Should evolution be taught in schools?

[afro-elf]

All that I'm trying to do is to convince you and others to give the God that I believe in a chance.

I did and I found I was in error however if you think you have cool


ciao

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It is. It's also a contravertial thread prone to tangents, and this is a big one.

If the original topic revives, then so be it. I won't object.

I didn't realise that the Theism thread was closed. To get some of the people's views on religion you might want to read these two threads.

Theism - 27 pages
The Anti-theist Thread - 57 pages

You can find a lot opf my views already expressed in the Anti-Theist thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Ah, I was talking to Lizra .

Originally posted by afro-elf
ERROR LE,
1) its a matter of time which I did not have
2)and prudence.
it not better to read the original soucre than my second hand source

To sum up the belief in god has biological roots.

The switch above was (freewill) was a response to your comment bringing freewill in.

Afro elf, I wish you wouldn't sum up. The belief that the belief in God comes from man appears to me to be simply from a belief. I'm afraid I'll have to listen to your second error warning and look to another source before being able to address this statement.

[Lief Erikson]

I'd personally rather hear people's questions from themselves then read a closed topic. If people want to email or PM me on the topic, they can. If they want to continue inside this topic, I'm open to that too. If the whole thread closes entirely, I'm all right with that.

So basically, I'm not casting my vote as to which way this thread goes. The decision is up to the rest of you.

[Rían]

Well, I finished editing my 2:50 post, and in the meantime, a bunch of posts came in, and it's already history! But anyway, for anyone that's interested, it is finished, and I'd like your opinions.

And Lizra, I'm glad you don't have that vending machine mentality about prayer. It sure seemed to me that you did from your post, and many people do, so I addressed it. What do you think about the way that I presented prayer (or anyone else)? Does it make sense to you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'd personally rather hear people's questions from themselves then read a closed topic. If people want to email or PM me on the topic, they can. If they want to continue inside this topic, I'm open to that too. If the whole thread closes entirely, I'm all right with that.

So basically, I'm not casting my vote as to which way this thread goes. The decision is up to the rest of you.

I'm just saying that if you're interested in what others have to say - there are two threads that most of us have already taken part in. You might get some insight on why people feel the way they do. I know that Afro Elf has a lot of his comments in there, as well as me.

I'm not saying not to continue this one - just there are two additional sources on people's beliefs if you're interested.

[Lief Erikson]

All right, thanks for the suggestion .

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(BTW, Lief, I think you misinterpreted Starr's post the same way that I did - I think what Starr was pointing out was - why did cass even bother to pray if she didn't believe in God? )

Is that right, Starr? BTW, that's a good point about answered prayers - sometimes we ask, then we don't even notice the answer! But God is faithful.

Exactly what I meant. I could never pray to Allah, or cast a spell to 'my Lady' (at least one sect of Wicca does this as a form of prayer, I think), because I don't believe in those things.

I can see praying just to pray, so something or someone, reveals itself to you, but not specifically to any god.

[Lizra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B

And Lizra, I'm glad you don't have that vending machine mentality about prayer. It sure seemed to me that you did from your post, and many people do, so I addressed it. What do you think about the way that I presented prayer (or anyone else)? Does it make sense to you? [/B][/QUOTE

Well, the vending machine mentality came from Leif. He said you didn't even need to belive in God, just pray that he reveals himself to you, and be sincere. He also said sometimes he answers your prayers sometimes he doesn't. That's where I came up with "pray and see what happens, eh?"

Your thoughts on prayer are very nice, , but if you don't believe that God exists, then none of those nice things will happen.

What I find impossible to believe is an afterlife, especially the bit about Heaven and Hell. Also, the Biblical miricles of the old testement, and the Creation story.

I do believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and preached a powerful message of love, that moved many people, spawning the Christian relegion.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
Why would you pray to someone/thing you don't believe in?

I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right? Why do we need to pray anyway? Wouldn't God know what we want, since He is all powerful?

I am trying to be nice in this thread, since I do have some rather strong feelings on this topic. I believe that religious people simply distort the 'facts' (like the fact that God does't anwer all prayers, for example) so that they avoid being wrong. If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Well, the vending machine mentality came from Leif. He said you didn't even need to belive in God, just pray that he reveals himself to you, and be sincere. He also said sometimes he answers your prayers sometimes he doesn't. That's where I came up with "pray and see what happens, eh?"

Your thoughts on prayer are very nice, , but if you don't believe that God exists, then none of those nice things will happen.
[/B]

Lizra - I didn't ask if you thought that they were nice ideas, (and I do know that you are trying to be polite ) but you can still be polite and state your opinion about whether or not they make sense, if you assume the Christian view that I stated, namely, that God is all-knowing and will answer either yes, no or wait a bit, depending upon which is the best one for us.

