Some front line views of the war against God.

[Delta9 UK]

All the more reason for you to understand the mistakes you have made throughout this "debate".

I have an accountancy and finance degree at LSE but that does not by any means make me a figurehead on financial theory, someone with no degree or qualification could wind up with a theory which could stagger the world of financial theorists.

We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't.

So again, your wrong, you cant apply your CV to a cannabis forum and demand respect lol.

No - you have a weird inability to understand when you are well out of your depth. My degree is directly related to the subject at hand - you are now just being offensive.

You want to talk about this properly and discuss your "evidence" then lets do it. I know you don't know what you are even debating so this should be hilarous, if not short lived.

Again - this time in bold

YOU ARE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION

Better?

You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up.

There is in fact no debate, I or nobody else is trying to prove or disprove evolution, I am just saying that due to the lack of evidence on both parties of evolution and creationism both are just as viable in terms of an option in education.

Still waiting for this lack of evidence? You mean transitional fossils? or maybe Vestigal organs? Or maybe - you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

They are NOT both viable - you just don't understand enough about evolution to know why.

Prove evolution to be an absolute truth and then you can teach it with removing entire elements of creationism in your teachings.

LOL like everything else taught in school is absolute truth.

DR Zakir Naik is a creationist whom im sure is as qualified as the likes of you, you cannot call him less of a scientist because he is a creationist lol.

Well he quit science in 1991 to study and promote Islam - I didn't, who wins? Try picking someone who hasn't since then dedicated their life to something other than science and you might have a fair chance.

I could call him "less of a scientist" actually - if he ignores the Mountain of evidence then no, he's not a proper scientist - that's how science works.

You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.

Take your own advice. This is the most hilarous oxymoronic statement I've read all week. I'm beginning to wonder if this is just trolling on your part.

If you want to debate WHY creationism doesn't have any evidence (let's throw in ID as well because that's bollocks too) then let's do it. If you just want to apply circular logic to everything without facing the actual meat of the debate then you bore me.

Creationist are relying on the average joe not understanding the facts - people just like YOU.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Look familiar? You keep saying that you're not trying to use eugenics to show flaws in evolution, yet you do keeps saying that you're trying to show the link between them to show the "negative aspects" of evolution, which seems like a case of poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.

No, how on earth can by displaying negative aspects to a theory be an attempt to debunk and flaw the entire concept of evolution?

Does that fact of me thinking the great african tin man as a silly idea debunk the whole concept of intelligent design?

No it doesnt, if I wish to show negative aspects to the theory of a subject then that by no means I am attempting to FLAW the whole idea and concept of it.

This I would have thought is obvious.

My original reasons for bringing up astrology was based around the fact that astronomy and star positions which have been around a long time gave birth to silly and absurd ideologies SUCH AS astrology.

These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.

No, your original reasons for making the analogy (it was an analogy) of star positions and astrology was to try and emphasize the fact that although evolution cannot be proven to be correct it is still happening...

Which leads perfectly on to the reason why you made that analogy because you said, believing in astronomy does not invalidate the positions of the stars.

Here is your original quote:

Astrology is based upon the positions of the stars. Just because there is something wrong with astrology, that doesn't invalidate the position of the stars, only the assumptions or interpretations derived from them.

And you assume that just because there is something wrong with evolution (eugenics) does not invalidate the theory.

This is what you meant originally, do not alter your meanings.

I have a good memory.

You spent a very long time away from the last post I directed at you "newbie" - why was that?

These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.

And what is wrong with this? Besides the fact you are using it on an idiotic example. There is nothing wrong with communicating the negative aspects and other viable options to theories, this is not done in schools which is my only point!

Look familiar?

Kind of. - lmfao

poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.

What?

How do you figure? I used a silly analogy to show that the link between eugenics and evolution is about the same as the link between astrology and astronomy

No you used an analogy which related a flaw in a theory (Astrology) to the actual factual position of certain stars.

