# How is teaching evolution NOT state sponsored athiesism?



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 21, 2018)

Evolution by definition assumes atheistic  presuppositions and assumptions?  

Evolution is taught in every state sponsored public school.

Thus the State is favoring one belief system over others.

Where am I wrong?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Evolution by definition assumes atheistic  presuppositions and assumptions?
> 
> Evolution is taught in every state sponsored public school.
> 
> ...



The sure fire indicator that you are wrong is that you are typing your thoughts instead of definitions. 

"Evolution by definition assumes atheistic  presuppositions and assumptions? "

Is your god incapable of getting an evolutionary system started?

Public schools teach according to the preponderance of evidence. 

PLEASE show us the Atheistic presuppositions and assumptions in this:



> Definition of evolution
> 
> 1 descent with modification from preexisting species :cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generationsEvolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.—Stephen Jay Gould also :the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.—NatureIn Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. —Pamela Weintraub
> 
> ...




On the other hand, it is highly like you to point fingers while presupposing and assuming an invisible sky fairy did it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Evolution by definition assumes atheistic  presuppositions and assumptions?
> 
> Evolution is taught in every state sponsored public school.
> 
> ...





> Evolution by definition assumes atheistic  presuppositions and assumptions?


That's where you are wrong.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 21, 2018)

Some Christians see God as the Great Architect of the Universe. They see God as the Creator of science and thus he created using science. Look at all the scientific laws and principles in place today that Christian scientist, teachers, and doctors believe in and use.

Some Christians also see Creation as meaning Israel. Adam was the first in this lineage but not necessarily the first man on the earth.

There are other Christian beliefs concerning evolutionary creation as well. The point being a Christian that believes in science can also believe the Great Scientist creates through evolution, natural selection, etc.

Therefore one should not assume evolution has Atheist origins. Some scientist are Atheist and some believe in God as well. Same goes for teachers.

I can't see evolution happening without God.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 21, 2018)

Why are evolution and religion mutually exclusive? Evolution is obviously a real thing-you can still see it at work today. Why couldn't God create by using evolution?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 21, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Why are evolution and religion mutually exclusive? Evolution is obviously a real thing-you can still see it at work today. Why couldn't God create by using evolution?



I can see the headlines now.... 

The Six Days of Evolution.....

and God saw that it was good. <sarc>


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 21, 2018)

How long is a day to God? Really? 
_
“For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”_ 

Do you believe that plants were actually created before the sun was like Genesis says? How did they live?


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> How long is a day to God? Really?
> _
> “For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”_
> 
> Do you believe that plants were actually created before the sun was like Genesis says? How did they live?



Because God created them to.

How could they not?


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Why are evolution and religion mutually exclusive? Evolution is obviously a real thing-you can still see it at work today. Why couldn't God create by using evolution?


  My knuckles still drag a little...but I'm coming along.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 21, 2018)

Israel said:


> Because God created them to.
> 
> How could they not?



Why won't they live without sunshine nowadays, then? And for that matter, how was there light without the sun, moon, or stars?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 21, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> How long is a day to God? Really?
> _
> “For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”_
> 
> Do you believe that plants were actually created before the sun was like Genesis says? How did they live?



yes, and they were able to live because light was created before the sun also.... figure that one out.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 21, 2018)

I guess light without the sun, moon, or stars got un-created at some point?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 21, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yes, and they were able to live because light was created before the sun also.... figure that one out.



 yup


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 21, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> I guess light without the sun, moon, or stars got un-created at some point?



I don't know.  That is not addressed in the bible.

I figure if God can speak it into existence, he can do whatever he wants to with it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 21, 2018)

one issue that you would have is getting the atheist to admit that atheism is a religion.  

They deny that the belief system they follow is a religion unto itself, but if you examine that belief system, it sure looks like a religion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> one issue that you would have is getting the atheist to admit that atheism is a religion.
> 
> They deny that the belief system they follow is a religion unto itself, but if you examine that belief system, it sure looks like a religion.


Its very odd how badly you guys seem to want this to be true.
Why?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 22, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> one issue that you would have is getting the atheist to admit that atheism is a religion.
> 
> They deny that the belief system they follow is a religion unto itself, but if you examine that belief system, it sure looks like a religion.



It can become that, yep. Ironically, especially among those whose whole life revolves around religion-hating. Liberalism is another good example of a "substitute" religion by proxy.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 22, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't know.  That is not addressed in the bible.
> 
> I figure if God can speak it into existence, he can do whatever he wants to with it.



I figure if God can speak something into existence, he can probably evolute it into existence, too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> It can become that, yep. Ironically, especially among those whose whole life revolves around religion-hating. Liberalism is another good example of a "substitute" religion by proxy.


Just a point -


> It can become that, yep.


Atheism in itself, is not a religion. To your point "to become that" is a person taking the "original thing" and changing it into something else/something its not.
So isn't more accurate to say -
Yes some Atheists can take Atheism to the point of being "religious".
But no Atheism in itself is not a religion.
It, in itself, is simply -
a·the·ism
[ËˆÄ�THÄ“ËŒizÉ™m]
NOUN
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


----------



## Day trip (Mar 22, 2018)

Virtually all atheism I’ve encountered is not so much a profound secure disbelief in God but a sound disbelief in someone else’s ideas about God.  I don’t blame atheist.  I don’t believe in many people’s ideas about God.  Atheists or agnostics who are not dead set on simply being against someone else’s beliefs are very often better “Christians” than people who claim to believe.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Virtually all atheism I’ve encountered is not so much a profound secure disbelief in God but a sound disbelief in someone else’s ideas about God.  I don’t blame atheist.  I don’t believe in many people’s ideas about God.  Atheists or agnostics who are not dead set on simply being against someone else’s beliefs are very often better “Christians” than people who claim to believe.



That sounds close to an Agnostic belief. They believe or at least don't deny the existence of a supreme being or power. They just don't believe in the God of organized religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, etc.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> I figure if God can speak something into existence, he can probably evolute it into existence, too.


I'm kind of with you on this one.
Since creation (in the Christian sense of the word) and evolution are not the same thing, what is so offensive to the idea that both can be "true" at the same time?
Although it would have to be selective evolution since people were supposedly dropped in as.... well..... people.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Mar 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm kind of with you on this one.
> Since creation (in the Christian sense of the word) and evolution are not the same thing, what is so offensive to the idea that both can be "true" at the same time?
> Although it would have to be selective evolution since people were supposedly dropped in as.... well..... people.



except for those pesky Neanderthals who either stowed away on Noah's ark or somehow escaped that great flood. We have 4 percent of their DNA somehow! 

Two choices here (that I can imagine) for the creationists to rationalize the Neanderthal DNA:
1) Neanderthals "adapted"  after the flood. Just as blond hair, hooded eye lids, etc. are relatively recent genetic adaptations to a changing environment, maybe adaptation briefly went off the rails to rapidly change into a whole new species, crossbred with humans, then quickly died out.
2) Scientists have it all wrong - Neanderthals are the same species as modern humans and their DNA (while different) is just genetic variation, not an entirely different species.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> except for those pesky Neanderthals who either stowed away on Noah's ark or somehow escaped that great flood. We have 4 percent of their DNA somehow!
> 
> Two choices here (that I can imagine) for the creationists to rationalize the Neanderthal DNA:
> 1) Neanderthals "adapted"  after the flood. Just as blond hair, hooded eye lids, etc. are relatively recent genetic adaptations to a changing environment, maybe adaptation briefly went off the rails to rapidly change into a whole new species, crossbred with humans, then quickly died out.
> 2) Scientists have it all wrong - Neanderthals are the same species as modern humans and their DNA (while different) is just genetic variation, not an entirely different species.


Oh come on, theres no problems there.
All that is exactly how God made it happen.
See how easy that was


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a point -
> 
> Atheism in itself, is not a religion. To your point "to become that" is a person taking the "original thing" and changing it into something else/something its not.
> So isn't more accurate to say -
> ...





religion -
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:	faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Atheism is a religion.  Just because you don't name a god you serve doesn't mean you aren't setting up something as supreme to follow.  For some it is liberty, for some secularism, other find other things to worship.  Your god is whatever you place the most significance on in your life.  Your check book register will give you a good idea what you value.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> religion -
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> synonyms:	faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> ...



God(s)/Checkbook register


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> religion -
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> synonyms:	faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> ...


There is a reason you are having to get down into the synonyms and fine print to try to back up your claim.
Using your provided definition and not a synonym but right there at the top -


> religion -
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.



I didn't check but I'm pretty sure checkbooks, liberty etc wouldnt fall under the category "superhuman".


> especially a personal God or gods.


God with a big G denotes... well you know.. the big guy.
gods with a little g denotes... well you know... those other littler guys.

This is why I ask why you guys want it to be true so bad.
Look how far you are willing to try to sttttrrrreeeettttch definitions just to demand that Atheism is a religion.
Its kookie to me. I don't get it.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 22, 2018)

An atheist used the following quote in his "prayer" at a city council meeting in Waterloo Iowa.

"This world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion" - Thomas Paine.

Although I don't see atheism as a religion, they will sure tread that line to be included on what society sees as a religious practice. In this case, giving a "prayer" in public meetings.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2018)

Sounds like a statement. Who was he praying to?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's where you are wrong.



You are correct.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> The sure fire indicator that you are wrong is that you are typing your thoughts instead of definitions.
> 
> "Evolution by definition assumes atheistic  presuppositions and assumptions? "
> 
> ...



A bit bitter today are we?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> A bit bitter today are we?



Check the date of the post.
Not bitter. Accurate 
And apparently unable to be countered on your end.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like a statement. Who was he praying to?



It was the “inclusion” part of what is considered a Christian activity that I was referring to.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> It was the “inclusion” part of what is considered a Christian activity that I was referring to.



Inclusion of what?

He was stating his code, his mantra.

What specifically is a specific Christian activity? A prayer? I had no idea only Christians prayed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> It was the “inclusion” part of what is considered a Christian activity that I was referring to.





> they will sure tread that line to be included on what society sees as a religious practice. In this case, giving a "prayer" in public meetings.


You have answered your own question but you just don't know it.


> what is considered a Christian activity





> sees as a religious practice.


and where was it taking place? -


> at a city council meeting


If the city council represents ALL of the city, why is it ok to devote "special time" to just one element - the Christians.?
Its not ok, and by having something to say, the Atheist is not letting them get away with it.
Of course you don't see a problem with special time being devoted to only one segment because you belong to that one segment.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 22, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Which bible are you reading? Are you reading it from back to front
> 
> Do you believe that plants were actually created before the sun was like Genesis says? How did they live?


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 <sup class="versenum">2 </sup>And  the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of  the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
*<sup class="versenum">3 </sup>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.*
 <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
 <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
 <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
 <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>And  God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the  firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
 <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
 <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
 <sup class="versenum">10 </sup>And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
*<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>And  God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and  the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,  upon the earth: and it was so.*


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2018)

j_seph said:


> 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> <sup class="versenum">2 </sup>And  the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of  the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> *<sup class="versenum">3 </sup>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.*
> <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> ...


Scoot down to verse 14+


----------



## j_seph (Mar 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Scoot down to verse 14+


Guess my point is, he gave light before the grass, before the sun and the moon were created.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Guess my point is, he gave light before the grass, before the sun and the moon were created.



Sounded more like he made a temporary work light in 3, because the Sun (which grows plants) and the Moon didnt happen until later.

Did we have 2 suns? If not what type of light was it?


----------



## j_seph (Mar 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Sounded more like he made a temporary work light in 3, because the Sun (which grows plants) and the Moon didnt happen until later.
> 
> Did we have 2 suns? If not what type of light was it?


I would have to say Gods light. Also, ya ever seen these folks that grow stuff with grow lights and no sun? Don't need sun if you got light.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2018)

j_seph said:


> I would have to say Gods light. Also, ya ever seen these folks that grow stuff with grow lights and no sun? Don't need sun if you got light.



Must be what grew all his herb in 11.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 22, 2018)

_The earth began as nothing but water and darkness, and all the animals were in Galúnlati, above the stone vault that makes up the sky. Eventually Galúnlati became so crowded that the animals needed more room, and they wanted to move down to earth. Not knowing what was below the water, they sent down the Water-beetle to explore. Water-beetle dove below the water and eventually came back with some mud from below. That mud grew and grew, and finally it became the island that we call earth. This island of earth is suspended at its four corners from ropes that hang down from the sky, and legend has it that some day the ropes will break and the earth will sink back into the water.

      Because it grew from mud, the new earth was very soft. Many of the birds flew down to explore the new land, but it was too wet for them to stay. Finally Buzzard flew down, hoping it was dry, but the earth was still wet. Buzzard searched and searched, especially in the Cherokee country, and finally he became so tired that his wings flapped against the ground. His wings dug valleys where they hit the ground and turned up mountains where they pulled away, leaving the rugged country of the Cherokee.

      Eventually the earth was dry and the animals moved down. There still was no light, however, and so the animals set the sun passing from east to west just over their heads. With the sun so close, many of the animals were burned, giving the red crawfish its crimson color. The animals raised the sun again and again, until it was high enough that all could survive.

      When the plants and animals first came to earth, they were told to stay awake for seven nights, as in the Cherokee medicine ceremony. The animals all stayed awake the first night, and many stayed awake the next few nights, but only the owl and the panther and a couple of others stayed awake all seven nights. They were given the ability to see at night and so to hunt at night when the others are asleep. The same thing happened among the trees, and only the cedar, pine, spruce, holly and laurel stayed awake all seven nights, which is why they can stay green all year when the others lose their leaves.

      Humans came after the animals. At first they multiplied rapidly, and the first woman give birth every seven days. Eventually there were so many of them that it seemed they might not all survive, and since then to this day each woman has been able to have just one child each year. Among these early people were a man and a woman name Kanáti and Selu, whose names meant "The Lucky Hunter" and "Corn", respectively. Kanáti would go hunting and invariably return with game, which Selu would prepare by the stream near their home. She also would always return home with baskets of corn, which she would pound to make meal for bread.

      Kanáti and Selu had a little boy, and he would play by the stream. Eventually they realized that he was playing with another little boy who had arisen from the blood of the game washed by the stream. With their son's help they caught the other boy, and eventually he lived with them like he was their own son, although he was called "the Wild Boy".

      Kanáti brought home game whenever he went hunting, and one day the two boys decided to follow him. They followed him into the mountains until he came to a large rock, which he pulled aside to reveal a cave from which a buck emerged. Kanáti shot the buck and, after covering the cave, he headed home. The boys got home before him and didn't reveal what they had learned, but a few days later they returned to the rock. With a struggle they pulled it aside and had great fun watching the deer come out of the cave. They lost track of what they were doing, however, and soon all sorts of game animals - rabbit and turkeys and partridges and buffalo and all - escaped from the cave. Kanáti saw all these animals coming down the mountain and knew what the boys must have done, and he went up the mountain after them. He opened four jars in the cave, and from them came fleas and lice and gnats and bedbugs that attacked the boys. He sent them home, hoping he could find some of the dispersed game for the supper. Thus it is that people must now hunt for game._

Lots of people believed this for thousands of years just as firmly as some believe every word in Genesis.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> _The earth began as nothing but water and darkness, and all the animals were in Galúnlati, above the stone vault that makes up the sky. Eventually Galúnlati became so crowded that the animals needed more room, and they wanted to move down to earth. Not knowing what was below the water, they sent down the Water-beetle to explore. Water-beetle dove below the water and eventually came back with some mud from below. That mud grew and grew, and finally it became the island that we call earth. This island of earth is suspended at its four corners from ropes that hang down from the sky, and legend has it that some day the ropes will break and the earth will sink back into the water.
> 
> Because it grew from mud, the new earth was very soft. Many of the birds flew down to explore the new land, but it was too wet for them to stay. Finally Buzzard flew down, hoping it was dry, but the earth was still wet. Buzzard searched and searched, especially in the Cherokee country, and finally he became so tired that his wings flapped against the ground. His wings dug valleys where they hit the ground and turned up mountains where they pulled away, leaving the rugged country of the Cherokee.
> 
> ...


See now that story seems reasonable.
But the Christian story? No way


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 22, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Lots of people believed this for thousands of years just as firmly as some believe every word in Genesis.


And I’m sure many tried, but who proved either story wrong???

I don’t believe in Big Foot, but I have absolutely zero, nothing to prove he doesn’t exist. I can assume he doesn’t because I walked in the woods and hit a few trees and looked for big foot tracks and didn’t find him.  

I’ve asked this question on here before, are you 100% positive that God doesn’t exist??

Don’t play the cop out of “you prove he does”. That’s not the question, the question is are you 100% positive that he doesn’t. 

Before someone does ask, no I can’t prove to you that God exist. I’m simply asking you to prove he doesn’t.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And I’m sure many tried, but who proved either story wrong???
> 
> I don’t believe in Big Foot, but I have absolutely zero, nothing to prove he doesn’t exist. I can assume he doesn’t because I walked in the woods and hit a few trees and looked for big foot tracks and didn’t find him.
> 
> ...


According to that line of thought, anything that anyone can dream up "exists" because it is impossible to prove a negative.

When someone says that something exists the burden of proof lies directly on them to back up their claim. When something such as a god is claimed the old saying of Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence is expected if that is to be believed.

If you have yourself convinced that you cannot prove the claims of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot, Marshmellow Ponies, and Leprechauns etc are fake, therefore you have to believe they could exist,....that is on you.
That line of thought is expected and no doubt the reason that you believe the way you do regarding gods. 

Some of us require actual proof. If a god lived up to even 1/10 of the claims of it's believers, nobody could deny it's existence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And I’m sure many tried, but who proved either story wrong???
> 
> I don’t believe in Big Foot, but I have absolutely zero, nothing to prove he doesn’t exist. I can assume he doesn’t because I walked in the woods and hit a few trees and looked for big foot tracks and didn’t find him.
> 
> ...