Now the way Lief's statement ties in is that it is clearly stated in the Bible that it is God's will that all come to know Him, and that those that seek Him with all their hearts will find Him. However, this is where free will comes in - if you choose to not seek Him, then He will allow you to make that choice. And also, He may not answer it in a way that you would expect - for example, it might take a little time, because He knows that ultimately that will help your belief.

Do you see the subtle (but extremely important) difference? When I pray for about something like "would you please help this person to get better", the answer may be - although it is extremely difficult for us to understand - a 'no'. For our best is not necessarily here on earth, and a person's death may affect people in many painful, but ULTIMATELY beneficial ways, that only God can see and know about.

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right? Why do we need to pray anyway? Wouldn't God know what we want, since He is all powerful?

I am trying to be nice in this thread, since I do have some rather strong feelings on this topic. I believe that religious people simply distort the 'facts' (like the fact that God does't anwer all prayers, for example) so that they avoid being wrong. If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.

The Bible doesn't say that God answers all prayers with a "yes"!! Could you please take a quick look back at my post that discusses that question and let me know what areas you disagree with? (if you hold on a sec, I'll put the post time in for a reference). And I also listed several other reasons why we should pray. What do you think about those?

(it's the 1:46 pm post)

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right? Why do we need to pray anyway? Wouldn't God know what we want, since He is all powerful?

Ah, you're agnostic then? For some reason I thought you were completely atheist...correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.

About God knowing what we want, well, yes. Have you ever read the Chronicles of Narnia? There's a part, I think in the first book (I haven't read them for a long time), when one of the children comments on why Aslan didn't give them food, since he knew they were hungry. Another one of the children replies something like:
"Well, I think he's the kind that likes to be asked."

Someone can't give you help if you won't accept it.

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe that religious people simply distort the 'facts' (like the fact that God does't anwer all prayers, for example) so that they avoid being wrong. If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.

Well, I don't claim that all I say is right. At this moment I may think I'm right, but I could easily be proven wrong. I believe in God completely, and won't say I'm wrong about His existance, but, especially since I'm young in all walks of life, I may be misinterpreting or just not completely understand all the things related to him.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The Bible doesn't say that God answers all prayers with a "yes"!! Could you please take a quick look back at my post that discusses that question and let me know what areas you disagree with? (if you hold on a sec, I'll put the post time in for a reference). And I also listed several other reasons why we should pray. What do you think about those?

(it's the 1:46 pm post)

I think you misunderstood my post. I was asking why does God need us to pray, shouldn't He know what we want? I understand what you are saying about not all prayers being anwered, and I for one am glad not all prayers are answered, since I am sure that not all are for good. I think I read the right post - I think because of the time difference the times that posts were posted are different (I hope that just made sense). So praying makes you feel closer to God?

SP: I like that quote from Narnia and yes, I am an agnostic.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I think you misunderstood my post. I was asking why does God need us to pray, shouldn't He know what we want?

He does know what we want and he could do it if he wanted to. However, if he wants a relationship with a human, as it says in the Bible, then that is an interactive relationship. I read in one devotional book that the ideal prayer is the prayer of silence, which is entirely listening, and learning God's perfect will.

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I am open to the possibility that God exists. But at the moment, I see no need or evidence that He does exist. I pray at last resort, it's better than nothing, right?

The primary evidence that you are going to find for God's existence, Cassiopeia, is that of the witnesses. This evidence you don't have to believe, but it is hopefully sufficient for you to see that God could exist. And if he does exist, well, you have already said that you want to get to know him if he does exist, so I advise you to find out by asking him if he exists. You don't have to believe he exists to ask him if he exists, and I guarantee that he'll answer.

As for whether praying as a last resort is better than nothing . . . I'd actually say that it isn't better. For God isn't likely to answer such a prayer, and could end up damaging your belief because the venting machine fails to operate.

Originally posted by Lizra
Well, the vending machine mentality came from Leif. He said you didn't even need to belive in God, just pray that he reveals himself to you, and be sincere.

Lizra, I'm delighted that you now understand what I mean.

Plenty of people do have a venting machine mentality, and I don't remember if I'm the one who brought it up here. But it is a common problem, and a good idea to address.

Originally posted by cassiopeia
If I ask, if God created us, what about the fossil records which show that humans decended from ape-like creatures over millions of years? You will probably find some 'excuse', like the evidence is faulty or similar.

If you bring up something that goes against the Bible, then I would wish that Christians would look closely at it before accepting it as true. And be careful about bending the Bible to science in your study. This doesn't mean keep ignorance rather than verified fact simply because the verified fact disagrees with what is written in ignorance. It simply is because Christians have a basis of faith and good reasons to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and if it is so then one must be careful before saying that it's wrong in a certain area.