You believed that this flaw which related to eugenics in evolution does not disprove the evolution concept which in turn is true IF EVOLUTION COULD BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE. Your analogy assumes evolution to be as true as the position of the stars. When in fact it is not.

If you disagree with my reasoning, point out why it isn't a valid reasoning instead of just resorting to calling it stupid.

Read the last paragraph.

You need to make a link to eugenics, it seems, to have an argument that there are "negative aspects" to evolution. Claiming you've made the link by showing that the founders of each are related and that eugenics has a false interpretation of evolution is the best you can do?

Eugenics is evolutionary thinking, selective breeding etc that is all remnants of the Darwinist evolutionist school of thought.

And yes, the founder of modern day eugenics was actually related to the founder of the theory of evolution.

What more do you want?

This by no means makes evolution to be an icorrect theory.

So because evolution lacks morality, we shouldn't teach it to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.

No that is entirely NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

*sigh*

To be fair, he asked you a question, and you are dodging it entirely here. Answer the question, please.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Because, the theory of creationism goes against some peoples religoius beliefs. It excludes some religions, and includes others, which in turn promotes some religions, while "disproving" others.

Intelligent design does not have to include religious belief, it does not have to incorporate religion whatsoever or even the theory of God.

So what you are saying is you are want a very basic form of creationism that says, in essence, "something created us, the end"?

No I want respect for the theory of intelligent design as much as the theory for evolution, due to the fact they both lack evidence does not entail that one supports one over the other (other than mere self opinions).

There is a difference between the simple concept of creationism meaning that something created all that we see, and the specific versions of creationism that people want to teach in the schools.

I not once recommended that they teach a specific concept of creationism in schools, I simply think creationism/intelligent design are just as viable as evolution.

That is one of my arguements yes. And as I admited, its a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but this is one of the building blocks towards a government religion. First you have schools teaching a specific religious viewpoint, which gives you the foothold to put more and more religious type things in the schools. Public schools should not promote any religion, ever. Freedom of religion is an important trait of this country, and teaching creationism leads itself to pushing a specific religions viewpoints, as there is no point in teaching creationism if you are going to teach its most basic form. A single statement does not a class make.

So what are you wanting to be taught? I dont get it... you are saying its not tied to a religion, but how do you plan on teaching it. The most basic form of creationism with all religion removed from it simply says "something created us". Thats not a class, thats not even a decent seminar.

The popular views of creationism are tied directly into religion. In the case of the Louisianna situation, its tied directly into religion especially, since the money is going to a religious group to promote teaching creationism in public schools.

Imitator, you do not need to talk to me as if I am some kind of Indoctrinated christian who wants to also indoctrinate the youth and shove creationism down their throats by the use of political tools to bring creationism into the educational system.

I think it was Ken Miller who broke the ground and took creationsism out of the schooling system of America, he showed how creationism has no weight behind it therefore - nothing to teach!.

However Imitator what you fail to realise is the concepts and implications of what you are saying, you assume with your above quotes that evolution should be taken out of the educational system and replaced with creationism.

I do not agree with this, and this is not what I am saying, there is nothing with examining signs of nature with the view that these were specifically intelligently designed and created.

I think also the fact that no scientific FACT contradicts the Quran, theories may contradict the Quran, but no Fact has actually contradicted the Quran to date.

And I believe that there is some viablity in creationism, but I dont think a basic form of creationism deserves to be taught in class,

By no means do I wish to teach utter creationism in schools as you have said "God did it" doesnt leave much for the rest of the semester of education, I was just making the statement that evolution is as valid as creationism (you may think) but this does not mean creationism is not as viable as evolution because it is!

We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't.

There is no need to show aggression because you have a clear lack of understanding about exactly what this whole thread is about, but reading the title may help you on your way.

The fact remains that creationism is just as viable as evolution.

