How do you think religion is taught?

myth

noun

Please don't.

Or at least don't make me read it - just in case there's some hidden personal attack against which I am obliged to act. Nothing in your 'first up' conflicts with evolution.

Nothing.

You are wasting your keyboard's life in futility.

I for one don't want to be witness to one lost soul's search for the meaning of life, the universe and the whole damn thing.

The answer is 42.

Now, please move on.

I'm pretty much out of the "discussion" here (for obvious reasons) but I think it's inappropriate for a moderator to suggest a person stop posting (with a suggestion to be careful or be at risk of a ban) because he disagrees with their statements on a personal level and then ends with "move on".

It's an open thread on a speculative subject here at best and there are far worse issues throughout this discussion that you've completely ignored.

Remember this forum is Life, the Universe, and Everything, subforum Everything Else.  So there's not much that doesn't fit in those.

It's a perfect example of chaos theory. 

There's no such thing.

Contentious threads eventually end up with some twit going OTT and getting removed...or the thread closed....so I'm here just in case.

Sadly [as I said] I end up sifting through dross....hoping people will just 'move on' as the issue is really a lost cause.  It's pretty much a dead cert that no-one will read something here and shreik 'eureka!!!! at last the answer'.

If someone's LOOKING for one....it is equally as likely to be here is in the bottom of a whiskey glass.

I don't care for either 'end' of the topic really.  You either believe in God...or you don't....you either accept that along with a coexistence of science as human understanding or you don't.

You WON'T alter anyone's opinion either way, and certainly not with effusive ebullience from any side of the 'fence'.

That's deep Jafo....and you have a rough job, I feel for you.  

The only reason to stay out is because you cannot support your case (no big deal) ... or you have given up once again. The religious see pitfalls at every turn, they see the ghosts that are 'hiding' from the rest of us and they think every harsh word or any opposing facts are a direct attack (on what I wonder) ... as you indicated here. I have no idea what SivCorp is even trying to accomplish here besides demonstrating his bias and his misunderstanding and misstating of the sciences, whatever floats ones boat.

The problem David is that the subject of god outside of religion is impossible to discuss IMO. At some point it is going to come up … how or why? And as far as I know without the bible(s) and the religions … or the sciences (for the fools) … there is no way good way to argue for god except for some ‘personal’ experience. All I will say about that is that we have many hospitals crammed with people who have had their own singular experiences of unknown origins.

And just because a moderator morphs into an actual communicative human being on occasion (hahaha) … he is not allowed his two cents worth too. What is inappropriate with telling a blowhard that they have heard enough already. This crap reminds me of Lula … only secular wording is used instead … the intent is the same. It is obvious to me why people who seem to thrive on ‘battling science’ in order to promote their mysticism, are confused … the battle has already been decided … and these kinds of people are just feebly trying to get back in. If you guys cannot coexist with science then you are sealing your own fates … the sciences are not going away … they are just going to get better.

Personally, I don't either, hahaha.

While I agree with this statement in general, I don't think that is what's happening here.   It can be unclear when a mod has their mod hat on/mod hat off at times.

 

MHO, but I think this thread needs to just die.  All parties have already said they don't care to be here.   Let's do everyone a favor.  RIP and shake away this thread like an old drug habit.

 

Have I launched a SINGLE personal attack at anyone while I've been on these forums? 

Don't worry about me Jafo, I don't get emotional with this stuff, its just science.

 

I'm not making you read it, I am answering questions (and accusations) that have been leveled at me.  I've already said I studied this crap for a long time.... I feel I can share what I've found over the years if I want to.

 

I'm not searching for the meaning of life, I've found it, a while ago, but I don't think I went into that here at all, did I?  Nor am I talking about RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS!  I am taking about GOD and SCIENCE.  GOD AND SCIENCE

 

And btw, MOST of this evidence conflicts with evolution science.  Degradation flies strait in the face of evolution...  

 

If you all can't handle the conflicting science... I don't think I'm the one with the problem....

I think you have been more reactionary and personally offended by comments not meant to be taken personally than any other participant in this conversation so far (go back and really look at your posts).

I'm very capable of defending my own personal views and I don't mind counter arguments to them--but the problem with the conversation here is when my own views stated in any manner, they are immediately referenced as "religion" and then its hotly insisted on being "debated" (for no worthwhile reason at all) on those terms.  It's no different than if every time I said, "I really like dogs." someone  immediately jumped up and said, "AHA!  So why is it you have this deep seated hatred of CATS then!?". To simplify that for you, "dogs" can represent any thing I say and "cats" can represent you immediately bringing up "stupid religion"...for the millionth time or so.

I haven't given up on anything other than pointless arguing and if you really want to ask me a sincere question you know how to reach me and I am genuinely happy to answer.  Just separate ahead of time what I have said, from what someone else said and what you imagine I said first.

I do it all the time and so do many others.  The majority of people are capable of doing this most of the time if it's part of a sincere discussion. It just depends on how comfortable someone is with their own beliefs, whether or not they have an agenda and an axe to grind and how secure they about themselves that determines whether they can do it or not.

I'm quite the advocate of science and haven't said anything to indicate otherwise--you just keep making a mashup of posts by "us" (i.e., all the other people on here you disagree with, who I don't even know and who have completely differing opinions from my own) and then attributing any of statements by any and all of them as applying to "me".