This argument is even worse than the "If they did something wrong then they aren't REAL Christians" argument.
Its obvious you are all smart guys but your choices in arguments to hang your hats on really suck


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And I’m sure many tried, but who proved either story wrong???
> 
> I don’t believe in Big Foot, but I have absolutely zero, nothing to prove he doesn’t exist. I can assume he doesn’t because I walked in the woods and hit a few trees and looked for big foot tracks and didn’t find him.
> 
> ...


I have no idea if God exists or not. I personally believe that there is a higher power of some sort out there, but I don't see how I could presume to understand it, much less know exactly what it wants. I also seriously doubt that if God exists, that he/she/it is much at all like any of the gods worshiped by the major religions. I think most people sense the presence of a higher power, and develop their own interpretation of it based on their own culture. So, yeah, I pretty much believe in some sort of higher power, but I don't think any of the world's major religions are very representative of it as a whole.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And I’m sure many tried, but who proved either story wrong???
> 
> I don’t believe in Big Foot, but I have absolutely zero, nothing to prove he doesn’t exist. I can assume he doesn’t because I walked in the woods and hit a few trees and looked for big foot tracks and didn’t find him.
> 
> ...





> I don’t believe in Big Foot, but I have absolutely zero, nothing to prove he doesn’t exist.


Sure you do.
Until Big Foot has been proven to exist.... Big Foot doesn't exist.
Name ANYTHING, just one thing, that exists that hasn't been proven to exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> I have no idea if God exists or not. I personally believe that there is a higher power of some sort out there, but I don't see how I could presume to understand it, much less know exactly what it wants. I also seriously doubt that if God exists, that he/she/it is much at all like any of the gods worshiped by the major religions. I think most people sense the presence of a higher power, and develop their own interpretation of it based on their own culture. So, yeah, I pretty much believe in some sort of higher power, but I don't think any of the world's major religions are very representative of it as a whole.



Do you feel that the higher power has a consciousness? Does it intervene in our lives?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> This argument is even worse than the "If they did something wrong then they aren't REAL Christians" argument.
> Its obvious you are all smart guys but your choices in arguments to hang your hats on really suck



But I’m not arguing and I’m feeling bullied right now


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure you do.
> Until Big Foot has been proven to exist.... Big Foot doesn't exist.
> Name ANYTHING, just one thing, that exists that hasn't been proven to exist.



For me.........God


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> For me.........God



I don't believe you.  You have proof that you find good enough.  What is it? I'm guessing that the heart of it is personal revelation.  Is that right?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> When someone says that something exists the burden of proof lies directly on them.



I understand what you’re saying and that’s the tactic, but essentially, when someone makes a claim that something doesn’t exist, there're also burdened to prove that claim. 

If they’re not sure, then ok they have nothing to prove. That’s why I asked “can you be 100% positive”.

We’ve been down this road before and it always comes back the same, you’re requiring physical evidence for something that’s faith based. Won’t happen.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I don't believe you



Ok I’m good with that. You’ve just demonstrated how free will works.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> I have no idea if God exists or not. I personally believe that there is a higher power of some sort out there, but I don't see how I could presume to understand it, much less know exactly what it wants. I also seriously doubt that if God exists, that he/she/it is much at all like any of the gods worshiped by the major religions. I think most people sense the presence of a higher power, and develop their own interpretation of it based on their own culture. So, yeah, I pretty much believe in some sort of higher power, but I don't think any of the world's major religions are very representative of it as a whole.



I can respect that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> one issue that you would have is getting the atheist to admit that atheism is a religion.
> 
> They deny that the belief system they follow is a religion unto itself, but if you examine that belief system, it sure looks like a religion.



It's a religion in everything but name.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Check the date of the post.
> Not bitter. Accurate
> And apparently unable to be countered on your end.



No, just unworthy.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 23, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Why are evolution and religion mutually exclusive? Evolution is obviously a real thing-you can still see it at work today. Why couldn't God create by using evolution?



If evolution is real, why do we still have monkeys?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No, just unworthy.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If evolution is real, why do we still have monkeys?



You need that pot stirring emoji in there too! Lololol


----------



## j_seph (Mar 23, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If evolution is real, why do we still have monkeys?


The evolved monkeys were prejudiced. They got their evolution and didn't care if the others got it or not. Sort of like some Christians get saved and comfortable and tend not to worry if others find God or not. The elder Apes did not care if the younger ones found evolution so they were stuck being monkeys. I wonder if the monkeys get mad at those humans who say they came from monkeys? If I was a monkey I would have bitterness towards humans who thought that way. Guess that is what happens when the elder Apes don't carry burdens for the younger generation, they stay lost and monkeys.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 23, 2018)

j_seph said:


> The evolved monkeys were prejudiced. They got their evolution and didn't care if the others got it or not. Sort of like some Christians get saved and comfortable and tend not to worry if others find God or not. The elder Apes did not care if the younger ones found evolution so they were stuck being monkeys. I wonder if the monkeys get mad at those humans who say they came from monkeys? If I was a monkey I would have bitterness towards humans who thought that way. Guess that is what happens when the elder Apes don't carry burdens for the younger generation, they stay lost and monkeys.


Great analogy of today's generation.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

j_seph said:


> The evolved monkeys were prejudiced. They got their evolution and didn't care if the others got it or not. Sort of like some Christians get saved and comfortable and tend not to worry if others find God or not. The elder Apes did not care if the younger ones found evolution so they were stuck being monkeys. I wonder if the monkeys get mad at those humans who say they came from monkeys? If I was a monkey I would have bitterness towards humans who thought that way. Guess that is what happens when the elder Apes don't carry burdens for the younger generation, they stay lost and monkeys.



https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/


----------



## j_seph (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/


So does this do away with equal rights between black and white? I mean If we are as this says then in reality we are originally African!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So does this do away with equal rights between black and white? I mean If we are as this says then in reality we are originally African!



Yes, we are originally African.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

Albinos!!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Albinos!!!



Are you guys afraid to research the topics that you do not understand? Is it because you might find out that what you think happened and what really happened are two completely different things?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you guys afraid to research the topics that you do not understand? Is it because you might find out that what you think happened and what really happened are two completely different things?


They are really going to be depressed when they find out that theres not a chance in heck that Jesus looked like a member of the Doobie Brothers


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you guys afraid to research the topics that you do not understand? Is it because you might find out that what you think happened and what really happened are two completely different things?



We’ve went down this road as well. I’ve researched Darwin, his history, and to this day, you and he still don’t know what really happened with surety. I don’t believe Darwin’s theory.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> We’ve went down this road as well. I’ve researched Darwin, his history, and to this day, you and he still don’t know what really happened with surety. I don’t believe Darwin’s theory.



Research modern human DNA and how it can be traced back to Africa. Darwin is not involved.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> They are really going to be depressed when they find out that theres not a chance in heck that Jesus looked like a member of the Doobie Brothers


So true.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Research modern human DNA and how it can be traced back to Africa. Darwin is not involved.


Not true at all. They have dna test's. We are not all traced to be of African decent.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Not true at all. They have dna test's. We are not all traced to be of African decent.



Who is "we"?

Im all ears/eyes. I'll gladly read your link.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Who is "we"?
> 
> Im all ears/eyes. I'll gladly read your link.



We is your DNA. Its not all the same. For goofs try ancestry Dna just to get an Idea. But you know everything so you already know your ancestry?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> We is your DNA. Its not all the same. For goofs try ancestry Dna just to get an Idea. But you know everything so you already know your ancestry?



Have you done a research paper on this or are you guessing? Post s link for me to read if you've gotten your information from somewhere else.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...-trace-back-single-migration-more-50000-years


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> We is your DNA. Its not all the same. For goofs try ancestry Dna just to get an Idea. But you know everything so you already know your ancestry?



Are you saying that you know my dna?


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that you know my dna?



What does outside of Africa mean?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> What does outside of Africa mean?



Ot means you have not traced back far enough.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm



And why should I find this agenda to be creditable? There are many a story?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> And why should I find this agenda to be creditable? There are many a story?



If you took the time to research many modern sources about the matter, you would see that the scientific community that deals in such matters are in agreement.

But since you do not want to do that you can continue on as is, denying human history, in favor of whatever ancient explanations that make sense in your mind solely because that is what you want and need to believe.

But don't go around arguing as if you are well versed on subjects that you have not taken the time to study. If you actually studied them, or had taken 10 minutes to to even a little research, you wouldn't have the opinion or defensive attitude that you have now.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If you took the time to research many modern sources about the matter, you would see that the scientific community that deals in such matters are in agreement.
> 
> But since you do not want to do that you can continue on as is, denying human history, in favor of whatever ancient explanations that make sense in your mind solely because that is what you want and need to believe.
> 
> But don't go around arguing as if you are well versed on subjects that you have not taken the time to study. If you actually studied them, or had taken 10 minutes to to even a little research, you wouldn't have the opinion or defensive attitude that you have now.


If you would take the time to see I don't put a lot of belief in people pushing an agenda.


----------



## KyDawg (Mar 23, 2018)

The thing that I dont understand is why non believers care about what the believers believe. We are not bothering you. If we are just go about your way and lets us go about ours. We just dont choose to believe that all the miracles of life we see each day, is just chance or evolution.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> If you would take the time to see I don't put a lot of belief in people pushing an agenda.



Dna results are what they are Richie.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

KyDawg said:


> The thing that I dont understand is why non believers care about what the believers believe. We are not bothering you. If we are just go about your way and lets us go about ours. We just dont choose to believe that all the miracles of life we see each day, is just chance or evolution.



Nothing wrong with that except when you(believers) come in here and bother us with nothing but claims and assertions that cannot be proved. 

I used to ignore evidence that I didnt like to hear also because it shook what I was taught and wanted to believe to the core. Once I took the time to research every point I disagreed with (for no other reason than blatent ignorance), I found things that I initially did not like, but couldn't prove to be false. The more I researched the less all of the things I once believed held true. I never thought proving what once was my god would be so difficult. 

I am not biased. I go where the evidence and facts lead me. I can sleep well at night knowing that my ancestors once slept in tree branches so they wouldn't be eaten by ground predators. I really don't care what color any of them were or are. I just accept that it was.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2018)

KyDawg said:


> The thing that I dont understand is why non believers care about what the believers believe. We are not bothering you. If we are just go about your way and lets us go about ours. We just dont choose to believe that all the miracles of life we see each day, is just chance or evolution.



You do realize a Christian started this thread? I guess for many of us of either persuasion, it makes for a good discussion. Kinda makes one look at his own beliefs a little deeper. 
Might even learn something about the other group or even something about what you believe as well.

As a Christian looking at the plight of an Atheist in a predominantly Christian country, I try to see what they must be experiencing. I compare this to the Blacks in the Sixties or with women's rights. Perhaps even the rights of homosexuals.
Then to what extent does one grant or have to grant equality to any of these groups? That becomes more political than religious but they do overlap. Especially if we want to use our religion to make those decisions as to who we exclude or accept. 

Add to that individuals of other religions now living in the US, and how does that compare to how we adapt or include Atheist as well.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> You do realize a Christian started this thread. I guess for many of us of either persuasion, it makes for a good discussion. Kinda makes one look at his own beliefs a little deeper.
> Might even learn something about the other group or even something about what you believe as well.
> 
> As a Christian looking at the plight of an Atheist in a predominantly Christian country, I try to see what they must be experiencing. I compare this to the Blacks in the Sixties or with women's rights. Perhaps even the rights of homosexuals.
> ...



Apologist, Atheist and Agnostic are not accurate descriptions for everyone in here or in the USA.

I personally am in the "I just don't know, but go with the available evidence" crowd.

I have not found evidence that any religion has cornered the market on the one true or any true god or gods. I am not convinced that there is an intelligent source "out there" but I just don't know it. In my absolute honest assessment I have to say that I Just Don't  Know.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Really?



Yep


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am not biased.



Bwwaahaahahahahahahaaha! 

haahahahahahahahah!

Not biased?

hahahahaa




I can't believe you would even claim that..  ahahahaahha!


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yep



I was practicing! I’m reading your link.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Bwwaahaahahahahahahaaha!
> 
> haahahahahahahahah!
> 
> ...



Since you base your evidence of me off a few posts instead of all my posts, yeah laugh it up. I have spent the last 28 years trying to reinforce my beliefs of my first 20 years of life. Its not turning out the way I hoped,  and I am fine with that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Apologist, Atheist and Agnostic are not accurate descriptions for everyone in here or in the USA.
> 
> I personally am in the "I just don't know, but go with the available evidence" crowd.
> 
> I have not found evidence that any religion has cornered the market on the one true or any true god or gods. I am not convinced that there is an intelligent source "out there" but I just don't know it. In my absolute honest assessment I have to say that I Just Don't  Know.



Well if Election is true then perhaps you haven't been hardened enough to fall but only stumble. Your eyes can only be opened to the Light by the Light Giver anyway.

Either that or you are on your own.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm



Interesting and I think they may be on to something. Where Noah landed the Ark is not terribly far from Africa. Could there be a possibility???? 

I have to admit when reading these that I struggle with taking them as “facts” when words such as “must have” or “possibly” are used often. One thing that’s important to factor in is the discrepancy between the two “irreconcilable scientific camps”........they still don’t agree. 

A couple of my questions are (and I’m still reading and researching) if the DNA is stable enough for 200,000 years, why are we stopping at this one lady? And how are the gaps filled between Eve and fossils?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Well if Election is true then perhaps you haven't been hardened enough to fall but only stumble. Your eyes can only be opened to the Light by the Light Giver anyway.
> 
> Either that or you are on your own.



There are lots of "ifs" isn't there?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Since you base your evidence of me off a few posts instead of all my posts, yeah laugh it up. I have spent the last 28 years trying to reinforce my beliefs of my first 20 years of life. Its not turning out the way I hoped,  and I am fine with that.



anyone who would claim to be unbiased is either a fool or deceived.

I don't claim to know which you are, but it is hilarious that someone would actually claim they are unbiased, especially on this topic.

You are most assuredly biased on the subject, in that you have preconceived ideas about the subject and those ideas color any evidence that you are presented.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Interesting and I think they may be on to something. Where Noah landed the Ark is not terribly far from Africa. Could there be a possibility????
> 
> I have to admit when reading these that I struggle with taking them as “facts” when words such as “must have” or “possibly” are used often. One thing that’s important to factor in is the discrepancy between the two “irreconcilable scientific camps”........they still don’t agree.
> 
> A couple of my questions are (and I’m still reading and researching) if the DNA is stable enough for 200,000 years, why are we stopping at this one lady? And how are the gaps filled between Eve and fossils?



If you know where Noah landed the Ark, maybe you can solve quite a few things by sharing.

After reading this article, resesrch the questions you have by searching for more articles. Continue that until you you have exhausted all the available sources. Then, like the scientists, go with what is more likely than not and stick with that until more information is found.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> anyone who would claim to be unbiased is either a fool or deceived.
> 
> I don't claim to know which you are, but it is hilarious that someone would actually claim they are unbiased, especially on this topic.
> 
> You are most assuredly biased on the subject, in that you have preconceived ideas about the subject and those ideas color any evidence that you are presented.


A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 23, 2018)

so what is the third option

1.  Fool

2.  Deceived

3.  ????????


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> There are lots of "ifs" isn't there?



For sure, think how many people do believe in God but still won't get to Heaven. God has many enemies that know he exist. Then there is the everyday American that knows God exist. I'm pretty sure that doesn't qualify salvation. Neither does righteous living. The Atheist is only a very very small part of the ones who won't gain salvation. I'd say the biggest group are idol worshipers.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If you know where Noah landed the Ark, maybe you can solve quite a few things by sharing.
> 
> After reading this article, resesrch the questions you have by searching for more articles. Continue that until you you have exhausted all the available sources. Then, like the scientists, go with what is more likely than not and stick with that until more information is found.



My Ararat is my understanding.

 I’m not finished reading, just threw that out there. But it’s a struggle for me to “just go with what is most likely” against something that I have experienced as real.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so what is the third option
> 
> 1.  Fool
> 
> ...



Take the time to compose yourself between hilarious bouts of laughter and figure it out.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 23, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> For sure, think how many people do believe in God but still won't get to Heaven. God has many enemies that know he exist. Then there is the everyday American that knows God exist. I'm pretty sure that doesn't qualify salvation. Neither does righteous living. The Atheist is only a very very small part of the ones who won't gain salvation. I'd say the biggest group are idol worshipers.



I refer to the story of the virgins at the wedding... 1/2 of them had oil and got to the wedding, 1/2 didn't.

the women working... 1/2 were taken, 1/2 left... 

all those examples 1/2 were taken, 1/2 left.

I suspect that will be the fate of people in the church.  no real proof that this is absolute, and I am open to other interpretations.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Take the time to compose yourself between hilarious bouts of laughter and figure it out.



hahahahaaha... 

still laughing at that reply..


I am not biased....  

hahhahahha.   Bawhhaahahahaahaha!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> My Ararat is my understanding.
> 
> I’m not finished reading, just threw that out there. But it’s a struggle for me to “just go with what is most likely” against something that I have experienced as real.



Are you saying Mt Ararat is probably, most likely, or definately beyond a shadow of a doubt the place and backed up by evidence so much so that a team is standing next to the ark now as we speak?

So what regarding DNA have you experienced as real?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> hahahahaaha...
> 
> still laughing at that reply..
> 
> ...



We all have defense mechanisms when in uncomfortable situations. Uncontrollable laughter is certainly one of them.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> For sure, think how many people do believe in God but still won't get to Heaven. God has many enemies that know he exist. Then there is the everyday American that knows God exist. I'm pretty sure that doesn't qualify salvation. Neither does righteous living. The Atheist is only a very very small part of the ones who won't gain salvation. I'd say the biggest group are idol worshipers.


Think about god as you know it being something totally different or not at all.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying Mt Ararat is probably, most likely, or definately beyond a shadow of a doubt the place and backed up by evidence so much so that a team is standing next to the ark now as we speak?
> 
> So what regarding DNA have you experienced as real?