I think that evolution will eventually have far better accuracy and things in it will become a lot better defined then they are now. There is evidence to support swift evolution, and I'm personally more inclined to believe that than the longer term evolution which takes place over millions of years. The dating methods which show things to have existed for millions of years are debatable, anyway, and the longer term belief has some difficulties in it. For example, the fact that many different species are very different from each other, whereas if there was a slow evolution, then there would be many, many species which are closely related to each other. If on the other hand, as genetics have shown is the case with certain species, a species under stress or in difficult circumstances acts to keep itself alive by changing, this would give a reasonable explanation for the different species around the world which are unrelated to each other.

Anyway, this is simply one opinion, and it could be mistaken. I do think that evolution has quite a few things right, but I think that they will discover a lot of new things that they didn't know before, and discard quite a few of the old beliefs.

[BeardofPants]

Guys, if you want to talk about praying and stuff, I suggest that you open up a new thread, because I am rather sick of having to plow through all these off-topic comments. I know that some people asked questions, but I now feel they have been answered. Can we get back to the topic at question? Evolution?

[Lief Erikson]

That sounds reasonable to me. Is anyone interested in continuing this discussion in another topic, or should we let it drop, or continue it on PMs or emails? What is the general consensus?

[Cirdan]

LE, I'm curious as to why you believe dating methods are debatable. There is no real controversy in the Geology community about dating techniques, New discoveries are more related to precision than accuracy. Whether something is 800 million years old or 780 million does not change the fact that nothing in science today supports the chronology of the biblical creation story. Your example is somewhat flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration mass extinctions and periods of non-stress (the horseshoe crab has changed little in 780 million years) just to name a few.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
LE, I'm curious as to why you believe dating methods are debatable. There is no real controversy in the Geology community about dating techniques, New discoveries are more related to precision than accuracy. Whether something is 800 million years old or 780 million does not change the fact that nothing in science today supports the chronology of the biblical creation story. Your example is somewhat flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration mass extinctions and periods of non-stress (the horseshoe crab has changed little in 780 million years) just to name a few.

Because of the dating methods, people believe that a creature was the way it was 700 million years ago. Besides the dating method and the similarities of structure between the previous crab and the present crab, there isn't that much fossil evidence that comes between any of these creatures. One thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me is why we have bones of creatures 700 million years ago, but when we have several different fossils of one species, we don't have much evidence at all of creatures in between, even though we have several of the far past. Perhaps this lack is explainable, but I think it makes sense that there wouldn't be any creatures in between if there wasn't enough time for there to be. Thus, we also have a reason for there not being an enormous mixture in the species, as I'm sure there would be if we all evolved so slowly. Saying that we evolved slowly over an enormous amount of time doesn't take into account the fact that many species exist which are completely unrelated to each other. When a creature slowly changes, like recieves light sensing material in place of eyes, and this slowly develops into an eye, you're ignoring all the creatures that lie further below. The species would slowly change, and many different creatures of that same species would go in different directions. Thus, you would see an enormous amount of new species constantly developing, each to its different circumstances. We would live on a planet with far more related species.

There actually is dispute over the dating methods. My Dad has written two books which connect the creation and the Old Testament to science, and show what science made mistakes and how and why, and where everything correlates. Unfortunately, I cannot post those discoveries here, because as yet they are unpublished. I'll refer you to them the moment they are (Don't quite know when that will be ).

In any case, I'm not knowledgable enough about the different dating methods to discuss them with you, unfortunately. BeardofPants didn't give me a very detailed example of what the other dating methods do and how they work, but I'll be keeping my eye out for information on that subject.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Your example is somewhat flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration mass extinctions and periods of non-stress (the horseshoe crab has changed little in 780 million years) just to name a few.

Periods of non-stress would probably occur, and on these occasions species would probably remain largely as they always were. This would explain why the species we see today are largely the same as they have been for many years. None of their species are near the edge of extinction, but when a species is, it can adapt to make a come back. Assuming that because you cannot see the change, but you can see evolution, it has to be done over a longer period of time, and based upon dating methods that could well be wrong (Because of my lack of knowledge of the other methods, I'm speaking largely of radio carbon dating here), is just not right. There are evidences to support your judgement, but there are contradictions that have to be looked at.

I heard my Dad tell me once about an island upon which there was an endangered species, which was severely threatened because of changes in the environment. The scientists returned to the island and found that the old species was extinct, but they found four new species, all extremely closely related to the extinct one!

I don't have any reason to believe that there have been enormous mass extinctions in Earth's past. I think it is a way of explaining the nonexistence of species that otherwise we would see examples of. I'd appreciate you or someone else giving some of the evidence that supports the existence of such extinctions.