I have no problem with a moderator being part of the conversation either--just backing up his views on the topic combined with mentions of his position as a moderator is tacky. I'm not at all trying to leverage him out of the conversation (lol--it is more likely to result in the reverse).

So in short, you can't please everyone all of the time and there's no point in wasting time filling a bucket with water for a person holding a bucket with no bottom in it.

Wherever you're at...well there you are.

Ok, back to Biology and its obvious problems with evolution theory.

The biggest problem with evolution in biology is that an Evolutionist looks at a creature and sees adaptation, where as Science can see it as a Design.
Take the human ear for example.  Evolution claims that the 3 tiny bones that make up the ear "evolved" from the jaw bone over millions of years.  But how could this be?  Any mutation that doesn't serve a purpose (like separate bones coming off a jaw) would be lost in the replication process I went over already.  And the fossil record doesn't support a gradual shift.... There are no "in between" species that have been proven to exist... only a different variety of species.  The complexity of the human ear simply could not have come from mutation.  All the chemical, mechanical and electrical systems that are needed for it to work could not evolve independently.  

So what about the "missing link?"
Contrary to the Evolutionist, the missing link between man and ape is still missing.  The famous Lucy fossil skull is simply a more upright ape, similar to chimps.  This misrepresentation is further brought to light, in the fact that Lucy species skulls have been found in the same layer as modern man skulls.  The SAME layers!  One must deduce that they had to coexist with modern humans.  and died out from some disease, or environmental reason.  Much like how modern man looses many species due to rainforest deforestation.  Much more evidence is there for those who want to find it, and this evidence all contradicts the Evolutionist theory of a common ancestry and adaptive evolution.

Now look at bees and flowers.  Both developed independently of each other, both from different ancestors, and, according to evolutionists dating, both at different times (40+ million years difference).  The one problem with this timeline from Evolutionists is that flowers are interdependent on pollination.  But bees didn't develop at the same time... and if this is true, then most, if not all flowering plants would have died out from lack of pollination.  If we look at modern creatures, there are many more symbiotic relationships between species that cannot be explained with evolution science.  

Flight is another big problem with Evolutionists.  There have yet to be ANY fossil records of the missing link between reptile and bird.  Think about it... A bird would have to have feathers or stretched skin, hollow bones, and larger lungs/stronger and different designed shoulder muscles to be able to fly.  By natural selection, any partial deformity that would bring a creature to that state, without even one of these traits, would be eaten by the closest predator.  The science of biological flight had to happen at the same time, for it to have worked.  Birds are vastly more complicate that this even, but Evolutionist insist that they evolved from reptiles, even though no fossil record has been found.  but the answer is obvious, Birds are designed to be birds.

Now on to the fun stuff

Sexual genetic deterioration is the deterioration of the DNA code in close family interbreeding.  In ancient times, it has been shown that many brother/sister relationships occurred.  Families would routinely intermarry and procreate, and no real problems occurred from this.  However, modern families cannot do that without risking massive birth defects.  The DNA code of humans have been replicated to the point of imbalance.  So ancient humans had "purer" genetic code than modern humans.  If we look at all the cancers, defects and shorter lifespans of humans now, we can see how the DNA replication of Humans is loosing more information as time marches on.  If we plot this DNA deterioration on a graph, we can deduce that humanity isn't as old as Evolutionists try to claim.... humanity is only 6,000 years old, according to DNA deterioration.  This much DNA deterioration would cause humans to be extinct long ago, if humanity is millions of years old.

Ok, that is enough for now.  I will have one more post on the biological evolution science issues, and then we can sift to Geological science.

 

I will write a sum up on it all after all my evidence has been presented.  Feel free to take issue with any of it, but remember... it is science too.  So I'm not going to debate your feelings or religion...

Give me science and God, not religion.

  If we plot this DNA deterioration on a graph, we can deduce that humanity isn't as old as Evolutionists try to claim.... humanity is only 6,000 years old, according to DNA deterioration.

Crikey you made my day. Humanity is only 6000 years old, that is too funny. Better not tell the Aboriginals of Australia who have been there about 70,000 years ago. The reason christians go on about 6000 years is because some muppet decided to go through the genealogy from Adam to Jesus and count up the years.

This shows the bias from the start: "whereas Science can see it as design" is really more like "whereas Creationists can (only) see it as design."

It is easy to to take issue with everything you present. For example: Only bees and flowers? You must be joking. How about abiotic pollination, cross pollination, or the wide variety of pollinators that exist? Roughly 200,000 varieties of animal pollinators are in the wild. Are you simply starting with the assumption that Evolution is false to come up with conclusions that are easily debatable at the click of a mouse? A little google action easily shows that your CANNOTS actually do have explanations which show how certain things actually CAN or could have happened.

It's really not worth debating these things in such a forum because many of us know where to look on the web to find actual scientific information that directly contradicts your cannots,  and how things that are so obvious to you (and whoever you have copied your "scientific" information from) are not so obvious at all.

 

Actually, that goes back to the books of Moses, so it's more Jewish than Christianity. 

Also you have to back up your claim that the aboriginals were there for 70,000 years, or you're not practicing science any more than anyone else.

 

This is the internet.  Your conclusions are easily debatable at the click of a mouse, too, so I fail to see your point.