Based on Genesis 8 and the following link, I’m going with most likely until I find more information. As far as DNA, I am able trace my ancestors but not as far back as 200,000 years. But for what I was referring to as “real” are my experiences in my faith.

http://www.newsweek.com/bible-explorers-believe-discovered-noahs-ark-book-genesis-760836


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Based on Genesis 8 and the following link, I’m going with most likely until I find more information. As far as DNA, I am able trace my ancestors but not as far back as 200,000 years. But for what I was referring to as “real” are my experiences in my faith.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/bible-explorers-believe-discovered-noahs-ark-book-genesis-760836



So "most likely" is good enough for you in this case, but when science uses it you find fault with it. Why?
From the article:
"It is too early to know what we are going to find"
Hmm
And you believe that one right?
How long is it going to take these bible explorers to show the world the Ark?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Based on Genesis 8 and the following link, I’m going with most likely until I find more information. As far as DNA, I am able trace my ancestors but not as far back as 200,000 years. But for what I was referring to as “real” are my experiences in my faith.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/bible-explorers-believe-discovered-noahs-ark-book-genesis-760836



Volunteer to be tested further and you can be traced as far back as it goes.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So "most likely" is good enough for you in this case, but when science uses it you find fault with it. Why?
> From the article:
> "It is too early to know what we are going to find"
> Hmm
> ...



Good question. I’m just guessing here so I’m sure I will get it wrong; you haven’t really “experienced” anything that science is saying, you’re strictly relying on them to tell you and you have confidence in it because it is most likely??? 

The reason I have fault with science being most likely is because unlike you, I have experienced salvation and healing and other things scripturally that the Bible tells me. Science “thinks” it knows what I have experienced, but they can’t debunk it with 100% confidence. 

As far as the Ark goes, they may never find it. But I don’t need to see that Ark to reinforce my belief. I went with most likely because scripture says it landed there, they think they found it, and the Eve DNA gets us close to that area. That’s why I asked “is there a possibility” 

Even without the Ark evidence, if DNA gets us close to an area where it landed, to me that’s more likely to be fact than a gaseous explosion. 

I’m not debunking science at all. I just believe that they really don’t know what they’re uncovering just yet.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

And in the Eve article, we are still going with “probably”. At this point, both articles carry the same weight.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And in the Eve article, we are still going with “probably”. At this point, both articles carry the same weight.



One gets to probably by using constantly updated methods for the most accurate testing.
And
The other uses the writings of anonymous authors who lived  thousands of years ago when the earth was flat and spells were used to cure diseases.

Yeah, your source is probably correct.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Good question. I’m just guessing here so I’m sure I will get it wrong; you haven’t really “experienced” anything that science is saying, you’re strictly relying on them to tell you and you have confidence in it because it is most likely???
> 
> The reason I have fault with science being most likely is because unlike you, I have experienced salvation and healing and other things scripturally that the Bible tells me. Science “thinks” it knows what I have experienced, but they can’t debunk it with 100% confidence.
> 
> ...



I go with the preponderance of evidence gathered by people who are way more highly qualified in those fields thsn me.

Have you ever met a god to go along with your experiences?

Dna will get some people close to that area where the biblical myth says it happened (dont forget the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the bible by at least 1000 years) and Dna will get those people and others  beyond that area by hundreds of thousands of years and more way down into Africa.

What DNA has not done is trace all of todays living people to the area of where the Ark is clsimed to be. Dna has gone WAY further than that.

Science knows way more than either of us could pretend to understand.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> One gets to probably by using constantly updated methods for the most accurate testing.
> And
> The other uses the writings of anonymous authors who lived  thousands of years ago when the earth was flat and spells were used to cure diseases.
> 
> Yeah, your source is probably correct.


For me........it’s the most likely. When science can be 100% positive about something, inclusive of Christian and non Christian scientist, we may have a new ball game. 

On the bright side, I’m pulling for the Eve DNA......it may be able to help prove some of my anonymous authors stories. It’s getting us closer to our Great Great Great Great Great x a bunch of times Grandmother than that fossil deal did 

And from what I understand, they plan on letting science use their most updated methods to prove or disprove the location of the Ark.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I go with the preponderance of evidence gathered by people who are way more highly qualified in those fields thsn me.
> 
> Have you ever met a god to go along with your experiences?
> 
> ...



According to the article, a world wide survey is basically saying that all people are traced back to this one woman???

God is a spirit.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> For me........it’s the most likely. When science can be 100% positive about something, inclusive of Christian and non Christian scientist, we may have a new ball game.
> 
> On the bright side, I’m pulling for the Eve DNA......it may be able to help prove some of my anonymous authors stories. It’s getting us closer to our Great Great Great Great Great x a bunch of times Grandmother than that fossil deal did
> 
> And from what I understand, they plan on letting science use their most updated methods to prove or disprove the location of the Ark.


You DO realize that when they refer to Eve dna they are talking abiut mitochondrial Eve dna right?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> According to the article, a world wide survey is basically saying that all people are traced back to this one woman???
> 
> God is a spirit.



Yes to the oldest female human ancestor that we know about so far. Which is hundreds of thousands of years older than the Eve in the bible and more primate like/looking.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> According to the article, a world wide survey is basically saying that all people are traced back to this one woman???
> 
> God is a spirit.



God is a spirit...?
Your concept of a god puts it in spirit form.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Science knows way more than either of us could pretend to understand.



I would agree with this. They’re very intelligent, some are educated beyond their intelligence. 

But what I’m saying is I think they’re uncovering stuff beyond their understanding and experience, otherwise, we would be well beyond “most likely”. I’m sure we will get there, just not there yet.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You DO realize that when they refer to Eve dna they are talking abiut mitochondrial Eve dna right?



Absolutely


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yes to the oldest female human ancestor that we know about so far. Which is hundreds of thousands of years older than the Eve in the bible and more primate like/looking.



They’ll get the timing down soon. They may be stretching it at 200,000 years. Some scientists were hoping for a million. They may even have to revisit their view of the earths erosion rate compared to how old they claim it is. Who knows.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> God is a spirit...?
> Your concept of a god puts it in spirit form.



The God I serve is a spirit. Not sure about others and their gods.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Interesting and I think they may be on to something. Where Noah landed the Ark is not terribly far from Africa. Could there be a possibility????
> 
> I have to admit when reading these that I struggle with taking them as “facts” when words such as “must have” or “possibly” are used often. One thing that’s important to factor in is the discrepancy between the two “irreconcilable scientific camps”........they still don’t agree.
> 
> A couple of my questions are (and I’m still reading and researching) if the DNA is stable enough for 200,000 years, why are we stopping at this one lady? And how are the gaps filled between Eve and fossils?





> I have to admit when reading these that I struggle with taking them as “facts” when words such as “must have” or “possibly” are used often.


While you have a legitimate point let me ask this -
If you were driving down the road and all of a sudden you hear flop flop flop, one corner of the car dips down and the steering gets all funky would you struggle with -
"I must have a flat tire, possibly ran over a nail"?
Or based on knowledge, experience and the evidence, without knowing yet for sure 100%, do you figure that's on the right track?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> hahahahaaha...
> 
> still laughing at that reply..
> 
> ...


If bias on a subject is based on the available facts and information about that subject is it bias or an informed opinion?
The Bible says a donkey talked. Like Mr. Ed talked.
The Atheist says the donkey didn't talk because donkeys don't posses the physical capabilities required to talk.
Is the Atheist biased against the Bible or is the Atheist just using the available FACTS and information?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> My Ararat is my understanding.
> 
> I’m not finished reading, just threw that out there. But it’s a struggle for me to “just go with what is most likely”
> 
> ...


The fear a kid feels about monsters under the bed is "real"....
The comfort some people get from their lucky rabbits foot is "real"....
The experience is real to us. 
What we attribute that experience to is not always "real".


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 24, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you feel that the higher power has a consciousness? Does it intervene in our lives?



I have no idea. I would lean much more towards the no interference side, though. If I was a higher power, why would I care about NCHillbilly or what he does? 



Miguel Cervantes said:


> If evolution is real, why do we still have monkeys?



The monkeys are still constantly evolving. Current species will turn into others with time. I read a few years ago where one batch of chimps had figured out how to construct spears and hunt with them. Be afraid. 



WaltL1 said:


> They are really going to be depressed when they find out that theres not a chance in heck that Jesus looked like a member of the Doobie Brothers



Wouldn't this one have been more appropriate?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree with this. They’re very intelligent, some are educated beyond their intelligence.
> 
> But what I’m saying is I think they’re uncovering stuff beyond their understanding and experience, otherwise, we would be well beyond “most likely”. I’m sure we will get there, just not there yet.


Then you do not understand science well at all. Science always leaves room to change their answer based off of new evidence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> I have no idea. I would lean much more towards the no interference side, though. If I was a higher power, why would I care about NCHillbilly or what he does?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kind of supports the "God didn't make us in his image, we made God in our image" theory


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> While you have a legitimate point let me ask this -
> If you were driving down the road and all of a sudden you hear flop flop flop, one corner of the car dips down and the steering gets all funky would you struggle with -
> "I must have a flat tire, possibly ran over a nail"?
> Or based on knowledge, experience and the evidence, without knowing yet for sure 100%, do you figure that's on the right track?


Yes but I still can’t prove what it wasn’t or what it was. I can only assume.


bullethead said:


> Then you do not understand science well at all. Science always leaves room to change their answer based off of new evidence.


 We refer to that as making it up as you go. 



WaltL1 said:


> The fear a kid feels about monsters under the bed is "real"....
> The comfort some people get from their lucky rabbits foot is "real"....
> The experience is real to us.
> What we attribute that experience to is not always "real".


True, but until we prove that the monster is not under the bed............it’s real to them.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> We refer to that as making it up as you go.



I know you do and that is why you labeling it as that and what is really takes for them to get to a point where they say" this is the most likely scenario" is so far off. 
You do not have even a simple understanding of how the scientific theory works. If you did you could not relate it to your every day sayings.

You are better off to stop pretending that you are capable of continuing on talking about the way science operates when you clearly do not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yes but I still can’t prove what it wasn’t or what it was. I can only assume.
> We refer to that as making it up as you go.
> 
> 
> True, but until we prove that the monster is not under the bed............it’s real to them.





> Yes but I still can’t prove what it wasn’t or what it was. I can only assume.
> We refer to that as making it up as you go.


Making it up as you go?
The car dipped in one corner. You have now isolated the problem to that corner and front or back.
The steering got all funky. Now you know what corner, front or back and something that would affect the steering.
Now you hear flop fop flop.
So what would be in the corner of the car that would affect the steering and make a flop flop flop sound?
Based on all that evidence, flat tire seems pretty reasonable.
You don't know 100% until you look but you didn't just "make it up as you go". You followed the evidence that narrowed the possibilities down to a very educated "probably".

I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
I'm just telling you that you are mentally fighting against it tooth and nail because of the subject matter.
You use that same scientific process probably every day of your life in one way or another and feel just fine about it and trust its accuracy.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I know you do and that is why you labeling it as that and what is really takes for them to get to a point where they say" this is the most likely scenario" is so far off.
> You do not have even a simple understanding of how the scientific theory works. If you did you could not relate it to your every day sayings.
> 
> You are better off to stop pretending that you are capable of continuing on talking about the way science operates when you clearly do not.



Let’s just rest this conversation before it turns into a 3 ring circus.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Making it up as you go?
> The car dipped in one corner. You have now isolated the problem to that corner and front or back.
> The steering got all funky. Now you know what corner, front or back and something that would affect the steering.
> Now you hear flop fop flop.
> ...



I fully understand how the probably gets to where it gets. All I’m saying is science can’t expect me to jump on board if they can’t prove with 100% confidence that what I have doesn’t exist. 

Some say they’re not biased, I am. I have to lean toward what I feel is right and believe that.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Mar 24, 2018)

"How is teaching evolution NOT state sponsored athiesism?"

Because an honest reading of the Bible, seeking the real meaning of the text in the original languages, reveals that God's Word and the results of scientific exploration are NOT in conflict.  We still do not know how God created - the Bible does not explain the "how" simply asserting the what - and science still doesn't know how creation worked, just theories and ideas.

Evolution is a THEORY and honest teachers make that point clear.  The evidence is pretty strong for some form of evolutionary process, but it still is not clear to science how God did it!  Atheists need not be "believers" in evolution to deny God.  Christians need not deny the evidence that supports a theory of evolution to believe in the truth of the Bible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I fully understand how the probably gets to where it gets. All I’m saying is science can’t expect me to jump on board if they can’t prove with 100% confidence that what I have doesn’t exist.
> 
> Some say they’re not biased, I am. I have to lean toward what I feel is right and believe that.


To borrow a phrase -
Oh Good Lord!!! 
You want science to prove that the thing that you cant prove exists, doesn't exist. Until then, it exists.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> To borrow a phrase -
> Oh Good Lord!!!
> You want science to prove that the thing that you cant prove exists, doesn't exist. Until then, it exists.



Well............isnt it only fair

No they don't have to actually prove that God does not exist, what they have to prove is that there is no way possible that we got here without God.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

GeorgiaBob said:


> "How is teaching evolution NOT state sponsored athiesism?"
> 
> Because an honest reading of the Bible, seeking the real meaning of the text in the original languages, reveals that God's Word and the results of scientific exploration are NOT in conflict.  We still do not know how God created - the Bible does not explain the "how" simply asserting the what - and science still doesn't know how creation worked, just theories and ideas.
> 
> Evolution is a THEORY and honest teachers make that point clear.  The evidence is pretty strong for some form of evolutionary process, but it still is not clear to science how God did it!  Atheists need not be "believers" in evolution to deny God.  Christians need not deny the evidence that supports a theory of evolution to believe in the truth of the Bible.


Can you post the definition of Scientific Theory?


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Mar 24, 2018)

Scientific Theory:  a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.

What is the problem Bullethead?  Did you lose your dictionary?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Well............isnt it only fair
> 
> No they don't have to actually prove that God does not exist, what they have to prove is that there is no way possible that we got here without God.


Which God?

You see with thousands and thousands of Gods that are worshipped by millions of people who all claim their god is responsible for us being here and ALL of them having the same evidence as the next....there is no god to single out to give credit to.
The way science is advancing I doubt we will see an answer in our lifetime, but compared to taking thousands or hundreds of years for advancements in understandings, we may know for sure who,what, how, when we got here in decades.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

GeorgiaBob said:


> Scientific Theory:  a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.
> 
> What is the problem Bullethead?  Did you lose your dictionary?



I didn't know if you did not know  the answer and your reply was a guess OR if you knew the answer and continue on with ignorance.

THEORY, in Scientic terms is not a guess. It is REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION and OBSERVATION.

It is taught because the answers are repeatedly confirmed. Any teacher that claims it is just a theory as in a guess is not honest and should resign.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Well............isnt it only fair
> 
> No they don't have to actually prove that God does not exist, what they have to prove is that there is no way possible that we got here without God.


I think you realize the safe little cocoon  of denial you have built for yourself.
Break through that cocoon and be the free little butterfly that you can be


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you realize the safe little cocoon  of denial you have built for yourself.
> Break through that cocoon and be the free little butterfly that you can be



Lol I’m just fine where I’m at


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Which God?
> 
> You see with thousands and thousands of Gods that are worshipped by millions of people who all claim their god is responsible for us being here and ALL of them having the same evidence as the next....there is no god to single out to give credit to.
> The way science is advancing I doubt we will see an answer in our lifetime, but compared to taking thousands or hundreds of years for advancements in understandings, we may know for sure who,what, how, when we got here in decades.



One thing that we can definitely agree on.......we are certainly going to find out one day. And BTW, I continue to read and research but it only reinforces my faith in what I believe. Who knows what we will all find out one day.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> One thing that we can definitely agree on.......we are certainly going to find out one day. And BTW, I continue to read and research but it only reinforces my faith in what I believe. Who knows what we will all find out one day.


I dont think we can agree on that. If at death all life truly ceases. We won't know anything at all nor ever.


----------



## Israel (Mar 25, 2018)

If faith were only "God is the most likely explanation" then faith rests little beyond (but actually in precise proximity to) _man's science_

But, I am persuaded...it is not..._that_. Not that...at all.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 26, 2018)

Anyone in here ever had open heart surgery? How long did your recovery take if so?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 26, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Anyone in here ever had open heart surgery? How long did your recovery take if so?



I dated a girl once that had open heart surgery. She also had two separate knee surgeries. She said she would gladly go through open heart surgery before she would do another knee surgery. 

What's your point?


----------



## j_seph (Mar 26, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I dated a girl once that had open heart surgery. She also had two separate knee surgeries. She said she would gladly go through open heart surgery before she would do another knee surgery.
> 
> What's your point?


Just curious, we had a group came last night for a singing. He had open heart surgery, 11% heart function. Performed like there was no tomorrow and is only 8 weeks post surgery. Doctors told him he'd be down for 6 months.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 26, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Just curious, we had a group came last night for a singing. He had open heart surgery, 11% heart function. Performed like there was no tomorrow and is only 8 weeks post surgery. Doctors told him he'd be down for 6 months.



The most likely meant for streanuous activity, not lung capacity and greatly improved blood flow, ie. blood / oxygen saturation improvement.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 26, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Just curious, we had a group came last night for a singing. He had open heart surgery, 11% heart function. Performed like there was no tomorrow and is only 8 weeks post surgery. Doctors told him he'd be down for 6 months.


It wasn't a miracle, just normal.
Lots of info out there on heart surgery recovery times.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Just curious, we had a group came last night for a singing. He had open heart surgery, 11% heart function. Performed like there was no tomorrow and is only 8 weeks post surgery. Doctors told him he'd be down for 6 months.



Blood flow is instant after surgery. He will immediately feel better and have more energy. 
Id bet he isnt cleared to shovel 2 ton of stone onto the driveway. Thats at least 6 months.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Mar 26, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If evolution is real, why do we still have monkeys?