What if after everything you are actually wrong about evolution? This is what I hate about both evolutionists (you) and creationists (not me) they both do not have the slightest understanding of the fact that due to the lack of evidence upon both schools of thought that each could be just as valid as the other.

So why should we dictate one doctrine above the other in schools?

We should give the option and show how creationism could and is just as viable as evolution.

We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't

My degree does not mean I am excluded from any debates around evolution, and it does not by any means make you the figurehead of the theory and thus excel you in any way above anyone else.

Your being offensive.

You believe by showing me the fact you have a degree makes you more knowledgeable about the subject than me? I know people who would run rings around me discussing financial theory who have little or no qualifications in the subject.

Like I said, your CV is your own business.

Like I said, me having a degree in accountancy does not make me a figurehead in the subject just like you having a science related degree does not make YOU a figurehead in the subject of science or evolution.

So (in bold I ask you).

Why did you feel the need to bring up your degree?

Still waiting for this lack of evidence?

I think ive mentioned about 10 if you read up.

If you want to debate WHY creationism doesn't have any evidence (let's throw in ID as well because that's bollocks too) then let's do it. If you just want to apply circular logic to everything without facing the actual meat of the debate then you bore me.

Creationist are relying on the average joe not understanding the facts - people just like YOU.

You can attempt to signpost me as a creationist all you like, there is no basis for attack until I actually tell you that I am a creationist.

When infact im not.

LOL like everything else taught in school is absolute truth.

LOL you have just contradicted yourself, firstly you want evolution in schools and creationism out, for the reasons that it is on a "search for the truth".

And now your saying well actually not everything in schools are true so why worry about evolution not being true?

Then what is your big gripe with creationism even being CONSIDERED as a viable option in schools?

You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.

Im not even saying creatioism shoulw be "taught in schools" when the hell did I say this?

I dont even agree with the actual teaching of creationism because all your left with is understanding how things work and discovery - but "god did it". But that does not stop science, even if someone was to believe that God just did all of it, that would not stop that scientist from learning more about how things work and how the world was created.

He could be wrong (and I hope he accepts this fact).

Archaeology is another subject which has unveiled some amazing theories about the history of the people and civilizations who lived thousands of years ago, some archaeologists subjectively go as far as saying these civilizations had advanced technology and an incredibly high degree of knowledge about the origins of our existence.

Who are we to say that in terms of knowledge, that we are at the pinnacle?

Evolutionary thinking was a rebellious act against the creationist church yes, I agree.

It was a revolution.

But what is revolution? - RE-EVOLUTION.

In 200 years time we could all be back to following intelligent design.

Who are you to say that we are on some kind of advancement of knowledge and intelligent design is history, dead and buried, never another sign of that being true will be show again?

This is all im saying, im being rational about your evolutionary thinking.

You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up

I understand that Abogenesis must not be confused with evolution entirely but it is not invalid to link the two, biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So it is not necessarily invalid to join the two â?? especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

I also understand that evolution is a theory which describes how life has developed, a premise to this story is to understand that life must have already existed.

Again which points me to what was earlier said,that evolution does not by any means discredit the existence of an inteligent creator.

However here is the mystery..

It could have been created intelligently by a designer.

Or it could have come about with the theory of ABOGENESIS.

Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

So, why on earth should I not be allowed to even make a statement about ATLEAST considering the fact that intelligent design could have actually happened.

Lets not rule it out, thats all im saying!

Im not saying evolution or creationism are wrong!

[imitator]

You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up.

Thats what its called, the damn name was escaping me.

I really dont think that Fallen Icarus understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. And without being able to understand that difference, we cant really have much of a discussion.

That being said, just because there is a lack of scientific evidence, doesnt mean that it shouldnt still be taught in some manner. Knowledge covers everything, both things proven, and things unproven, and it does a person a great injustice to hide from them anything that isnt "proven", as even if its completely off base, they should still learn about it, in a subjective manner with proper teachers(which is the key problem with alot of teaching in the US these days it seems)... a person needs a well rounded mind, and it only hurts them to hide and refuse to teach them about things.

