Before I respond to anything here, let me say a couple of things up front:

1. I am not an atheist; I subscribe to no specific religion, but I recognize within myself a deep seated need to have a spiritual component in my life. Subsequently, I believe that our individual religious convictions are amongst the most precious of possession we carry with us.

2. Anything that I say here that sounds in any way disrespectful or condescending is not intended that way. I say this because I'm delving into an issue which people get awful sensitive about and it can be tough to put things "tenderly" enough.

Originally Posted by: Tonja_ReneeI recently just started reading into the bible because I needed to find out for myself what it is that I beleive..

I too was beleiving that Evolution was based on Science, well its what they taught me in school. But Evolution is just a theory. I'm not sure if it was just my school, but I was led to beleive that this was actually proven, when in fact it was not. Just Theories..[/quote]
I blame the schools for comments like this; the word "theory" means one thing to we, 'the masses' and something entirely different to Scientists.

In Science, "Theory" means that an idea or a set of ideas explains all the facts in evidence and has withstood even the most extensive testing. The word scientists use for what most of us call "theory" is "Hypothesis."

If we are to disown Evolution as being "only" a theory, then we need to throw the heliocentric model of the solar system* right in the trash because that's a theory, too and there's A LOT less evidence for it than there is for Evolution; it is merely a simpler model for the solar system than the old one of epicycles and whatnot.

*And gravitation. And optics. And Relativity. And thermodynamics...

Originally Posted by: Tonja_ReneeEvolution in my opinion is a religion.. Because you have to have some sort of faith that the world began that way in order to beleive it.

I recently saw some seminars by Dr. Kent Hovind.. Although this guy can be a bit hard to take, he made some very valid points and discoveries with regards to creation. It definately opened my eyes to the "possibilities". I'm still digging further into it for myself. Dr. Kent Hovind

While (unlike Answers in Genesis) this guy seems to have found his spell check, he still fails to escape my typical categorization of Creation Scientists – "hacks, quacks and scammers."

I read two of his articles; in one all he did was disagree with everything Scientific American had to say in an editorial without ONCE providing supporting evidence for ANY of his rebuttals. In the other, he seamlessly goes from claiming in one paragraph that Carbon-14 is created in the atmosphere and then decays at constant rates and that based on this, the world *has* to be less than 30,000 years old to saying that Radiocarbon dates can't be trusted because there's no proof that Carbon-14 is generated OR decays at a constant rate.

I'm sure this cat is a great talker (Evangelists usually are), but his facts are about as straight as Vermont Route 110 and his arguments are airtight as a colander.


Of course, herein lies the problem; this guy and his opinions are easily accessible conform to what most Christians want to hear; the case and evidence for Evolution, however, is in technical language and fly directly in the face of Judeo-Christian dogma (I don't think Evolution and Christianity necessarily have to be incompatible). Few have the patience of tenacity to wade into it (and that includes most of those who populate our educational institutions).




[QUOTE=ericthecableguy]Exactly what I meant. How do you figure he could have condoned it when he orders people not to kill eachother?

The Bible says not to commit murder- that doesn't mean "never ever kill anybody for any reason."