Bible describes.

I wonder why the scientists who laid the scientific foundation of Western civilization don't seem to agree with you.

They didn't keep Him out of science as much as possible.

They didn't keep their belief separate from their scientific endeavors.

The very Order of Creation directly contradicts what we see from scientific evidence.
Many Creationists still demand that a worldwide Flood occured. This too has no basis in fact.

The flood stories almost universally agree with some features of the bible account:

1) a few survivors given refuge
2) global destruction of life by water
3) survival in a boat
4) stranded on a mountain

Not offering these as proof, just anecdotal evidence.

That Jesus believed in the flood is sufficient for me.

Most scientists agree this order is generally correct. How did Moses know that? Did he learn it from the Egyptians?

Were you aware, Farmerman, that very many areas of the earth show some evidence of being under seawater at some point? (My favorite is the shark's teeth on the plains of Kansas. How do you suppose they got there?)

Thats silly. Why should we agree with a proposal that has animal groups occur out of order when we have evidence. There was an atmosphere from the beginning. Your "cloud of mists, is a grand illusory reference to the "water vapor theory" which allows the "flood " to occur without wrecking too many laws of Physics.. Genesis has birds before fish.* Somebody get the correct order of occurence , neos trying to have it as many ways as he wishes without being too concerened about accruracy. If you wish to discuss science reasonably, please try to understand what the evidence shows before you stick your foot into your maw. *Color added by neo.

your reading "Pop" Genesis. I recall the 1960s KJV before all the new hip hop phrases in the bible referring to the creatures of the air occuring before the fish. Its no never mind because the bible does not contain any valid testable scientific data. Its a fairy tale book with some morality thrown in.

As far as Moses being a scientist, if hes anything as gullible as you, I suppose you could satisgy yourself into so believing.

As we say in Latin

"was er boot gefloaten"

BZZZZZZ

Sorry Farmerman,

You were supposed to give us a contradiction from the Bible.

Claiming that the Bible somehow conflicts with scientific evidence and/or theory is not a contradiction in the Bible (although I will be very glad to discuss it)

A contradiction in the Bible would be, for instance, if the Bible said in one passage that Jesus was born in Nazareth, and in another passage it stated He was born in Bethlehem. That would be a Bible contradiction.