IF creationism wasnt so deeply seated into religions, and if it wasnt the case that the only viable way to teach it is via a specific religions viewpoint on creationism, then I wouldnt have a problem with the government funding teaching it. THe problem is that it is tied into a few select religions, in regards to what would be taught, and we have a thing called seperation of church and state, and freedom of religion, which makes things things wrong to do. If there was any sort of viable way to teach the concept behind creationism without involving a "religion of choice" in it, then I would really think it should be taught in schools, properly. But you cant really teach people about a theory which consists of "a god(s) created everything. the end". It just doesnt work, and if you cant make it work without promoting the beliefs of a specific religion, then it cant be taught in public schools.

[imitator]

I also understand that evolution is a theory which describes how life has developed, a premise to this story is to understand that life must have already existed.

Thats fine, but schools arent neccessarily teaching abiogenesis.

You constantly try to make it seem like evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, but they arent. They are two completely different theories, and one does not imply the other explicitly.

The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt. We have countless experiments which have shown that it does happen. Abiogenesis is another story.

Imitator, you do not need to talk to me as if I am some kind of Indoctrinated christian who wants to also indoctrinate the youth and shove creationism down their throats by the use of political tools to bring creationism into the educational system.

I think it was Ken Miller who broke the ground and took creationsism out of the schooling system of America, he showed how creationism has no weight behind it therefore - nothing to teach!.

However Imitator what you fail to realise is the concepts and implications of what you are saying, you assume with your above quotes that evolution should be taken out of the educational system and replaced with creationism.

No, I do not assume that, you are incorrect in your assumptions.

I have not once inferred that we would be replacing anything. Replacing one thing with another is infact irrelevant to my point.

The point is, that you cant teach about creationism without involving religion. There is nothing to teach without involving religion. You claim otherwise, but please, prove it. I am curious how you figure its possible.

I am telling you right now, I do not see how you could have more then a simple statement if you remove religions from creationism. Religions provide specific stories behind their version of creationism, whereas creationism itself only states that something created all of this. You cant teach a basic form of creationism, as there is nothing to teach. And if we are talking about a non-religious form of creationism, then in fact there is almost no evidence for it, much less then evolution, or hell even abiogenesis.

I think also the fact that no scientific FACT contradicts the Quran, theories may contradict the Quran, but no Fact has actually contradicted the Quran to date.

Considering we dont hold any actual scientific facts as of yet, I could say the same of almost anything. All science holds is theories and the like, actual FACTS are not known to us at this time.

Intelligent design does not have to include religious belief, it does not have to incorporate religion whatsoever or even the theory of God.

Give me an example of where ID doesnt involve religion or a theory of God.

I not once recommended that they teach a specific concept of creationism in schools, I simply think creationism/intelligent design are just as viable as evolution.

What do you recommend they teach in regards to it then? I dont see any point dancing around any of the other issues, since the problem I have deals directly with this.

How do you propose we teach this in schools if we are removing all religion from it. You want this taught to people alongside evolution, provide your method of doing so, please. I am curious how you envision this, and it might make things a bit easier for everyone involved to see exactly how you stand on this.

[cadmiumblimp]

Give me an example of where ID doesnt involve religion or a theory of God.

I'll just poke in here real quick and say aliens, but there's as much proof of aliens interfering in man's development as there is that God made everything or that there even IS a god.

[Fallen_Icarus]

I really dont think that Fallen Icarus understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. And without being able to understand that difference, we cant really have much of a discussion.

I do understand the difference between the two, you clearly did not read the last passage of my last post, read it and then come back to me.

You constantly try to make it seem like evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing,

No I do not "constantly" do this, and the reason is - is because I understand that there is a difference between the two such as the entire fact that abogenesis describes how life came about in its theory and evolution describes the happenings of this particular "life" yet it would not be invalid to link the two.