I know you are trolling, but I'll take the bait: because once a new species of primate comes along it doesn't mean the other species have to vacate the premises. Different species fill different niches. There is still a need for monkeys and monkeys are a successful species so everybody wins. I'm betting the earth gets rid of humans long before it gets rid of monkeys!  Also monkeys (like bears) look cute riding tiny tricycles - humans just look silly. Darwin died before he could explore that theory further.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 26, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> I know you are trolling, but I'll take the bait: because once a new species of primate comes along it doesn't mean the other species have to vacate the premises. Different species fill different niches. There is still a need for monkeys and monkeys are a successful species so everybody wins. I'm betting the earth gets rid of humans long before it gets rid of monkeys!  Also monkeys (like bears) look cute riding tiny tricycles - humans just look silly. Darwin died before he could explore that theory further.


I guess this may be a trolling question  But curiosity is making me ask; since we know that DNA can go back at least 200,000 years now.........what’s the chances of me having some monkey looking grandkids??


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I guess this may be a trolling question  But curiosity is making me ask; since we know that DNA can go back at least 200,000 years now.........what’s the chances of me having some monkey looking grandkids??



We did not come from monkeys. Monkeys did not come from us. We both are descendants of another primate that came before both.
Honest to gawd, this can be found in less than ten seconds so yes you are right, it is a trolling question.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2018)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossils-indicate-common-ancestor-old-world-monkeys-apes/


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 26, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Evolution by definition assumes atheistic  presuppositions and assumptions?
> 
> Evolution is taught in every state sponsored public school.
> 
> ...



I'm late to the ball-game. I'm sure someone's mentioned this. Imma go ahead anyway.

I don't take it as fact that evolutionary ideas are completely opposed to faith in God and the story of Creation. It may seem that way on the surface, but I'm not sold.

That state is favoring something that's possible for everyone (people/industry/business) to understand and use. Our society hasn't been designed to deal with metaphysical things (christianity) in an impersonal, broad way. If you and I believe in the same thing (I think we do) I prefer it this way.

I'm not even sold on the idea of mentioning intelligent design in the classroom. Simply say it appears the complex systems in place seem to have come from those of lesser complexity. Leave deeper questions for other classes.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> We did not come from monkeys. Monkeys did not come from us. We both are descendants of another primate that came before both.
> Honest to gawd, this can be found in less than ten seconds so yes you are right, it is a trolling question.


So are you saying that a Sasquatch hooked up with a Yeti and eventually we got some monkeys and some humans out of the litter?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> We did not come from monkeys. Monkeys did not come from us. We both are descendants of another primate that came before both.
> Honest to gawd, this can be found in less than ten seconds so yes you are right, it is a trolling question.



”IF” we keep evolving..........and the monkey and us split off from the  primate........you’d think that the “Eve” DNA that lives on could be traced..........

 I know the research is there, but there’s tons of research that both support, deny and contradict one another so.....


They claim they can get us back to one woman 200,000 years ago, be interesting to see if they can trace the monkey / ape / baboon, etc. back 200,000 years and see what happens in relation to that one woman.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So are you saying that a Sasquatch hooked up with a Yeti and eventually we got some monkeys and some humans out of the litter?



If that is how it needs to be put(and I can go buy some crayons if necessary) for you to understand it....then yes j_seph. Now go run along and play.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> ”IF” we keep evolving..........and the monkey and us split off from the  primate........you’d think that the “Eve” DNA that lives on could be traced..........
> 
> I know the research is there, but there’s tons of research that both support, deny and contradict one another so.....
> 
> ...



Possibly some day


----------



## Israel (Mar 26, 2018)

I think the evolution of public education is a _reasonable_ proof of entropy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 27, 2018)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm late to the ball-game. I'm sure someone's mentioned this. Imma go ahead anyway.
> 
> I don't take it as fact that evolutionary ideas are completely opposed to faith in God and the story of Creation. It may seem that way on the surface, but I'm not sold.
> 
> ...





> That state is favoring something that's possible for everyone (people/industry/business) to understand and use.


Actually, "God put us here" is about as easy as it gets.
What the state is favoring is an actual scientific theory that is based on the available evidence.
Its not favored because "everybody can get it".


----------



## oldfella1962 (Mar 27, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I guess this may be a trolling question  But curiosity is making me ask; since we know that DNA can go back at least 200,000 years now.........what’s the chances of me having some monkey looking grandkids??



in theory any of us can have monkey looking grandkids. My grand daughter certainly acts like one! 

in my best estimation her DNA contains varying percentages of wolverine, monkey, cheetah, and the Energizer Bunny.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually, "God put us here" is about as easy as it gets.
> What the state is favoring is an actual scientific theory that is based on the available evidence.
> Its not favored because "everybody can get it".



We've said the same thing, though you said it rather better . Our society is a result of enlightenment thought. Scientific thinking is as well. It's only natural that this affects all of our lives. 

Scientific theory can be used in industry. Unless you're selling snake oil, religious experience cannot.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2018)

EverGreen1231 said:


> We've said the same thing, though you said it rather better . Our society is a result of enlightenment thought. Scientific thinking is as well. It's only natural that this affects all of our lives.
> 
> Scientific theory can be used in industry. Unless you're selling snake oil, religious experience cannot.



That sounds like an interesting experiment.  Lets try to apply the lessons of religious experience to any problem we face.  How about energy?  How about income inequality? How about deer baiting?

What's a question that can only be answered by religious experience?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That sounds like an interesting experiment.  Lets try to apply the lessons of religious experience to any problem we face.  How about energy?  How about income inequality? How about deer baiting?
> 
> What's a question that can only be answered by religious experience?



Scientific questions get scientific answers. Religious questions get religious answers.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2018)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Scientific questions get scientific answers. Religious questions get religious answers.



What's a religious question that's answered only by religion?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 27, 2018)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Scientific questions get scientific answers. Religious questions get religious answers.



What would you call Anthropology?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 28, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> What would you call Anthropology?


science.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> What would you call Anthropology?





EverGreen1231 said:


> science.



Soft science.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 28, 2018)

EverGreen1231 said:


> science.



And what is the field of study in that science?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 29, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And what is the field of study in that science?



Just make your point already. This is tedious.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 29, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What's a religious question that's answered only by religion?



The presence of an afterlife and one's place in it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2018)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The presence of an afterlife and one's place in it.



Pffffffffft...

I can make up a story just as good as any from antiquity and it will be as impervious to rational investigation, too.


----------



## Israel (Mar 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Pffffffffft...
> 
> I can make up a story just as good as any from antiquity and it will be as impervious to rational investigation, too.



Speak a thing, and its substance is tested.

The rational investigation for truth...is truth. Truth is _the reason_ for truth.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Pffffffffft...
> 
> I can make up a story just as good as any from antiquity and it will be as impervious to rational investigation, too.



you bring up a good point here: one of the main claims for the bible being true is nobody can disprove it, even the hard to swallow stories. But when you really think about it, outrageously embellished stories and scientifically illogical claims actually work in the favor of never being able to disprove the bible while at the same time proving that the believers faith is strong. 

If I was starting a new religion and one of my god's supernatural events was raining $20 bills on my property five years ago when I needed gas money for my truck, it wouldn't fill seats. Nobody can prove or disprove that it happened, but it doesn't take much faith to believe that it's possible. 

If I said it rained $20 bills for ten days straight anyone who believed it would have to have very strong faith & loyalty to follow me or my supernatural being that can perform such a miracle. 

That's why nobody believing that the bible is 100 percent literally true needs to rationalize or re-interpret or otherwise jump through hoops to convince non-believers.
There will never be absolute proof if something never happened to begin with. Nobody can disprove that an elk tore up my garden even though I don't live 
in elk country (one of my other claims in my new religion). All the tracks & scat are washed away - but something big chewed up a lot of food. My believers who are trying to recruit new members might try to explain it as being physically possible because an elk could have escaped from a wildlife refuge or zoo. They can't prove that of course, but it doesn't matter because they are cementing their faith just by believing it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> you bring up a good point here: one of the main claims for the bible being true is nobody can disprove it, even the hard to swallow stories. But when you really think about it, outrageously embellished stories and scientifically illogical claims actually work in the favor of never being able to disprove the bible while at the same time proving that the believers faith is strong.
> 
> If I was starting a new religion and one of my god's supernatural events was raining $20 bills on my property five years ago when I needed gas money for my truck, it wouldn't fill seats. Nobody can prove or disprove that it happened, but it doesn't take much faith to believe that it's possible.
> 
> ...



That's a good observation of an interesting phenomena.  Often times people will believe a big lie rather than a small one.  As you also point out, it's particularly useful in the case of religion because the believer can demonstrate the strength of their belief by how big a lie they are willing to defend. 

When Jefferson took out the parts of the Bible that he found undefensible by reason the book became much trimmer.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 2, 2018)

We believe you guys when you say God's Spirit does not live in you.
So, by the same token, why don't you believe us when we say He does live within us?

(could the answer be that it takes the Spirit to believe the Spirit?)


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 2, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> you bring up a good point here: one of the main claims for the bible being true is nobody can disprove it, even the hard to swallow stories. But when you really think about it, outrageously embellished stories and scientifically illogical claims actually work in the favor of never being able to disprove the bible while at the same time proving that the believers faith is strong.
> 
> If I was starting a new religion and one of my god's supernatural events was raining $20 bills on my property five years ago when I needed gas money for my truck, it wouldn't fill seats. Nobody can prove or disprove that it happened, but it doesn't take much faith to believe that it's possible.
> 
> ...



Why would the Dead Sea Scrolls be any less credible than Hieroglyphics? Both are writings, and both have been vetted by scientist as authentic writings. Both Archeologists and Anthropologist find them useful and accountable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 2, 2018)

welderguy said:


> We believe you guys when you say God's Spirit does not live in you.
> So, by the same token, why don't you believe us when we say He does live within us?
> 
> (could the answer be that it takes the Spirit to believe the Spirit?)





> So, by the same token, why don't you believe us when we say He does live within us?


Uhhhhh..... cuz we don't believe there is actually a "He"?
I can agree that "God's spirit" lives inside you if you are talking about the_ idea or belief_ in a g(G)od and the whole story that goes along with it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2018)

welderguy said:


> We believe you guys when you say God's Spirit does not live in you.
> So, by the same token, why don't you believe us when we say He does live within us?
> 
> (could the answer be that it takes the Spirit to believe the Spirit?)




I think you might have a 7 snake headed, blue demi-god living in you.  I think you should get it looked at.  Prove me wrong.

See how easy it is to make an unfalsifiable claim about spirits?

No, I mean it. I think you should see someone.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I think you might have a 7 snake headed, blue demi-god living in you.  I think you should get it looked at.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> See how easy it is to make an unfalsifiable claim about spirits?
> 
> No, I mean it. I think you should see someone.



So, are you saying you do believe in a spirit world?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2018)

welderguy said:


> So, are you saying you do believe in a spirit world?




Only this one. The REAL one.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Only this one. The REAL one.



What would your hero Sam Harris have to say about that?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2018)

welderguy said:


> What would your hero Sam Harris have to say about that?



Probably something heroic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 3, 2018)

> Originally Posted by welderguy
> What would your hero Sam Harris have to say about that?





ambush80 said:


> Probably something heroic.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 3, 2018)

IMO teaching evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Evolution is something kids from all religions (or no religion) can learn or at least be exposed to just like any scientific theory. What are the other options - ignore evolution entirely? Or perhaps teach biblical creation - but not all religions accept this and certainly an atheist kid wouldn't. 

Side note the bible says in genesis that mankind & animals were given everything that grows to eat, and man & beast were created on the sixth day. That to me means we were all meant to be vegetarians and live peacefully until Adam & Eve messed up. Humans can handle being strictly vegetarians but tigers, mongoose, and wolverines for example would starve. Yes, many predatory creatures eat some vegetation to supplement their diet but a mouthful of sharp teeth designed for tearing and cutting and grasping moving prey and forward facing eyes for binocular vision to accurately estimate distance to prey and (generally) fast reflexes/reactions doesn't exactly scream out vegetarian to me. It doesn't take these attributes to sneak up on a plant. 

Luckily for the tigers the vegetarian thing didn't last too long and they could kill critters like they were designed for. If Adam & Eve hadn't got the ball rolling on "kill or be killed" they would have had a rough life as vegetarians. Not to mention all the vegetarian critters eating themselves out of house & home with no predators - with no food chain to speak of. 

We may not understand everything about evolution (and never will) but the plot holes in biblical creation have zero educational benefit to anyone over the age of seven or eight years old.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 3, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> Evolution is something kids from all religions (or no religion) can learn or at least be exposed to just like any scientific theory.



The Elephant in the room right there. 

Theory, even scientific, is not fact.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The Elephant in the room right there.
> 
> Theory, even scientific, is not fact.



So religiously speaking, what is fact?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 3, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So religiously speaking, what is fact?



Truth


----------



## j_seph (Apr 3, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> IMO teaching evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Evolution is something kids from all religions (or no religion) can learn or at least be exposed to just like any scientific theory. What are the other options - ignore evolution entirely? Or perhaps teach biblical creation - but not all religions accept this and certainly an atheist kid wouldn't.
> 
> Side note the bible says in genesis that mankind & animals were given everything that grows to eat, and man & beast were created on the sixth day. That to me means we were all meant to be vegetarians and live peacefully until Adam & Eve messed up. Humans can handle being strictly vegetarians but tigers, mongoose, and wolverines for example would starve. Yes, many predatory creatures eat some vegetation to supplement their diet but a mouthful of sharp teeth designed for tearing and cutting and grasping moving prey and forward facing eyes for binocular vision to accurately estimate distance to prey and (generally) fast reflexes/reactions doesn't exactly scream out vegetarian to me. It doesn't take these attributes to sneak up on a plant.
> 
> ...


I have seen our cat and our dog eat grass, maybe they are in Devolution.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Truth



Notice how I asked Miguel because he is capable of going into detail that back up his answers.

I know how your circular explanations and reasoning goes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 3, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The Elephant in the room right there.
> 
> Theory, even scientific, is not fact.


I couldn't help but giggle at this one.
Its kinda funny that its the scientific theory that would be classified as the "elephant in the room".
God, talking donkeys, humans into pillars of salt, staffs turning into snakes, ladders to heaven, fiery places of eternal torment......
and its the scientific theory that's the elephant...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I couldn't help but giggle at this one.
> Its kinda funny that its the scientific theory that would be classified as the "elephant in the room".
> God, talking donkeys, humans into pillars of salt, staffs turning into snakes, ladders to heaven, fiery places of eternal torment......
> and its the scientific theory that's the elephant...



Great point.  That is funny, isn't it?


----------



## ky55 (Apr 3, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I couldn't help but giggle at this one.
> Its kinda funny that its the scientific theory that would be classified as the "elephant in the room".
> God, talking donkeys, humans into pillars of salt, staffs turning into snakes, ladders to heaven, fiery places of eternal torment......
> and its the scientific theory that's the elephant...




.....strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 3, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So religiously speaking, what is fact?



Who said anything about religion?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Who said anything about religion?



I did while asking you


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 3, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I did while asking you



Wow. Orville Redenbacher must be making a fortune off of this insightful  discussion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 3, 2018)

ky55 said:


> .....strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel?


I had to think about that one for a second.... but yes exactly


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 3, 2018)

The walls of Jericho, The shroud of Turin, The Dead Sea Scrolls, I could go on. There is just as much evidence, and more so, as they have found for evolution. But apparently some are offended by this belief. I guess that is my biggest question. Why are you offended by my beliefs to the point you don't want Christianity spoke or taught in school, but the theory of evolution is ok? Why does GOD bless America offend you? Why does the Pledge offend you? Why does in God we trust offend you? Why does a public display of Christmas or Easter in a school offend you? Why would teaching the belief of Christianity offend you?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Probably something heroic.



I'm dying to hear it. So go ahead and "regurgitate" it. (borrowed that from Walt)


----------



## welderguy (Apr 3, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Notice how I asked Miguel because he is capable of going into detail that back up his answers.
> 
> I know how your circular explanations and reasoning goes.



Sorry I'm not in your little click.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> The walls of Jericho, The shroud of Turin, The Dead Sea Scrolls, I could go on. There is just as much evidence, and more so, as they have found for evolution. But apparently some are offended by this belief. I guess that is my biggest question. Why are you offended by my beliefs to the point you don't want Christianity spoke or taught in school, but the theory of evolution is ok? Why does GOD bless America offend you? Why does the Pledge offend you? Why does in God we trust offend you? Why does a public display of Christmas or Easter in a school offend you? Why would teaching the belief of Christianity offend you?



Who specifically is your post directed to?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Sorry I'm not in your little click.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> The walls of Jericho, The shroud of Turin, The Dead Sea Scrolls, I could go on. There is just as much evidence, and more so, as they have found for evolution. But apparently some are offended by this belief. I guess that is my biggest question. Why are you offended by my beliefs to the point you don't want Christianity spoke or taught in school, but the theory of evolution is ok? Why does GOD bless America offend you? Why does the Pledge offend you? Why does in God we trust offend you? Why does a public display of Christmas or Easter in a school offend you? Why would teaching the belief of Christianity offend you?





> There is just as much evidence, and more so, as they have found for evolution.


Richie in your opinion, what exactly do you believe an ancient wall, a completely controversial piece of textile and ancient Jewish writings is evidence of?
And in your opinion, what is a skeleton of a bird/reptile mix evidence of?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I did while asking you


Why would I care?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 4, 2018)

welderguy said:


> I'm dying to hear it. So go ahead and "regurgitate" it. (borrowed that from Walt)



I'm not allowed to repeat His words.  It's heresy.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 4, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'm not allowed to repeat His words.  It's heresy.



AMEN

finally something we agree on!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Why would I care?



