I honestly don't understand.

I think that people have been lead astray by an interpretation of the bible.

Someone else said "I'd rather trust God than man" or something like that, which is fine....

... but does that really mean insisting that young earth creationism is correct? I mean, it's not *God* that is telling us this, it is other humans that are telling us that this is the right set of books, and the right interpretation of a story in those books.

Is there something wrong with my logic?

Even Pat Robertson (who gave up his minsterial credentials to avoid a financial audit) said you would have to be an idiot to believe in young earth creationism

you are correct that people get led astray, by the millions i would say, but by thier churches..thier priests, thier rabbis, ect. i just read the book, and have learned to believe what it says, i believe it was written by divine inspiration.., what i have checked has proven to be gospel truth if you will pardon the pun. my own logic and rsearch tells me this, some 40 yrs of personal research has yet to find one inconsistency, which i cannot say about religion, churches or scientific beliefs. they all change over time, evolve if you will. the bible is the one constant. you dont have to be a scholar to 'interpet it, this is in fact where most go wrong.( just as you said) my advise is to just read it. eventually you will fall in love with the word. i can provide you with literally hundereds of quoyes from darwin himself, where he has grave doubts about his own theory, and he reconciled this by assuming the fossil record would, in time, prove him correct. It has not. ( if we look at it with an open mind instead of quoting others research)

there we go again, Pat was a man, with his own church to support, a religion if you will, and i take no stock whatever in any religion. They "tickle our ears, tell us what we want to hear rather than teach the bible truth. I Wouldent want to be a preacher on judgment day. These people should know the word way better than you and i, yet they spout obvious mistruths in order to fill thier pews. (how many people would walk out of a church that said pubicly that evolution is a myth/ a faith all its own), when they think they know better, since they have been taught evoultion as a fact since childhood. not a pew filler, that.

i made a big mistake once when i prayed for wisdom for about a year. What i learned put me at odds with almost every organised religion, cant go to church anymore as i have an uncontrollable urge to stand up and call them out on thier doctrine..., The bible states... "they will go ( to churches) seeking wisdom but will leave empty. ' hmmmm .

I have lots of ammo from the scientific community itself that questions evoultion if anyone is interested. IT IS A FAITH BASED BELIEF in my opinion. the math dont add up, the fossil record doesent support it, Churches dont help when they support some version of evolution.., just to fill thier pews i would suspect. oh the young earth thing, God never said that the world was young, just us. A point that is arguably proven by the fossil record., AND THE FACT THAT RADIOCARBON DATING IS NOW SHOWN TO BE IN EXTREME ERROR. It assumes that there was a constant level of c14 in the atmosphere, which we know believe is not true, after looking at core samples from the arctic, ect.
THE HUMAN BRAIN
"The human brain is the most marvelous and mysterios object in the universe"-Antropologist Henry Osborn
"hOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCE THOUGHTS? tHAT IS THE CENTRAL QUESTION AND WE HAVE STILL NO ANSWER TO IT." pSYIOLOGIST cHARLES sHERRINGTON
'In spite of the steady accumulation of detailed knowledge about how the human brain works, it still remains profoundly mysterious". Biologist Francis Clark
" anyone who speaks of the computer as an electronic brain, has never seen a brain". Dr. Irvibg Bengelsdorf
" our active memories hold several BILLIONtimes more information than a large mainframe computer". Morton Hunt
" since the brain is different and immesurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe, we may have to change some of our most ardently held ideas before we are able to fathom the brain's mysterious tructure". Neurologist Richard Restak
regarding the huge gulf between humans and animals, Alfred wallace, the co discover of evolution wrote to darwin, "Naturl selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain little superior to that of the ape, wheras we posess one very little inferior to that of an average member of our learned society. " Darwin, upset by this admission , replied, " I hope you have not murdered completly your own and my child".
" to say that the human brain evolved from that of any animal is to defy reason and the fscts. far more logical is this conclusion: i am left with no choice but to acknoledge the existance of a superior intellect, responsible for for the design and devlopment of this incredible brain- mind relationship- something far beyond man's capacity to understand... I have to believe that this had an intelligent beginning, that someone made it happen". Nerosurgeon Dr robert White.

ONE CELL in the human body contains over 100 billion parts, all organised, all doing different jobs, some collect fuel, others get rid of waste, still others reproduce themselves..,some protect the cell from disease and invasions like a guard..., Do you really believe that this could all happen by chance? ( that one is me)


I dont make this stuff up.

There is something wrong with the logic of every Evolutionist I've ever heard. Funny how evolution never evolved into an open mind?

wow! bash did you get the last word? lol.

Well I think its great that you recognize the power of religion to lead people to believe in lies.

And I accept that you believe the Bible was written by divine inspiration.