You can link them.

The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt.

What - so we really did evolve from apes? (lol)

So why are they still calling evolution a theory?

No, I do not assume that, you are incorrect in your assumptions.

I am glad you do not assume that yet your posts clearly point in the opposite direction.

The point is, that you cant teach about creationism without involving religion. There is nothing to teach without involving religion.

I dont know about you but I doubt many religions actually talk about aliens creating us.

Engineering us - this would in no way invalidate evolution, it only offers a different prespective which is all I ask.

I am telling you right now, I do not see how you could have more then a simple statement if you remove religions from creationism. Religions provide specific stories behind their version of creationism, whereas creationism itself only states that something created all of this.

Why do you continuously relate Intelligent design to religion? Isnt it a simple fact to you as to anyone else that someone can actually believe in intelligent design WITHOUT religion?

I know dozens of people who could back the statement I have made.

It is a silly idea, a stereotypical igornance of you to presume that creationism or intelligent design must always bring in religion.

What on earth does jesus and the apostles have to do with us being made from one infinite source of energy at a quantum physical level?

Science has a huge amount of intelligent design based theorem which could be classed as just as valid, if you look into quantum physics you will find theory and experiments which reveal that matter actually has intelligence.

You love science, but the video im about to paste here is full of nothing but religion so just ignore it.

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

.

And if we are talking about a non-religious form of creationism, then in fact there is almost no evidence for it, much less then evolution, or hell even abiogenesis.

I agree! However - how you measure the amount of evidence is up to you, yet 100 years ago people may have presumed intelligent design to be a more formidable theory as opposed to evolution because there was little or nothing to support evolution.

Your statement only presumes that the future holds no hope for creationism and proving intelligent design in terms of evidence.

But the fact that there is no evidence or little evidence to prove ID does not invalidate it and throw forward evolution as an incredible theory which we must presume to be true simply because we cannot yet prove intelligent design.

I am just saying that the two are just as valid and the two should be given equal credit and intelligent design should be given as an optional viable option as to how we arrived on this planet.

And your a philosopher, apparently so why on earth must you follow a belief in which you do not agree with the belief of questioning EVERY belief?

Why do you (a philosopher not an evolutionist or a creationist) disagree with me?

I dont understand your motives here imitator.

Give me an example of where ID doesnt involve religion or a theory of God.

...

I'll just poke in here real quick and say aliens, but there's as much proof of aliens interfering in man's development as there is that God made everything or that there even IS a god.

And please do not reply saying how I wish to teach the children that we were created by aliens, you asked for an example of which ID would not involve religion and I didnt even need to give you one, someone else did, showing that its ignorant and stereotypical to continuously relate intelligent design to a Judea Christian perspective.

Like I said, you can perceive the creator to be a 5 million foot bean monster for all I care, the fact is is that we are integrating the possibility of intelligent design as a viable option.

Because it is as viable as evolution.

Considering we dont hold any actual scientific facts as of yet, I could say the same of almost anything. All science holds is theories and the like, actual FACTS are not known to us at this time.

So your saying there is always a way to dispute fact?

I say if you jump off a 100 story building, when you hit the ground your heart will stop.

Theres always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

[Hardcore Newbie]

No, how on earth can by displaying negative aspects to a theory be an attempt to debunk and flaw the entire concept of evolution?

Does that fact of me thinking the great african tin man as a silly idea debunk the whole concept of intelligent design?

No it doesnt, if I wish to show negative aspects to the theory of a subject then that by no means I am attempting to FLAW the whole idea and concept of it.

This I would have thought is obvious.

But you're not showing "negative aspects" of evolution, you're showing flaws with eugenics.

I agree with you here, that the flaws with any religious systems don't shouldn't reflect on the idea that we were created. Let me bold something... That's not the problem with Intelligent Design. Evolution does have proof. You keep saying that there's no proof but there's tonnes.