I thought your opinion on religion would have added to the conversation since you cared enough to share your opinion on Scientific Theory. Take care.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> The walls of Jericho, The shroud of Turin, The Dead Sea Scrolls, I could go on. There is just as much evidence, and more so, as they have found for evolution. But apparently some are offended by this belief. I guess that is my biggest question. Why are you offended by my beliefs to the point you don't want Christianity spoke or taught in school, but the theory of evolution is ok? Why does GOD bless America offend you? Why does the Pledge offend you? Why does in God we trust offend you? Why does a public display of Christmas or Easter in a school offend you? Why would teaching the belief of Christianity offend you?



I'm personally not offended but if we teach bible history we have to teach all religious history. Evolution is not specific to any one religion.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Why does GOD bless America offend you?



It doesn't. Just seems a little selfish for a God that created the world. Why not, "God bless Earth"? or "God bless everything"?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 4, 2018)

welderguy said:


> AMEN
> 
> finally something we agree on!



By "His words" I meant Sam Harris'.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Who specifically is your post directed to?



Its not directed to anyone specifically. Just a general question to any aaa that cares to respond. My point is I was taught the theory of evolution as well as creation in school. We use to pray before games it was no big deal. Nobody complained about it. Whats wrong with little kids making construction paper bunny ear hats and Easter baskets we use to get eggs and candy at school. During Christmas Santa visited the school and handed out candy canes. It was called Christmas break because that's what it is. Nobody made a big deal about it or tried to stop it. Now we have all these law suits and people trying to stop it hiding behind separation of church and state. We use to have the ten commandments displayed in the courthouse but people were offended by that too. People were offended when President Trump wished everyone Happy Easter and Passover. People want in God we trust off money. I don't think it has anything to do with separation of church and state. I think non believers are offend by it and I was just wondering what exactly is so offensive.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm personally not offended but if we teach bible history we have to teach all religious history. Evolution is not specific to any one religion.



oldfella, I wouldn't have a problem with them learning of other beliefs either. But to only teach evolution because people are hiding behind the separation of church and state to push an agenda is not right.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> oldfella, I wouldn't have a problem with them learning of other beliefs either. But to only teach evolution because people are hiding behind the separation of church and state to push an agenda is not right.



So, do you really think that church and state should not be separated? Do you think that the Ten Commandments should be considered in the courtroom instead of the law of the land and the Constitution that doesn't always follow them? Do you want a theocracy? What if the Muslims become the majority in this country and elected most of the officials? Would you like to be judged in court according to the Quran?

Should schoolteachers teach that snakes can talk, and such?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Its not directed to anyone specifically. Just a general question to any aaa that cares to respond. My point is I was taught the theory of evolution as well as creation in school. We use to pray before games it was no big deal. Nobody complained about it. Whats wrong with little kids making construction paper bunny ear hats and Easter baskets we use to get eggs and candy at school. During Christmas Santa visited the school and handed out candy canes. It was called Christmas break because that's what it is. Nobody made a big deal about it or tried to stop it. Now we have all these law suits and people trying to stop it hiding behind separation of church and state. We use to have the ten commandments displayed in the courthouse but people were offended by that too. People were offended when President Trump wished everyone Happy Easter and Passover. People want in God we trust off money. I don't think it has anything to do with separation of church and state. I think non believers are offend by it and I was just wondering what exactly is so offensive.





> hiding behind separation of church and state.


One might view it as "hiding behind" the separation of church and state.
Another might view it as "supporting" the separation of church and state.
Why are you offended by people who support the separation of church and state?


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> So, do you really think that church and state should not be separated? Do you think that the Ten Commandments should be considered in the courtroom instead of the law of the land and the Constitution that doesn't always follow them? Do you want a theocracy? What if the Muslims become the majority in this country and elected most of the officials? Would you like to be judged in court according to the Quran?
> 
> Should schoolteachers teach that snakes can talk, and such?


That's not my point at all. The ten commandments were the law well before a constitution existed. To have an example of early law in a courthouse seems quite appropriate. Its symbolic and traditional to the United States not to the middle east. If I moved there I would expect for their beliefs and traditions to be prevalent. We teach American History because we are in America. So lets give the true American history that is based heavily in Christian beliefs.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> One might view it as "hiding behind" the separation of church and state.
> Another might view it as "supporting" the separation of church and state.
> Why are you offended by people who support the separation of church and state?



I'm not. Its their right to do so. Why did you answer a question with a question? Perhaps you are offended by Christian beliefs and them wanting creation to be taught in school as an alternative to evolution?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I thought your opinion on religion would have added to the conversation since you cared enough to share your opinion on Scientific Theory. Take care.



Theory and Theology are closely derived from the same word and follow many parallel paths. I don't know that there is any thought of mine to contribute to the subject that would make a difference. 

William Young did a dissertation on "Theory and Theology" in 1968. Interesting read.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> That's not my point at all. The ten commandments were the law well before a constitution existed. To have an example of early law in a courthouse seems quite appropriate. Its symbolic and traditional to the United States not to the middle east. If I moved there I would expect for their beliefs and traditions to be prevalent. We teach American History because we are in America. So lets give the true American history that is based heavily in Christian beliefs.


I dont think you realize that "we" white faces are not TRUE Americans. Your true american christians made sure to kill all non christian Native Americans and take their land, rape their women and butcher their children. Once they surrendered "we" purposely broke whatever agreement we had with them,  gave them spoiled food and blankets laced with small pox and other diseases for which they had no immune systems to fight it off.
You better learn history before you think that you know anything about history.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I'm not. Its their right to do so. Why did you answer a question with a question? Perhaps you are offended by Christian beliefs and them wanting creation to be taught in school as an alternative to evolution?



There would not be enough time in the day in any public school, court house or public building to honor all the prayers or rituals to suit everybody. That is why they do not honor one or all.

I doubt you'd  be thrilled if your children came home and told you that they stopped their studies, rolled out a prayer mat, faced east and said a little something to Allah.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Its not directed to anyone specifically. Just a general question to any aaa that cares to respond. My point is I was taught the theory of evolution as well as creation in school. We use to pray before games it was no big deal. Nobody complained about it. Whats wrong with little kids making construction paper bunny ear hats and Easter baskets we use to get eggs and candy at school. During Christmas Santa visited the school and handed out candy canes. It was called Christmas break because that's what it is. Nobody made a big deal about it or tried to stop it. Now we have all these law suits and people trying to stop it hiding behind separation of church and state. We use to have the ten commandments displayed in the courthouse but people were offended by that too. People were offended when President Trump wished everyone Happy Easter and Passover. People want in God we trust off money. I don't think it has anything to do with separation of church and state. I think non believers are offend by it and I was just wondering what exactly is so offensive.



You seem offended that it's not included just as much as the people who are offended that it is.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I dont think you realize that "we" white faces are not TRUE Americans. Your true american christians made sure to kill all non christians and take their land, rape their women and butcher their children. Once they surrendered "we" purposely broke whatever agreement we had with them,  gave them spoiled food and blankets laced with small pox and other diseases for which they had no immune systems to fight it off.
> You better learn history before you think that you know anything about history.



Yes I am quite aware of American history and how Native Americans were killed and lied to. Again you change the subject. What does that have to do with Creation being taught in public schools and why people are offended by this? BTW thanks for telling me what I better do. A bit hypocritical don't you think. But you just proved my point.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> We teach American History because we are in America. So lets give the true American history that is based heavily in Christian beliefs.



I didnt change any subject. Those are your words. You obviously misspoke and should have said "We should teach the history that I want taught"

There are too many versions of religious creation to teach.

The original Americans all have versions of creation too.
Which tribe's version should be taught?


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I didnt change any subject. Those are your words. You obviously misspoke and should have said "We should teach the history that I want taught"
> 
> There are too many versions of religious creation to teach.


Not just me but Millions of others as well. So you don't mind religious creation being taught you just have an issue with the Christian God whom most Americans believe in. Just to be clear I am talking about current America not Native Americans.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Not just me but Millions of others as well. So you don't mind religious creation being taught you just have an issue with the Christian God whom most Americans believe in.



So majority rules?

I don't think public school is the place for any religious ceremonies. None. 

Why, in your opinion, did the Founding Fathers(your original American Christians) make it a point to seperate Church and State?

If you want religion, prayer and religious creation taught in school, send your kids to a private religious school.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I'm not. Its their right to do so. Why did you answer a question with a question? Perhaps you are offended by Christian beliefs and them wanting creation to be taught in school as an alternative to evolution?





> Why did you answer a question with a question?


To make a point.
The point being you are assuming that "people" are offended by your Christian beliefs. I'm not offended by your Christian beliefs. None of the A/As I know are offended by your Christian beliefs.
They support the separation of church and state.
Here's what you have to accept Richie -
Christianity because of its influence and power in our culture has throughout history crossed the line of separation of church and state.
In other words everybody was a Christian so it really wasnt an issue.
Nowadays everybody ISNT Christian. So Christianity is being pushed back to the separation line.
You still have the right to have your kids taught whatever you want them to be taught. And there are schools where you can send them to be taught whatever that is.
Its really very simple.


> Perhaps you are offended by Christian beliefs and them wanting creation to be taught in school as an alternative to evolution?


Christians can want whatever they want. When its proven that creationism is an alternative to evolution then it will be taught as an alternative to evolution.
Until then its not.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So majority rules?
> 
> I don't think public school is the place for any religious ceremonies. None.
> 
> ...


 Because they wanted religious FREEDOM. Not Religious EXEMPTION. Big difference.
My daughter is taking a world religion class her freshman year of collage. They seem to have no issues so why do you?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Because they wanted religious FREEDOM. Not Religious EXEMPTION. Big difference.
> My daughter is taking a world religion class her freshman year of collage. They seem to have no issues so why do you?


I came up through public school in the 70s and 80s. I had no issues then. Now, I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights more now that I am older.

So how many different religions should be honored in public schools and where is the time to do so going to come from?

Your daughter is taking a world religion class. Is it exclusive to Christianity?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Because they wanted religious FREEDOM. Not Religious EXEMPTION. Big difference.
> My daughter is taking a world religion class her freshman year of collage. They seem to have no issues so why do you?


Richie, what benefits do you think a student gets out of a world religion class?


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I came up through public school in the 70s and 80s. I had no issues then. Now, I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights more now that I am older.
> 
> So how many different religions should be honored in public schools and where is the time to do so going to come from?
> 
> Your daughter is taking a world religion class. Is it exclusive to Christianity?


No. They study all major Religions. Knowledge is key. Don't avoid knowledge because people are offended. I want her to know other beliefs so she can make her own educated decisions.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> No. They study all major Religions. Knowledge is key. Don't avoid knowledge because people are offended. I want her to know other beliefs so she can make her own educated decisions.



Exactly, they are not focusing on ONE religion.
And are you telling me that the course she is taking is a required course for every student who attends that college? 
Is it an elective?
Is the college public or private?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> No. They study all major Religions. Knowledge is key. Don't avoid knowledge because people are offended. I want her to know other beliefs so she can make her own educated decisions.


Wait till she comes home with some ideas from a couple of the liberal professors. You'll be wondering why you are paying for her to learn that stuff.

My one Son used to tell them flat out..."I am paying you to teach the course, not your liberal views, agenda, or opinions."


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I came up through public school in the 70s and 80s. I had no issues then. Now, I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights more now that I am older.
> 
> So how many different religions should be honored in public schools and where is the time to do so going to come from?
> 
> Your daughter is taking a world religion class. Is it exclusive to Christianity?



Bullethead, Let me give you an example of how I believe God to work in our lives. We just lost or beloved yellow lab Honey. She was ate up by cancer. I was right beside her comforting her as she took her last breath. My wife and daughter tend to look for signs, I however am a bit more skeptical and just believe some things are meant to be. So my wife and daughter were searching for meaning as to the significance of her passing. I said there was none it was time. There was no meaning to the time of her passing. Then I read the text my wife sent me about her sorrow. The date our beloved Honey Died was march 16th. I didn't get it. Then I saw the number for March 16th is 316 and I knew what God was telling me. And just for Conformation in my daughter Religion class the next day she said Dad your not gonna believe what my professor was talking about today. John 316. Just another conformation on How my lord and savior works. Just thought I would share.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Bullethead, Let me give you an example of how I believe God to work in our lives. We just lost or beloved yellow lab Honey. She was ate up by cancer. I was right beside her comforting her as she took her last breath. My wife and daughter tend to look for signs, I however am a bit more skeptical and just believe some things are meant to be. So my wife and daughter were searching for meaning as to the significance of her passing. I said there was none it was time. There was no meaning to the time of her passing. Then I read the text my wife sent me about her sorrow. The date our beloved Honey Died was march 16th. I didn't get it. Then I saw the number for March 16th is 316 and I knew what God was telling me. And just for Conformation in my daughter Religion class the next day she said Dad your not gonna believe what my professor was talking about today. John 316. Just another conformation on How my lord and savior works. Just thought I would share.


You dont want to know my thoughts and I can't use the words that I'd want to express them fully.

But back to my questions to you about her college....


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You dont want to know my thoughts and I can't use the words that I'd want to express them fully.
> 
> But back to my questions to you about her college....



She has already had this issue with liberal professors. It was a balancing act  for sure but she tried to wright paper's that would get her an A in the class and keep her hope scholarship. Sad and to my point but I don't blame her because I know her heart and she told me her thoughts.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

I think the difference is not so much learning about the various religions. We studied religions in sociology in middle school. 

The problem would be if the Muslim teacher or Christian teacher taught only their beliefs. Especially in elementary school where kids can't decide on their own and religion should be taught by their parents, church members, etc.

Since there is not enough time in school to teach every religion's version of creation then it probably should not be taught.
I thought the Cherokee version was cool.

Using the rainbow as an example. Should it be taught that it is the result of light refraction(scientific) or a sign from the God of Abraham that the earth would never be flooded again by water?

Perhaps it is both depending on one's personal beliefs. Why not let the school teacher teach the scientific view and let the parents or Sunday School teacher teach the Christian view. 
For that matter the Hindu parents can teach their kids the Hindu belief concerning rainbows. 
I wouldn't even want my small child confused with hearing different religious meanings concerning rainbows or creation.

It should be up to the parent to teach his child how religion and science overlaps as that parent believes it does or doesn't. 

Most Christian parents don't have a problem with scientific meanings  overlapping with religious ones concerning most topics other than creation.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Richie, what benefits do you think a student gets out of a world religion class?


They know that all people don't believe in evolution and many believe in Creation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

Why not teach in public school that God knew you before your parents had sex when teaching reproduction? Somehow convey to the kids that even though your parents had sex it was up to God to make sure a certain egg was fertilized with a certain sperm to make sure the embryo God foreknew would develop into the human baby that becomes you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> They know that all people don't believe in evolution and many believe in Creation.



How do you feel about "natural selection?" Would you be OK with teaching natural selection in school?


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why not teach in public school that God knew you before your parents had sex when teaching reproduction? Somehow convey to the kids that even though your parents had sex it was up to God to make sure a certain egg was fertilized with a certain sperm to make sure the embryo God foreknew would develop into the human baby that becomes you.



I'm not opposed. My children know what sex is. Again another Christian stereotype. We don't talk about sex yeah right.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Bullethead, Let me give you an example of how I believe God to work in our lives. We just lost or beloved yellow lab Honey. She was ate up by cancer. I was right beside her comforting her as she took her last breath. My wife and daughter tend to look for signs, I however am a bit more skeptical and just believe some things are meant to be. So my wife and daughter were searching for meaning as to the significance of her passing. I said there was none it was time. There was no meaning to the time of her passing. Then I read the text my wife sent me about her sorrow. The date our beloved Honey Died was march 16th. I didn't get it. Then I saw the number for March 16th is 316 and I knew what God was telling me. And just for Conformation in my daughter Religion class the next day she said Dad your not gonna believe what my professor was talking about today. John 316. Just another conformation on How my lord and savior works. Just thought I would share.



That's a very reassuring sign from the God of Abraham to your family. It was reassuring to your daughter that John 3:16 was being discussed in a religious class.

Suppose it was not a religious class. It was 3rd grade science and the Hindu teacher gave that same story about her dog and how it showed a sign on how one could get to the 3rd level of cosmic consciousness or how the dog would reincarnate?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think the difference is not so much learning about the various religions. We studied religions in sociology in middle school.
> 
> The problem would be if the Muslim teacher or Christian teacher taught only their beliefs. Especially in elementary school where kids can't decide on their own and religion should be taught by their parents, church members, etc.
> 
> ...



Darn fine post Art


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I'm not opposed. My children know what sex is. Again another Christian stereotype. We don't talk about sex yeah right.



But not every Christian believes in predestination.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's a very reassuring sign from the God of Abraham to your family. It was reassuring to your daughter that John 3:16 was being discussed in a religious class.
> 
> Suppose it was not a religious class. It was 3rd grade science and the Hindu teacher gave that same story about her dog and how it showed a sign on how one could get to the 3rd level of cosmic consciousness or how the dog would reincarnate?



You are batting a thousand tonight Art.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's a very reassuring sign from the God of Abraham to your family. It was reassuring to your daughter that John 3:16 was being discussed in a religious class.
> 
> Suppose it was not a religious class. It was 3rd grade science and the Hindu teacher gave that same story about her dog and how it showed a sign on how one could get to the 3rd level of cosmic consciousness or how the dog would reincarnate?



But that's not the case. I can suppose a lot of things that aren't the case.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> She has already had this issue with liberal professors. It was a balancing act  for sure but she tried to wright paper's that would get her an A in the class and keep her hope scholarship. Sad and to my point but I don't blame her because I know her heart and she told me her thoughts.



Is the course that she is taking required for all students? 
OR
Is it an elective?


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Is the course that she is taking required for all students?
> OR
> Is it an elective?



Her major is criminal justice. Its not an elective. But you do have a choice in certain classes you can take to meet degree requirements.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Darn fine post Art



Yeah, I'd hate having a freewill teacher teaching my child that there is no predestination. I wouldn't care to have a Jehovah Witness teacher teaching my child the results of an asteroid destroying the earth from her religious perspective.
I'd hate having a Muslim teacher teaching my child anything from a religious perspective other than a college class on World Religion.