I just wonder about how flexible your views on evolution can be, as long as you believe that the bible was divinely inspired. Some people believe in the bible and take genesis as a symbolic story, some people believe in the bible and take it as a literal description of events.

But if someone believes in the bible as the word of God, and if they take everything in it literally, then it seems to me that its no longer an option to evaluate evolution on its own terms, with an unbiased mind. Their opinion about evolution is then hinged on their relationship with the bible as a whole. It becomes necessary to conclude that evolution is false, to sustain their belief that the bible is both literal and divinely inspired.




Yes, I've read it. Some portions I've read many times over years.



Why does this matter? He's just another scientists who added something significant to the conversation. No single scientists matters that much, no one person has all the answers.

I'm not a bible scholar, but I don't remember god directly saying that the earth was young, either. I think most bible literalists believe that the earth is young because genesis suggests the earth and humans were created within the same week.



It's not true that carbon dating is based on the assumption of constant c14; carbon dating requires only that we have a good estimate of the amount of c14 at the time in question.


It's true that the human brain is incredibly complex, and that much of it is still beyond our understanding. To reject evolution simply because we don't understand the brain is a variation of the 'god of the gaps' argument. Even some scientists fall prey to 'god of the gaps'.


It's true that an individual cell is marvellously complex.



Wait, what? No one [edit: no one who understands evolution] believes that evolution happens strictly as a result of chance events. Chance plays a role in evolution, but evolution does not 'happen by chance'.

If you think that there is something wrong with my logic in that part of the conversation (or any), then please explain specifically what you see as wrong to be wrong, and say why.

Not yet, but I will....

I've heard that more and more followers from top organized religions, are abandoning the concept of God, but still follow and believe in the ideological practices.

Evolution... if something comes close to a god..it would be Sun..

Created or left by aliens, evolving into pinheads

It seems that a lot of people have misconceptions about Darwin's theory.

1. Life came from a single creature. There could have been many types of organism that arose from the stuff that existed before they formed. The would all have different paths.

2. How changes occur. DNA replication is not a perfect process. Sometime a gene gets replicated incorrectly, there is a mutation. Or maybe it is a perfect process because it introduces mutations.

3. Survival of the fittest means the strong or smartest survive. This concept doesn't mean that the strongest lion lives. It means that if a mutated organism, animal, whatever you want to call it, is more capable of surviving in it's environment, it is more fit than it's predecessor.

4. Darwin said that evolution is brought about by natural selection. Darwin believed that Evolution occurs, but never tried to prove that the mechanism was natural selection. He also never wrote about the origin of humans.

The University of Berkley posts the following ...

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists' work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?

All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left)


explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?

Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?

How does evolution produce new and complex features?

Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

From National Geographic

"When modern humans migrated out of Africa some 60,000 years ago, they found the Eurasian continent already inhabited by brawny, big-browed Neanderthals. We know that at least some encounters between the two kinds of human produced offspring, because the genomes of people living outside Africa today are composed of some 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA.

Two studies published concurrently in Nature and Science on Wednesday suggest that while the Neanderthal contribution to our genomes was modest, it may have proved vitally important.

Some parts of non-African genomes are totally devoid of Neanderthal DNA, but other regions abound with it, including those containing genes that affect our skin and hair. This hints that the Neanderthal gene versions conferred some benefit, and were kept during evolution.

"It seems quite compelling that as modern humans left Africa, met Neanderthals, and exchanged genes, we picked up adaptive variants in some genes that conferred an advantage in local climatic conditions," says Joshua Akey, who led the study in Science.

"The adaptive things from Neanderthals are very interesting because they are not obvious," says John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who was not involved in either study. Based on fossil bones alone, anthropologists would never have predicted that Neanderthals contributed to the keratin filaments and immune systems of modern people.

The fact that Neanderthal DNA is totally absent from other stretches of the modern non-African genome suggests that their versions of the genes in these regions would have caused problems in modern humans, and were weeded out by natural selection."



The scientific proof of evolution is vast. It comes from many directions, many sources, and just plane hard evidence. The human genome has now been unraveled and pieces of our DNA can be compared to the sources such as Neanderthal Man.

Does having no Neanderthal genes make you more or less human?

Evolution vs Creation may be simple topic in the circle of friends but I can't help noticing how many beautiful women are christians.

So gotta thread carefully because no evolution is worth the extinction, if you know what I mean.

or is it?

lol


well, I don't know why its so vital to define it or have a competition between the different 'beliefs' anyway

some believe everything came from the same one thing and that thing Cant be a God or intelligent creator

others believe there was an intelligent creator, and don't get hung up on whether he created everything from one thing or several things

as long as we know we are human and will never be all knowing about the universe and all the ways it has worked since time began,,, we can maybe start shrugging our shoulders about discussions like this,,,

So,it seems Evolution is going to end!