I don't really want a teacher explaining to my child why God made the human body's circulation system the way he did by working in blood sacrifice and or his plan for Jesus to give the ultimate sacrifice with his blood.

I do believe that he indeed did design the body with blood circulation for that purpose but I will teach that aspect of it to my children the way "I" believe. Not the way the JW teacher, the Mormon teacher, the Freewill Baptist teacher does. 
Not the way the Muslim teacher views the blood of Jesus or our circulation system.
Now if they want to teach the "Scientific" belief on why we have blood then I'm fine with that. Stick just to that and let me teach the sacrificial blood of Christ part.

Did I mention rainbows? What about Manna?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> That's not my point at all. The ten commandments were the law well before a constitution existed. To have an example of early law in a courthouse seems quite appropriate. Its symbolic and traditional to the United States not to the middle east. If I moved there I would expect for their beliefs and traditions to be prevalent. We teach American History because we are in America. So lets give the true American history that is based heavily in Christian beliefs.


The Ten Commandments were never the law in America. Ever. They were the law in Israel 3,000 years ago. Last time I checked, the Constitution or any state statute doesn't say anything at all about graven images, having any gods before Yahweh, coveting, adultery, bearing false witness, Sunday being holy, taking the Lord's name in vain, or honoring your parents. 

No killing and stealing are in agreement with our laws, though. Two out of ten isn't bad, I guess. 

You are not talking about "true American history." You are talking about ancient Hebrew history.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> But that's not the case. I can suppose a lot of things that aren't the case.



I'm asking you what your feelings on it would be "if" it was the case. Would you be OK with a Hindu teacher giving her testimony about her dog's death and how it relates to her religion in your child's elementary class? 
Not college, not even high school.

She may even say, "kids I know most of you don't believe this and I'm not asking you to but I would like to share with you on my dog dying and how it relates to me and my religion?

Maybe she's not even Hindu but a Christian from a denomination that believes all the signs are over. Do you see that even a Christian teacher could teach ideals and beliefs that aren't a part of what you would like for your kids to develop?
A Christian teacher may tell your story and add that she would see her dog in Heaven.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> The Ten Commandments were never the law in America. Ever. They were the law in Israel 3,000 years ago. Last time I checked, the Constitution or any state statute doesn't say anything at all about graven images, having any gods before Yahweh, coveting, adultery, bearing false witness, Sunday being holy, taking the Lord's name in vain, or honoring your parents. No killing and stealing are in agreement with our laws, though. Two out of ten isn't bad, I guess.
> 
> You are not talking about "true American history." You are talking about Hebrew history.


Not at all. I am talking about Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin. George Washington. The founding fathers of the current America. All the signees of the declaration of Independence. Your right the constitution doesn't say anything about those things. Where I come from that is called respect.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm asking you what your feelings on it would be "if" it was the case. Would you be OK with a Hindu teacher giving her testimony about her dog's death and how it relates to her religion in your child's elementary class?
> Not college, not even high school.
> 
> She may even say, "kids I know most of you don't believe this and I'm not asking you to but I would like to share with you on my dog dying and how it relates to me and my religion?
> ...



If its a spiritual possibility I'm not opposed.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Her major is criminal justice. Its not an elective. But you do have a choice in certain classes you can take to meet degree requirements.



So is World Religions a required course for a Criminal Justice major?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Not at all. I am talking about Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin. George Washington. The founding fathers of the current America. All the signees of the declaration of Independence. Your right the constitution doesn't say anything about those things. Where I come from that is called respect.


You REALLY need to research our Founding Fathers.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> If its a spiritual possibility I'm not opposed.



Matthew 12:30
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

I would oppose their scattering.

The point being at school, we don't know. I deist that doesn't believe in Jesus? A Christian who is one in name only? A Universalist, a Christian Universalist? Christadelphians? Apostolic Oneness Pentecostals? Other non-Trinitarians? 
What teacher could do more scattering, an Atheist, a Deist, or a Christian in name only? Would you rather a teacher tell your kid that there is no God or that Jesus is not God?

It's like certain fraternities or the Boy Scouts. They only require a belief in a god. Not "the" God. To me that is way more dangerous than not believing in any got or God.

The Atheist tea


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You REALLY need to research our Founding Fathers.



I have most were Protestant. Whats your point?


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Matthew 12:30
> He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
> 
> I would oppose their scattering.



And what of he who wants him taught in school? dodger. Fitting.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So is World Religions a required course for a Criminal Justice major?


Its not required but there are limited science classes for that major. World religion is one of them. You need at least two science classes.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I have most were Protestant. Whats your point?



Washington was Episcopalian, which is described as Protestant but Catholic. 
Jefferson was a Deist
Franklin was a Deist

So at 2.5 out of 3 wrong, you really should RE-research ALL of the founding fathers. If you actually did, you would see their quotes about religion.


----------



## red neck richie (Apr 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Washington was Episcopalian, which is described as Protestant but Catholic.
> Jefferson was a Deist
> Franklin was a Deist
> 
> So at 2.5 out of 3 wrong, you really should RE-research ALL of the founding fathers. If you actually did, you would see their quotes about religion.



Deist believe in God and Creation. I still don't get your point. All believe in God 3 out of 3.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Its not required but there are limited science classes for that major. World religion is one of them. You need at least two science classes.



In post #229 you ask why it is taught at the college your daughter attends and it is not an issue. It sounds like you were trying to say that that College requires it. Some private ones do. Most public ones do not.
That is because it is an elective. It's not required to take in order to go to or graduate from that school. In public Elementary and High Schools there is required curriculums set by the State. They are geared towards getting you through grade school and beyond where an individual can choose what they want to learn about in College.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Deist believe in God and Creation. I still don't get your point. All believe in God 3 out of 3.


I know you dont.
Is a Deist also Christian?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2018)

"The term "deism" comes from the Latin word deus, which means god. Deism is the belief that God, or a god, exists; this belief is based solely on evidence from the natural world and human reason apart from the revelation of the Bible or other sacred writings. Deism became important during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th and 18th Century Western worldviews, also influencing some early American intellectuals and political leaders.

Some aspects of deism include the belief that God is not involved in His creation, the rejection of supernatural miracles, the rejection of the Bible as the inspired Word of God (though many Deists believe it is a good book), and the rejection of the Christian belief in the Trinity. Two primary forms of deism include classical deism and modern deism."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> And what of he who wants him taught in school? dodger. Fitting.



That's the thing about Christianity being taught in school. Which version? Trinity, Oneness, Christadelphian, Universalism, Free will, or Election.

What about Deist? Reminds me of fraternities or the Boy Scouts. One only has to believe in a god, not the God.
To me that is more dangerous for a teacher than an Atheist teacher. The Atheist teacher will say "there is no God."
The Christian student will dismiss his belief. Now the belief of the Deist or Oneness believer may make the student question his belief and change it to a false belief. It could cause more scattering than even an Atheist teacher's belief. 

Just a Deist teacher believing in Creation isn't good enough. It could open a student's trust to believe other beliefs by that Deist that aren't Christian.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2018)

Again, something I see among Christians is, it's better to believe in a false god than no God. I'll bet many Christians would be OK if their child's teacher was Deist or Hindu over her being an Atheist.

It's even OK to associate with god believers in a fraternity over Atheist. 

It's OK if their child's teacher is a christian in name only over an Atheist. At least they believe in Creation. Like that's even more important than Jesus, the Trinity or Oneness. 
It makes it out to be a political issue over a religious issue. Like this is what our Founding Fathers wanted. Weren't they also Freemasons? Doesn't matter as long as you believe in "a" god.

Apply that to the school system. For some Christians any belief is better than no belief when it comes to God. I see it as just the opposite.

It turns it into a political thing. Christians in name only. We want Christianity back in school. They want political christianity back in school. They want that aspect of it back in school. They don't really care if the teachers are true Christians as long as they associate politically as Christian. They want that conservative Christian aspect back. Not the mild and meek, turn the other cheek part. Not the helping others part. Not the fruit of the Holy Spirit as proof of Election part. Just the conservative christian creation part they lost to the Atheist. That really irks the political christians more than the "Truth, the Way, and the Light. The part that can't even be lost from Christians.

The real Christianity never left the schools. Satan himself can't remove that. The other is just political christianity or patriotic christianity.
It's a persona that was removed. A belief in any god. That is way more dangerous than a belief in the God.

Maybe God's power in calling/electing is more powerful than political christians give him credit for.


----------



## Israel (Apr 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Again, something I see among Christians is, it's better to believe in a false god than no God. I'll bet many Christians would be OK if their child's teacher was Deist or Hindu over her being an Atheist.
> 
> It's even OK to associate with god believers in a fraternity over Atheist.
> 
> ...



Wow!


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 5, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> They know that all people don't believe in evolution and many believe in Creation.


They are 2 different things Richie.
You've been shown the difference numerous times in here.
That evolution occurs is a fact not a belief.
Creation is a belief not a fact.
Regardless of what you believe or don't believe, it doesn't change that.

Christianity dictates that you reject all those other religions of the world.
Now you are wanting to use those other religions to support your creation beliefs.
So which one is it?
Those other religions are false or those other religions and their creation beliefs are valid?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 5, 2018)

Saul had the best, most elite teachers of his day, and look how he turned out.
But Paul had a better teacher(Jesus Christ). Look how he turned out.

The secular teaching is moot compared to the spiritual teaching. Amen?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Again, something I see among Christians is, it's better to believe in a false god than no God. I'll bet many Christians would be OK if their child's teacher was Deist or Hindu over her being an Atheist.
> 
> It's even OK to associate with god believers in a fraternity over Atheist.
> 
> ...





> Again, something I see among Christians is, it's better to believe in a false god than no God.


Pretty controversial statement.
But maybe you are seeing an example of it right here -


> They know that all people don't believe in evolution and many believe in Creation.


1.To believe in evolution = no (g)God involved.
2. The "many who believe in creation" includes people of other religions and other gods.
Those other religions and other gods are considered false by Christianity.
Yet the Christian is willing to include in the "false" religions and the "false" god(s) in order to argue against evolution.
"My God, their god, somebody's god... is better than no god (evolution) at all"????

Yeah I'm stretching it...... but not really.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's the thing about Christianity being taught in school. Which version? Trinity, Oneness, Christadelphian, Universalism, Free will, or Election.
> 
> What about Deist? Reminds me of fraternities or the Boy Scouts. One only has to believe in a god, not the God.
> To me that is more dangerous for a teacher than an Atheist teacher. The Atheist teacher will say "there is no God."
> ...


And THAT ^ is Christianity's (the organized religion) WORST nightmare.
Spent all that time indoctrinating them and then this darn Deist teacher might get them thinking on their own.
That's just unacceptable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 5, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Saul had the best, most elite teachers of his day, and look how he turned out.
> But Paul had a better teacher(Jesus Christ). Look how he turned out.
> 
> The secular teaching is moot compared to the spiritual teaching. Amen?


No Amen.
Your premise that who teaches you determines "how you will turn out" is proven false on a daily basis.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> No Amen.
> Your premise that who teaches you determines "how you will turn out" is proven false on a daily basis.



You missed it.
But that's ok.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2018)

welderguy said:


> You missed it.
> But that's ok.


It was your point being accurate that missed.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 5, 2018)

Getting close to 100 years since the Scopes' trial and we still get questions like this. 
Makes me think there are pockets of folks in the U.S. that still burn witches or throw spears at helicopters.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 5, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Saul had the best, most elite teachers of his day, and look how he turned out.
> But Paul had a better teacher(Jesus Christ). Look how he turned out.
> 
> The secular teaching is moot compared to the spiritual teaching. Amen?



gotta disagree with you here: I would certainly want doctors, engineers, pilots, etc. to have been taught by the best secular teachers versus the best spiritual teachers.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 5, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> gotta disagree with you here: I would certainly want doctors, engineers, pilots, etc. to have been taught by the best secular teachers versus the best spiritual teachers.



Yep
How sharp you are depends on what you’ve been sharpened on. 


*


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 5, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Yep
> How sharp you are depends on what you’ve been sharpened on.
> 
> 
> *



exactly. While I know anyone with a Doctorate Degree in theological studies is certainly very smart, (much smarter than I will ever be) I'd be willing to bet 1,000 of them praying over my car  to stop if the brakes are broken wouldn't make it stop better than one mechanic with a VW certification under his belt. Bottom line it's not what you "know" it's what you can "do" that really benefits society as a whole. Same goes for the secular "theoretical physicist" who speculates how many dimensions exist inside a black hole - get a real job buddy.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It was your point being accurate that missed.



I'm just agreeing with what Paul said here:

1 Corinthians 2:12-13 
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

There is wisdom of men, and then there is wisdom from God.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2018)

welderguy said:


> I'm just agreeing with what Paul said here:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:12-13
> 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
> ...



You? Agreeing with and posting a bible quote as if it is legitimate? Noooooooo


----------



## Israel (Apr 6, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> exactly. While I know anyone with a Doctorate Degree in theological studies is certainly very smart, (much smarter than I will ever be) I'd be willing to bet 1,000 of them praying over my car  to stop if the brakes are broken wouldn't make it stop better than one mechanic with a VW certification under his belt. Bottom line it's not what you "know" it's what you can "do" that really benefits society as a whole. Same goes for the secular "theoretical physicist" who speculates how many dimensions exist inside a black hole - get a real job buddy.




Are you sure?

I am going to venture that _even in the natural_, and according to your criteria for utility and benefit, those given to studies and musings of _mere_ esoterica have established the foundations upon which that VW mechanic now finds he has a shiny bass boat.

How _things work_ is predicated upon the investigations of _how things are_; which so far precedes applications...as to appear, at that time, useless.
And _that man _often, a fool.

It's what the believer in Jesus Christ is set to. The seeing and consideration of _something coming_ by the knowledge of One who _has come_ and equipping both himself and his hearers to its soon arrival. The end of all _things_...is at hand...for everyone.

As my desiring to not _miss_ the resurrection is inextricably bound to the equal desire to speak to you (that you not miss it) it is only right and just to bear for whatever time, appearing the fool. And having a job that appears of all in-utility. That's made eminently bearable by the seeing of the One who _has come._


Nothing compares to what is found in that oft _appearing  _useless occupation, not even a shiny bass boat. But just as I have had to be persuaded to it, I know _the persuasion_ is not_ my own_ to exercise.

Liberty includes the freedom of not being manipulated by the _projection of shame._ But one would have to see the One shamelessly of love, and in love, to learn this.
Take a look. He's been _up_ for grabs...since the beginning.

Lay hold! And discover who has grabbed _you_.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2018)

Israel said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I am going to venture that _even in the natural_, and according to your criteria for utility and benefit, those given to studies and musings of _mere_ esoterica have established the foundations upon which that VW mechanic now finds he has a shiny bass boat.
> 
> ...



Grabbing will get ya in big trouble now.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 6, 2018)

discover who has grabbed me?  I try to stay out of those kind of bars myself.  seriously though it was poetic & whatnot but I fell off about two sentences in. If there was a point it zoomed right over my head.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The Elephant in the room right there.
> 
> Theory, even scientific, is not fact.


But.......as long as they agree that it’s probably most likely accurate......then it has to be........until it’s explained a different type of “most likely”


bullethead said:


> I dont think you realize that "we" white faces are not TRUE Americans. Your true american christians made sure to kill all non christian Native Americans and take their land, rape their women and butcher their children. Once they surrendered "we" purposely broke whatever agreement we had with them,  gave them spoiled food and blankets laced with small pox and other diseases for which they had no immune systems to fight it off.
> You better learn history before you think that you know anything about history.


A lesson that the liberal community didn’t learn...........open borders is still their stance. I just hope that the white face can get the casinos, hotels and gas stations next.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 12, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Why are evolution and religion mutually exclusive? Evolution is obviously a real thing-you can still see it at work today. Why couldn't God create by using evolution?


Evolution and creation are two separate items. Evolution is the process of adapting.  


But, where did it all begin as an original? Life came from something. How do you get “life” to adapt from something that wasn’t living? The Big Bang Theory is the scientific “miracle” of life. Science says they can explain any miracle you tell them with reasoning and probability, but they have no explanation of how something living came from this gaseous explosion of something not living and miraculously caused life to originate, it just happened, they said.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Evolution and creation are two separate items. Evolution is the process of adapting.
> 
> 
> But, where did it all begin as an original? Life came from something. How do you get “life” to adapt from something that wasn’t living? The Big Bang Theory is the scientific “miracle” of life. Science says they can explain any miracle you tell them with reasoning and probability, but they have no explanation of how something living came from this gaseous explosion of something not living and miraculously caused life to originate, it just happened, they said.




There are many explanations offered.  If you don't know any of them then you're not trying very hard.  Google "Where did life come from?"

I don't fully believe all their explanations but I like the methodology they use, meaning, I like that they use math and beakers and instruments and experiments to try to answer those questions.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> There are many explanations offered.  If you don't know any of them then you're not trying very hard.  Google "Where did life come from?"
> 
> I don't fully believe all their explanations but I like the methodology they use, meaning, I like that they use math and beakers and instruments and experiments to try to answer those questions.



To formulate theories.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Evolution and creation are two separate items. Evolution is the process of adapting.
> 
> 
> But, where did it all begin as an original? Life came from something. How do you get “life” to adapt from something that wasn’t living? The Big Bang Theory is the scientific “miracle” of life. Science says they can explain any miracle you tell them with reasoning and probability, but they have no explanation of how something living came from this gaseous explosion of something not living and miraculously caused life to originate, it just happened, they said.



Would you say the rainbow is two separate items? If not then perhaps creation and evolution aren't either.

God knew you before you were born. You are God's creation yet you are the creation formed from your parents reproduction. Two separate items or one?

You pray for a loved ones recovery. God heals, the medicine heals. Two separate items or one?

When an Israelite named Uzzah laid hands upon the Ark of The Covenant, he was struck down by God. This Ark was a giant capacitor. Two separate items or one?

Manna provided by God in the desert may have been lichens. Two separate items or one?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Evolution and creation are two separate items. Evolution is the process of adapting.
> 
> 
> But, where did it all begin as an original? Life came from something. How do you get “life” to adapt from something that wasn’t living? The Big Bang Theory is the scientific “miracle” of life. Science says they can explain any miracle you tell them with reasoning and probability, but they have no explanation of how something living came from this gaseous explosion of something not living and miraculously caused life to originate, it just happened, they said.



Do you believe there was a time after Creation that God implemented free will into the mix to allow evolution? That some time after Creation he changed the formula to evolution to allow adaption?
In other words after Creation using predestination, God then switched to Science and freewill.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> To formulate theories.



I prefer them as explanations better than miracles.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you say the rainbow is two separate items? If not then perhaps creation and evolution aren't either.
> 
> God knew you before you were born. You are God's creation yet you are the creation formed from your parents reproduction. Two separate items or one?
> 
> ...



http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12152740/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/did-jesus-walk-water-or-ice/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_walking_on_water

_
Historical-critical analysis
François Boucher Cathédrale Saint-Louis (1766) Versailles
The beach of the Sea of Galilee, in Israel

Scholars who hold that the story records actual events do so on the basis that Jesus, as Son of God, was above the laws of nature; or, in a variation, that Jesus projected an image himself while actually remaining on the shore.[19] The meaning of the episode is held to be inherent in its miraculous nature: "The meaning of the pericope (story) ... only has meaning ... if it is understood as relating a miraculous event which really took place" (Leopold Sabourin, 1975).[19]

In recent scholarship, Bart Ehrman has championed the view that in general, it is impossible to either prove or disprove supernatural events such as miracles using the historical method, for proving them would require belief in a supernatural world not amenable to historical analysis, and disproving them would require historical evidence that is usually hard to come by.[20]

Still, some scholars have held the view that while this event took place, it was not miraculous: Albert Schweitzer, for example, suggested that the disciples saw Jesus walking on the shore, but were confused by high wind and darkness; some scholars who accept this "misperception thesis" argue that Mark originally wrote that Jesus walked on the seashore rather than on the shore, and that John had a more accurate version.[21] Others have held that the entire episode is a "pious legend" (B.H. Branscomb, 1937), based perhaps on some lost incident; perhaps Jesus waded through the surf (Vincent Taylor, 1957), or perhaps he walked on a sand bar (Sherman Johnson, 1972, J.D.M. Derrett, 1981).[22]

Finally are those scholars who regard the story as an example of "creative symbolism", or myth,[23] which probably was understood by a part of the audience literally and by others allegorically.[24] Rudolf Bultmann pointed out that the sea-walking theme is familiar in many cultures.[23] Furthermore, the motif of walking on water was associated with kings like Xerxes or Alexander, but also rejected and satirized as humanly impossible and as proverbial for the arrogance of the rulers by Menander, Dio Chrysostom or in 2 Maccabees 5:21.[24]

Others look for an origin in the mythic world of the Old Testament itself (Christ's victory over the waters paralleling Yahweh's defeat of the primeval Sea, representing Chaos),[25] or within the New Testament, as an originally simple story later embellished with Hellenistic and Old Testament details.[26] In the Hebrew Bible, God gives power over the sea, e.g. to Moses (Ex 14:21-29) or to Elijah (2 kg 2:8).[24]

Adela Yarbro Collins concludes that the text characterizes Jesus as Messiah and king of Israel endowed with divine properties.[24]_


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> There are many explanations offered.  If you don't know any of them then you're not trying very hard.  Google "Where did life come from?"
> 
> I don't fully believe all their explanations but I like the methodology they use, meaning, I like that they use math and beakers and instruments and experiments to try to answer those questions.



Kind of like some of these????

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

My question remains, can you explain the “origin” of life??

Something that doesn’t live can’t evolve, grow and reproduce.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 13, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you say the rainbow is two separate items? If not then perhaps creation and evolution aren't either.
> 
> God knew you before you were born. You are God's creation yet you are the creation formed from your parents reproduction. Two separate items or one?
> 
> ...



I have no issue with “evolving” in the aspect of changing to adapt. The evolving potion is not my question, the origin is. That being said, I don’t believe that we have evolved in the manner that science has multiple theories about.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Kind of like some of these????
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html
> 
> ...



Those seem like reasonable guesses to me.  I don't know what you mean by origin of life.  That article seemed to answer that question directly.  Go look at some more possible explanations til you find one that is believable to you and that you like.  There's many out there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_creationism


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I have no issue with “evolving” in the aspect of changing to adapt. The evolving potion is not my question, the origin is. That being said, I don’t believe that we have evolved in the manner that science has multiple theories about.



My point was that science and God can co-exist. The rainbow can be explained as light refraction and a sign from God.
Manna can be lichens and food from Heaven. 
Human birth can be a miracle from God and reproduction.

God snapping everything into existence using science. Then and now everything is from God. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh but he uses science in his process of doing so. Even in death God uses science.

Now in the spiritual world and eternal life, perhaps God leaves science behind.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> There are many explanations offered.  If you don't know any of them then you're not trying very hard.  Google "Where did life come from?"
> 
> I don't fully believe all their explanations but I like the methodology they use, meaning, I like that they use math and beakers and instruments and experiments to try to answer those questions.



I honestly believe that before I die science will discover that "X factor" that initiates non-living elements organizing into life. That and definite proof of life beyong earth.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 13, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I have no issue with “evolving” in the aspect of changing to adapt. The evolving potion is not my question, the origin is. That being said, I don’t believe that we have evolved in the manner that science has multiple theories about.



so human(ish) skulls changing shape and brain capacity over time is not how we Homo Sapiens evolved? Would you consider Cro Magnon or Homo Erectus human or still animal? They were not even close to looking or acting like gorillas or other primates - they were well beyond their capabilities. They are walking upright and using crude tools much like Homo Sapiens - where would they fit in to the bigger picture of humanity? 

Is it possible that during the six days of creation god created beings similar in form & function to Homo Sapiens (but they were still animals) just to test our faith?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> My point was that science and God can co-exist. The rainbow can be explained as light refraction and a sign from God.
> Manna can be lichens and food from Heaven.
> Human birth can be a miracle from God and reproduction.
> 
> ...



Look at what you have to do to retain belief in God.  It's an unnecessary, confusing step.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> so human(ish) skulls changing shape and brain capacity over time is not how we Homo Sapiens evolved? Would you consider Cro Magnon or Homo Erectus human or still animal? They were not even close to looking or acting like gorillas or other primates - they were well beyond their capabilities. They are walking upright and using crude tools much like Homo Sapiens - where would they fit in to the bigger picture of humanity?
> 
> Is it possible that during the six days of creation god created beings similar in form & function to Homo Sapiens (but they were still animals) just to test our faith?



You're getting the hang of Apologism.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I prefer them as explanations better than miracles.



How is a "theory" that can't be positively without a shadow of a doubt proven as fact any different than a miracle?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> How is a "theory" that can't be positively without a shadow of a doubt proven as fact any different than a miracle?



First we should establish that we are using the term theory in the same way.  I'm assuming that you consider the Theory of Gravity to be useful for many things like launching rockets, predicting orbits, measuring attraction between particles, etc.  You may even consider it a truth when standing on the edge of a cliff.  It's principles are easily demonstrated, measured and are predictable by simple observation.  It can be described mathematically and it can be tested for.  

A miracle, specifically a resurrection, has none of those attributes.  Calling something a miracle is not the same as saying we just don't understand how that happened yet.  It means that it was magical and we will never understand it.  We MUST never understand it.  It seems like a terrible place to resolve given how much we seem to be able to learn when we keep trying.  Imagine we approach the miracle of walking on water from a scientific stand point.  If we find out how it was done we may be able to apply that knowledge in incredibly useful ways.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> How is a "theory" that can't be positively without a shadow of a doubt proven as fact any different than a miracle?



Let me go at this from a different angle.  Of what use is it to declare something a miracle or to say that a particular  miracle like resurrections have happened one or two times?   It seems like it would only result in painting oneself into a logical corner or opening the door to believing in all kinds of other things that go against common sense.  Calling something a miracle stops the inquiry about the event full stop.  How is that useful?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Let me go at this from a different angle.  Of what use is it to declare something a miracle or to say that a particular  miracle like resurrections have happened one or two times?   It seems like it would only result in painting oneself into a logical corner or opening the door to believing in all kinds of other things that go against common sense?  Calling something a miracle stops the inquiry about the event full stop.  How is that useful?



good point. Also if what we call a "miracle" turns out to have a rational, testable explanation then the aspect of "faith" isn't important. Fire was probably considered a miracle until we learned how to produce it at will. Miracles have to be "science proof" to succeed as a tool for testing the faithful. The longer you believe the miracle despite the unbelievers attempts to discredit it the more your faith increases. Thus a true miracle has to be outlandish and generally a "one time" event with no way to replicate it.

Not really a miracle but when I lived in Alabama one town had quite a few incidents of "angel feathers" appearing in people's homes and yards. Of course the feathers appeared while people were praying or thinking about departed loved one, etc. etc. Thus these tiny fragments of feathers must be a sign from god/his angels. Then some mean old "non believer" brought up the fact that there was a poultry plant nearby. 

Logic would dictate if you find a feather in your home, have it DNA tested (or by other means tested) to see if it was from a chicken or other bird. But suggesting this to a person who believed it was an angel feather was out of  the question. They didn't want godless scientists with their trickery and lack of faith lying to them about the results. They knew they were angel feathers and didn't need a test to prove it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> good point. Also if what we call a "miracle" turns out to have a rational, testable explanation then the aspect of "faith" isn't important. Fire was probably considered a miracle until we learned how to produce it at will. Miracles have to be "science proof" to succeed as a tool for testing the faithful. The longer you believe the miracle despite the unbelievers attempts to discredit it the more your faith increases. Thus a true miracle has to be outlandish and generally a "one time" event with no way to replicate it.
> 
> Not really a miracle but when I lived in Alabama one town had quite a few incidents of "angel feathers" appearing in people's homes and yards. Of course the feathers appeared while people were praying or thinking about departed loved one, etc. etc. Thus these tiny fragments of feathers must be a sign from god/his angels. Then some mean old "non believer" brought up the fact that there was a poultry plant nearby.
> 
> Logic would dictate if you find a feather in your home, have it DNA tested (or by other means tested) to see if it was from a chicken or other bird. But suggesting this to a person who believed it was an angel feather was out of  the question. They didn't want godless scientists with their trickery and lack of faith lying to them about the results. They knew they were angel feathers and didn't need a test to prove it.



That's the heart of the matter.  I'm glad that some Christians dabble in apologetics.  It shows me that there's an element of rationality in their beliefs. At least they're trying.  

The rest of your post is excellent as well.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> good point. Also if what we call a "miracle" turns out to have a rational, testable explanation then the aspect of "faith" isn't important. Fire was probably considered a miracle until we learned how to produce it at will. Miracles have to be "science proof" to succeed as a tool for testing the faithful. The longer you believe the miracle despite the unbelievers attempts to discredit it the more your faith increases. Thus a true miracle has to be outlandish and generally a "one time" event with no way to replicate it.
> 
> Not really a miracle but when I lived in Alabama one town had quite a few incidents of "angel feathers" appearing in people's homes and yards. Of course the feathers appeared while people were praying or thinking about departed loved one, etc. etc. Thus these tiny fragments of feathers must be a sign from god/his angels. Then some mean old "non believer" brought up the fact that there was a poultry plant nearby.
> 
> Logic would dictate if you find a feather in your home, have it DNA tested (or by other means tested) to see if it was from a chicken or other bird. But suggesting this to a person who believed it was an angel feather was out of  the question. They didn't want godless scientists with their trickery and lack of faith lying to them about the results. They knew they were angel feathers and didn't need a test to prove it.



After reading this again it occurs to me that it's particularly odd that believing in a miracle, which goes against common sense and everything else we know from experience, is the central tenet of Christianity.  For Freewillies it's a test.  For Calvanists it's pathological.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> How is a "theory" that can't be positively without a shadow of a doubt proven as fact any different than a miracle?


This is a really twisted question 
"A miracle", as is used in Christianity, is basically a statement of fact. "It was a miracle". That's the answer. That's how it happened.
A theory is not that.
The two are very different.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 13, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> My point was that science and God can co-exist.



The Christian doesn’t have a problem with that. The scientists however, that’s a different story. They’ll agree on something....... knowing all too well that they cannot be 100% positive that its fact. And at the same time, they’re not 100% positive that God doesn’t exists, but they can agree he doesn’t. Sound biased??? And without 100% positive facts, it is biased.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Those seem like reasonable guesses to me.  I don't know what you mean by origin of life.  That article seemed to answer that question directly.  Go look at some more possible explanations til you find one that is believable to you and that you like.  There's many out there.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_creationism


Origin = that first living thing that can reproduce. How did it come from something not living that cannot reproduce?


oldfella1962 said:


> so human(ish) skulls changing shape and brain capacity over time is not how we Homo Sapiens evolved? Would you consider Cro Magnon or Homo Erectus human or still animal? They were not even close to looking or acting like gorillas or other primates - they were well beyond their capabilities. They are walking upright and using crude tools much like Homo Sapiens - where would they fit in to the bigger picture of humanity?
> 
> Is it possible that during the six days of creation god created beings similar in form & function to Homo Sapiens (but they were still animals) just to test our faith?


My take on evolving or changing is a baby born from Chinese mother and a German father. That baby will most likely take on a change in appearance and that continues as it grows up and cross breeds. But it’s still human. An animal will always be an animal and will reproduce animals, even in cross breeding. 

For the primate theory, man and monkey split off. Now they’re claiming that all mankind DNA can be traced backed to one woman........if that’s the case, why can’t we trace back the monkeys DNA to one monkey??


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 13, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> good point. Also if what we call a "miracle" turns out to have a rational, testable explanation then the aspect of "faith" isn't important. Fire was probably considered a miracle until we learned how to produce it at will. Miracles have to be "science proof" to succeed as a tool for testing the faithful. The longer you believe the miracle despite the unbelievers attempts to discredit it the more your faith increases. Thus a true miracle has to be outlandish and generally a "one time" event with no way to replicate it.
> 
> Not really a miracle but when I lived in Alabama one town had quite a few incidents of "angel feathers" appearing in people's homes and yards. Of course the feathers appeared while people were praying or thinking about departed loved one, etc. etc. Thus these tiny fragments of feathers must be a sign from god/his angels. Then some mean old "non believer" brought up the fact that there was a poultry plant nearby.
> 
> Logic would dictate if you find a feather in your home, have it DNA tested (or by other means tested) to see if it was from a chicken or other bird. But suggesting this to a person who believed it was an angel feather was out of  the question. They didn't want godless scientists with their trickery and lack of faith lying to them about the results. They knew they were angel feathers and didn't need a test to prove it.


Sometimes it’s hard to tell if people lack common sense or if they’re being mentally challenged. 

True story, we were working in a neighborhood and a 911 call went out for the next door address. Fella tried to cut his wink wink off. Said God told him to do it. I could immediately determine that it had absolutely nothing to do with him being drunk. I will never forget him asking “what will happen now” My reply was you will now learn how to sit on the toilet to get your beer out of your bladder.


----------



## kmckinnie (Apr 13, 2018)

Oh My!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> The Christian doesn’t have a problem with that. The scientists however, that’s a different story. They’ll agree on something....... knowing all too well that they cannot be 100% positive that its fact. And at the same time, they’re not 100% positive that God doesn’t exists, but they can agree he doesn’t. Sound biased??? And without 100% positive facts, it is biased.


They also do not use "feelings" as proof that ANY god exists.
They go with the preponderance of evidence that either supports or refutes a subject.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Origin = that first living thing that can reproduce. How did it come from something not living that cannot reproduce?
> 
> My take on evolving or changing is a baby born from Chinese mother and a German father. That baby will most likely take on a change in appearance and that continues as it grows up and cross breeds. But it’s still human. An animal will always be an animal and will reproduce animals, even in cross breeding.
> 
> For the primate theory, man and monkey split off. Now they’re claiming that all mankind DNA can be traced backed to one woman........if that’s the case, why can’t we trace back the monkeys DNA to one monkey??


Do you have a study where tracing monkey dna as far back as possible was attempted.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> They also do not use "feelings" as proof that ANY god exists.
> They go with the preponderance of evidence that either supports or refutes a subject.


Feelings are just a small part for the Christian, and the term is used too loosely. Sort of like “facts” with scientists.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2018)

http://anth.la.psu.edu/research/research-labs/jablonski-lab/research/bipedalism

It is a long read with downloadable pdf files but it explains the anthropology of humans and monkeys better than I can.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 14, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> The Christian doesn’t have a problem with that. The scientists however, that’s a different story. They’ll agree on something....... knowing all too well that they cannot be 100% positive that its fact. And at the same time, they’re not 100% positive that God doesn’t exists, but they can agree he doesn’t. Sound biased??? And without 100% positive facts, it is biased.





> They’ll agree on something....... knowing all too well that they cannot be 100% positive that its fact.


If the process of science stopped moving forward until they were 100% positive something was fact, we would be having this conversation via smoke signals.
In my opinion and you know what they say about opinions, that argument is nothing more than a security blanket.
It completely ignores what science is, does and how it works.
I don't believe you would use that same line of thinking if we were talking about any other subject than God.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Do you have a study where tracing monkey dna as far back as possible was attempted.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/1411-monkey-dna-points-common-human-ancestor.html

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask69

https://www.quora.com/How-much-DNA-must-two-species-share-to-successfully-breed

https://www.quora.com/Considering-c...-of-the-same-DNA-why-cant-they-breed-together

You’d think at least up to 5 million years ago, there’d be some cross breeds and at least in this cross breeds, reproduction would still exist.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If the process of science stopped moving forward until they were 100% positive something was fact, we would be having this conversation via smoke signals.
> In my opinion and you know what they say about opinions, that argument is nothing more than a security blanket.
> It completely ignores what science is, does and how it works.
> I don't believe you would use that same line of thinking if we were talking about any other subject than God.



I think the main concern is teaching something to be factual when it is not yet been proven to be a fact. It’s the same thing as indoctrination that some non believers accuse the Christian of doing when teaching their children. And in some cases, indoctrination does happen, such as in Waco Tx.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 14, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I think the main concern is teaching something to be factual when it is not yet been proven to be a fact. It’s the same thing as indoctrination that some non believers accuse the Christian of doing when teaching their children. And in some cases, indoctrination does happen, such as in Waco Tx.





> I think the main concern is teaching something to be factual when it is not yet been proven to be a fact.


So really your concern is with the "teaching" not the science.
A teacher that teaches the Theory of Evolution is teaching just that. Its the scientific theory based on all the facts and evidence and knowledge that man has available at the time.
You would be perfectly fine with it if all those facts, evidence and knowledge available at this time pointed to the Theory of the Christian God and that's what was taught even though it couldn't be proven it was 100% fact.
But they don't. So we don't teach that they do.
It strikes me that your issue isn't with "science". I think it just rubs you the wrong way that the science doesn't point in the direction you would prefer it to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/1411-monkey-dna-points-common-human-ancestor.html
> 
> http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask69
> 
> ...



Those links surely talk about going beyond the first monkey and all the way back to common ancestor, which many of us already knew about and have been talking about. Those links answer your question as to whether or not they traced that far.  They did, and beyond.

The quora link that you provided explains precisely why humans and chimpanzees/monkeys cannot successfully breed


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So really your concern is with the "teaching" not the science.
> A teacher that teaches the Theory of Evolution is teaching just that. Its the scientific theory based on all the facts and evidence and knowledge that man has available at the time.
> You would be perfectly fine with it if all those facts, evidence and knowledge available at this time pointed to the Theory of the Christian God and that's what was taught even though it couldn't be proven it was 100% fact.
> But they don't. So we don't teach that they do.
> It strikes me that your issue isn't with "science". I think it just rubs you the wrong way that the science doesn't point in the direction you would prefer it to.



It’s a mixture of the science and the teaching. If we don’t have 100% facts, then it shouldn’t be taught as a as “fact”. Science has a way of saying that a scientific theory differs from theory. But when it comes to the teaching, relax a little, it’s being taught as a theory. 

The main problem with science - evolution - Darwin, is I’m not convinced that his theory isn’t biased. His daughters death caused him to question God. It would be hard pressed to believe he wasn’t biased and doesn’t want to even point to anything God. 

I honestly believe that there’s a place for science and I believe that God will allow scientists to uncover a lot of things.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Those links surely talk about going beyond the first monkey and all the way back to common ancestor, which many of us already knew about and have been talking about. Those links answer your question as to whether or not they traced that far.  They did, and beyond.
> 
> The quora link that you provided explains precisely why humans and chimpanzees/monkeys cannot successfully breed



Sort of what I am referring to is it seems that in the beginning of a split, there should have been enough chromosomes that were equal, as it is explained, evolution occurs over time, nothing drastic???


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Sort of what I am referring to is it seems that in the beginning of a split, there should have been enough chromosomes that were equal, as it is explained, evolution occurs over time, nothing drastic???


No not necessarily at all.
This "split" isn't like there was a group of primate ancestors on one side of a stream and a few figured out a way to cross it and 20 years later a tree fell and some from one side got to mingle with some from the other side.
TIME and DISTANCE are the keys. 
Many groups fanned out all over great distances over thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions of years. Along the way genetic mutations occured that allowed some to adapt to predators, sickness, environment, food sources, terrain, weather etc etc etc....
Something so simple as ONE ancestor that stood up to look over the tall grass when thousands before it and after did not, and that ONE who taught its young to do the same thing and then their offspring over thousands of years all the while entire tribes/clans/ groups were getting wiped out because they didnt stand. These standing/non standing groups were thousands of miles away. They never were anywhere close to meeting let alone breeding. The offspring 100 generations later slowly started to be born with hips that were set in a straight line that made standing and walking upright easier than running on all fours. 
Now add fire to mix.
For hundreds of thousands of years lightening and Lava had created fires all over the world. Primates stayed away from it. It burned them. Meanwhile one of thise walking primates, separated by water since a continental drift occured over the last 800,000 years in that section of the world, accidentally drops a piece of meat into some flames. The meat is in there for a minute or two and that primate takes a stick laying near by and pulls the meat out of the smoldering wood. When it cools down it eats the meat. It REALLY liked the meat cooked. From then on THAT primate tries to eat all its mest like that. It will  take its kills to fire when possible and it feeds it offspring and clan members to do the same thing. While they love the taste and imthe taste fuels them to eat more...they have no idea that the extra protein is causing their brains to expand. These particular primates have given their offspring a key source that will leapfrog them brain wise. But...75,000 years later one of them figure out how to bring fire back to the clan. 5,000 years after that one figures out how to harness fire and carry it around ina coconut hull. Since there are no large trees there so 100,000 years previously they started to sleep in rock outcroppings on the sides of cliffs while their cousins 6,000 miles and two continents away are still happy climbing trees and living in them. The tree dwellers are content eating fruit. The ground dwellers got a taste for meat. Fast forward those 100,000 years and the ones who use fire now sleep in caves. Fire not only cooks their meat but keeps them warm. For the next 350,000 years all these different groups separated all over the continents adapt to what they need or don't and die. In those 350,000 years the fire users have now figured out that smacking a stick over the head of someone or something else works quite nicely. 5,000 miles away his cousins are sticking small sticks into termite mounds and eating the termites off like kabobs. The fire group has figured out throwing a bigger stick will increase their odds of getting game, or keeping a predator or enemy at bay.

Things like these, even so minute, take tens, hundreds, thousands of years if not millions. We cannot comprehend just how long it took us Modern Primates to lose our tails because we didnt need them anymore. But every now and then, some child is born with a couple extra small vertebrae at the end of their spine thst is covered by skin...and it looks and acts JUST like a tail. That is a couple million years of evolution and genetics that under the "right" circumstances...defies the modern model and shows up.


The intermingling that you think should have happened didnt occur until one group figured out to get off an island or continent and meet up with another similar group that was more like them and not like their previous ancestors. By that time chimpanzees were not as attractive as the ones that looked more human(for the lack of a better word) or looked and acted similar to them.

"We" go back a long way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

To be clear my examples above are VERY general and probably not at all close to actual time lines. More accurate time lines can be found.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 14, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> It’s a mixture of the science and the teaching. If we don’t have 100% facts, then it shouldn’t be taught as a as “fact”. Science has a way of saying that a scientific theory differs from theory. But when it comes to the teaching, relax a little, it’s being taught as a theory.
> 
> The main problem with science - evolution - Darwin, is I’m not convinced that his theory isn’t biased. His daughters death caused him to question God. It would be hard pressed to believe he wasn’t biased and doesn’t want to even point to anything God.
> 
> I honestly believe that there’s a place for science and I believe that God will allow scientists to uncover a lot of things.





> The main problem with science - evolution - Darwin, is I’m not convinced that his theory isn’t biased. His daughters death caused him to question God. It would be hard pressed to believe he wasn’t biased and doesn’t want to even point to anything God.


Darwin died 136 years ago.
Science hasn't just taken his word for it since then.
The evidence either proves he was on the right track or he was a biased crack pot who came up with some cockamamie idea because he questioned a god.
Science doesn't care whether his daughter died, his dog ran away or his best friend stole his wife.
His theory is either backed up by the evidence or its not. And not the evidence from 136 years ago. The evidence from TODAY that's been discovered/uncovered since then.
Lets not forget that evolution, as in that things evolve, has been proven to be a fact.
He didn't have some "I'm gonna get back at God" wacky idea.
The flip side to your argument might be that it took him questioning God to focus on science and make the discoveries that he did. Think about that for a minute.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 14, 2018)

bullethead said:


> No not necessarily at all.
> This "split" isn't like there was a group of primate ancestors on one side of a stream and a few figured out a way to cross it and 20 years later a tree fell and some from one side got to mingle with some from the other side.
> TIME and DISTANCE are the keys.
> Many groups fanned out all over great distances over thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions of years. Along the way genetic mutations occured that allowed some to adapt to predators, sickness, environment, food sources, terrain, weather etc etc etc....
> ...





> Things like these, even so minute, take tens, hundreds, thousands of years if not millions. We cannot comprehend just how long it took us Modern Primates to lose our tails because we didnt need them anymore. But every now and then, some child is born with a couple extra small vertebrae at the end of their spine thst is covered by skin...and it looks and acts JUST like a tail. That is a couple million years of evolution and genetics that under the "right" circumstances...defies the modern model and shows up.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


>


Humans are our own example of a transitional species of evolution.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Humans are our own example of a transitional species of evolution.


Now where do these wacky scientists get this crazy evolution theory? 

That quick 2.5 min video is a good example of what actual, real, doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, evidence looks like. It baffles me that Christians seem to "blame" science for looking at this type of evidence and not determining.......
"yep this points to the Christian God".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Now where do these wacky scientists get this crazy evolution theory?
> 
> That quick 2.5 min video is a good example of what actual, real, doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, evidence looks like. It baffles me that Christians seem to "blame" science for looking at this type of evidence and not determining.......
> "yep this points to the Christian God".


What I cannot get straight in my head is WHAT is considered rock solid evidence of a god like someone praying for help with bills and the next day a phone call for a big job comes in (even though they are a mechanic, plumber, mason etc etc who has been in business 20+ years and advertises).

And

The very same person ignores babies born with tails being evidence of our primate roots.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What I cannot get straight in my head is WHAT is considered rock solid evidence of a god like someone praying for help with bills and the next day a phone call for a big job comes in (even though they are a mechanic, plumber, mason etc etc who has been in business 20+ years and advertises).
> 
> And
> 
> The very same person ignores babies born with tails being evidence of our primate roots.



Turns out it's what people do.  It's been put forth that people intuit something and then make up all kinds of reasons why they intuited it and why it's right.  Isn't it funny that the same people who say that science is incomplete or self refuting will then use science as an explanation of the Ark or the absence of man made climate change.  They like science that shows that there might be IQ differences in races but don't like science that shows that racism is still prevalent.  People like science when it suits them.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Turns out it's what people do.  It's been put forth that people intuit something and then make up all kinds of reasons why they intuited it and why it's right.  Isn't it funny that the same people who say that science is incomplete or self refuting will then use science as an explanation of the Ark or the absence of man made climate change.  They like science that shows that there might be IQ differences in races but don't like science that shows that racism is still prevalent.  People like science when it suits them.


There is much truth to that.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> http://anth.la.psu.edu/research/research-labs/jablonski-lab/research/bipedalism
> 
> It is a long read with downloadable pdf files but it explains the anthropology of humans and monkeys better than I can.



wow that makes sense. Think about how many species of animals (house cats just for one example) arch their backs and their fur stands up to give the illusion that they are bigger than they are. The ape that can stand up taller looks considerably stronger. Other apes back down. The lady apes mate with the alpha male and over time there are more taller apes. 

Even today in nearly every culture female humans prefer taller male humans versus shorter males, when all other attributes (status, money, personality) are the same. 

I just don't see how you can deny evolution. If humans behaved entirely different than other species they _maybe _I could see how humans were created separately from animals from clay or whatever. 

But when female humans (even the most dedicated Christian ladies) still tend to fall in love with handsome, tall, strong, successful, charismatic (AKA alpha male) humans at higher rates than they fall in love with ugly, short poor men it only proves that survival of the fittest is hard-wired into humans and has been for thousands of generations.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> wow that makes sense. Think about how many species of animals (house cats just for one example) arch their backs and their fur stands up to give the illusion that they are bigger than they are. The ape that can stand up taller looks considerably stronger. Other apes back down. The lady apes mate with the alpha male and over time there are more taller apes.
> 
> Even today in nearly every culture female humans prefer taller male humans versus shorter males, when all other attributes (status, money, personality) are the same.
> 
> ...


Its also kind of interesting that the attributes that make a male "alpha" (strength, height, aggression etc) are becoming less and less important to us as humans as we make advances in technology. 
The alpha male of the future may be the guy who has the best fingers for pushing buttons 

Which might bring up the question are we really hard wired? Or does it just seem that way?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 17, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its also kind of interesting that the attributes that make a male "alpha" (strength, height, aggression etc) are becoming less and less important to us as humans as we make advances in technology.
> The alpha male of the future may be the guy who has the best fingers for pushing buttons
> 
> Which might bring up the question are we really hard wired? Or does it just seem that way?



Beta Males. We are covered up with them now and will soon be the European Country we fought to gain independence from at our inception.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its also kind of interesting that the attributes that make a male "alpha" (strength, height, aggression etc) are becoming less and less important to us as humans as we make advances in technology.
> The alpha male of the future may be the guy who has the best fingers for pushing buttons
> 
> Which might bring up the question are we really hard wired? Or does it just seem that way?



It's kind of like that already.  Money is the equivalent of a mastodon hindquarter now and an unhealthy but intelligent man can often figure out how to make lots of money and he will have access to lots of desirable females. It seems like we might be selecting for intelligence over physical prowess. Biologically speaking, women still seek a mate that can provide resources for their offspring but they also want a mate with good genes for health, strength, vitality, etc.  It's been suggested that a modern woman's best strategy is to marry a rich, kind, nurturing dork but get impregnated by the pool boy.  This works out for her if the dork never finds out who the real father is.  Similar things happen in nature with other animals.   

Of course if you're a smart, strong, handsome and ambitious male you can have it all.  I think we're a bit more complicate than that, though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> It's kind of like that already.  Money is the equivalent of a mastodon hindquarter now and an unhealthy but intelligent man can often figure out how to make lots of money and he will have access to lots of desirable females. It seems like we might be selecting for intelligence over physical prowess. Biologically speaking, women still seek a mate that can provide resources for their offspring but they also want a mate with good genes for health, strength, vitality, etc.  It's been suggested that a modern woman's best strategy is to marry a rich, kind, nurturing dork but get impregnated by the pool boy.  This works out for her if the dork never finds out who the real father is.  Similar things happen in nature with other animals.
> 
> Of course if you're a smart, strong, handsome and ambitious male you can have it all.  I think we're a bit more complicate than that, though.





> It's been suggested that a modern woman's best strategy is to marry a rich, kind, nurturing dork but get impregnated by the pool boy.


Right. Because at this point in our evolution the modern woman is wired that the pool boy is the alpha (strong, virile etc) and the dork is security.
I'm pondering that if at some point/over the course of time, because of the aid of technology, a "re-wiring" occurs.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 17, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Right. Because at this point in our evolution the modern woman is wired that the pool boy is the alpha (strong, virile etc) and the dork is security.
> I'm pondering that if at some point/over the course of time, because of the aid of technology, a "re-wiring" occurs.



It would take many generations of living in advanced technology to completely eclipse the thousands of years of our current state. And if we as a species get knocked back to the stone age from the collapse of civilization before we all turn into weak, soft, sickly computer nerds we might survive as a species.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 17, 2018)

Also evolution required men to look at women from the front instead of the back. Something needed for a monogamous relationship.
Anyhow I read this in a book called "The Naked Ape."
Something up front needed to draw our attention more to form a face-to-face sexual act.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Right. Because at this point in our evolution the modern woman is wired that the pool boy is the alpha (strong, virile etc) and the dork is security.
> I'm pondering that if at some point/over the course of time, because of the aid of technology, a "re-wiring" occurs.



I'm intrigued.  Go on...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> It would take many generations of living in advanced technology to completely eclipse the thousands of years of our current state. And if we as a species get knocked back to the stone age from the collapse of civilization before we all turn into weak, soft, sickly computer nerds we might survive as a species.



Science fiction often portrays advanced beings as scrawny, frail, diminutive creatures with giant heads and eyes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien

The writers imagined that physical attributes would be unnecessary in a low gravity, machine driven world and that high intelligence (as shown by a giant head/brain) would be paramount.  They sometimes gave them long spindly fingers, the theory being that they would use them to operate giant consoles of buttons, keys and switches.  

If God gets involved, it should only take 6-10,000 years to happen.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Also evolution required men to look at women from the front instead of the back. Something needed for a monogamous relationship.
> Anyhow I read this in a book called "The Naked Ape."
> Something up front needed to draw our attention more to form a face-to-face sexual act.



Thus the permanently swollen mammaries.  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201104/why-men-love-mammaries

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-sex-and-babies/201104/why-are-men-mad-about-mammaries

All other female primates swell in their reproductive areas during estrous, signalling to males their fertility.  The permamently swollen mammaries of humans are thought to mimic that swelling.  They also give the impression of lactation, indicating that she may be with child which might cause men to be more attentive to their mate in response to the care and protection instinct.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'm intrigued.  Go on...


We think the woman is "hard wired" because up to this point in human history/our knowledge, the whole alpha thing, as in warring, hunting, physical strength, is what was critical for our survival as a species.
As technology replaces the needs of those individual attributes, will we slowly get re-wired and the big melon head & long fingers becomes what is "alpha"??
Which means we technically aren't _hard_ wired. Its just all we've ever known up to this point.
Not sure that makes sense just thinking out loud


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> We think the woman is "hard wired" because up to this point in human history/our knowledge, the whole alpha thing, as in warring, hunting, physical strength, is what was critical for our survival as a species.
> As technology replaces the needs of those individual attributes, will we slowly get re-wired and the big melon head & long fingers becomes what is "alpha"??
> Which means we technically aren't _hard_ wired. Its just all we've ever known up to this point.
> Not sure that makes sense just thinking out loud



Hard wired changes.  That's evolution.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Apr 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Science fiction often portrays advanced beings as scrawny, frail, diminutive creatures with giant heads and eyes.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien
> 
> ...



the giant headed aliens theory might fall apart though unless the alien females have very wide pelvises and very durable, stretchable birth canals. Regardless I would think when an alien mother starts laying on a guilt trip to her kid and says "you don't know the pain I went through when I had you!" they aren't kidding!


----------