How we know what happened when

You can learn lots more here too!

No, your original reasons for making the analogy (it was an analogy) of star positions and astrology was to try and emphasize the fact that although evolution cannot be proven to be correct it is still happening...

No, you've misinterpreted. Let's make a chart.

In the analogy...

Evolution = Astronomy, both have proof. No where did I emphasis that evolution didn't have proof in the analogy. in fact, the opposite was implied. Astronomy has scientific proof. If I was trying to make an analogy, it'd be a poor analogy to me if I thought that evolution didn't have some sort of proof.

Eugenics = Astrology, derived from their respective fields, applying morality and meaning to where there is none.

And you assume that just because there is something wrong with evolution (eugenics) does not invalidate the theory.

This is what you meant originally, do not alter your meanings.

I have a good memory.

you may have a good memory but your memory had misinterpreted my meanings.

please please please stop bringing up eugenics as a problem with, or "negative aspect" with evolution. You've already shown you didn't even understand the point of the analogy.

You spent a very long time away from the last post I directed at you "newbie" - why was that?

My girlfriend was over this weekend, and I saw your post, but I didn't have the time to reply, as I didn't want to be on the computer typing responses to in depth subjects. I mean... I was afraid of your post and it took me a really long time to answer, invoking the help of all my friends as we mustered up the best responses we could think of to defeat that bad creationist!

Is that what you were looking for?

And what is wrong with this? Besides the fact you are using it on an idiotic example. There is nothing wrong with communicating the negative aspects and other viable options to theories, this is not done in schools which is my only point!

They aren't communicated because the alternatives have no proof. If you take a course on Fluid mechanics, they'll tell you what's wrong with the initial equation that they give you in the beginning of the semester. It's a big equation, and parts of it aren't measurable because we don't currently have the equipment to do so. it does work mathematically, and the predictions made with the applied math work.

So they are assumed to be true because that's how science works. if someone has an alternate theory, it has to debunk the current method with new observations. If someone wanted to make a theory about current fairies, then they would have to observe it.

There's no "absolute proof" on fluid mechanics, but that doesn't stop us from teaching it or using it in plumbing systems, and there's no need to teach an alternate theory.

What?

the word was potato, and two different pronunciations.

No you used an analogy which related a flaw in a theory (Astrology) to the actual factual position of certain stars.

You believed that this flaw which related to eugenics in evolution does not disprove the evolution concept which in turn is true IF EVOLUTION COULD BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE. Your analogy assumes evolution to be as true as the position of the stars. When in fact it is not.

How do you know the position of the stars, have you been there? It's just as an absurd question as

Have you ever seen a man evolving from an ape?

So please, why can we accept that our scientists and astronomers know the positions of the stars, even without getting a giant tape measure and travelling there? lots of correlating evidence (parallax, stellar motions, Inverse Square law, etc) Just as with evolution, pointed out on the evolution 101 page that I linked to above.

Eugenics is evolutionary thinking, selective breeding etc that is all remnants of the Darwinist evolutionist school of thought.

you sigh, i sigh. *sigh*

And yes, the founder of modern day eugenics was actually related to the founder of the theory of evolution.

What more do you want?

This by no means makes evolution to be an icorrect theory.

So what? My grandmother is a born again Xian. I am not. My dad is an athiest, and I am not. If all three of us made observations of the world and we had similar observations, they may be similar or different. Our philosophies on morality will also be similar in some places and different than others. In the places that they are similar, that doesn't mean we're in cahoots with theories and such. You keep pushing a point that means nothing.

No that is entirely NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

*sigh*

Let me rephrase that.... in response to

Which is why if we pump childrenâ??s mind with theories which lack morality (being that you say we must be at a highly evolved conscious state to avoid murder, rape etc which we are not) it would be stupid to carry on teaching children theories which lack morality being as we have not reached this amazingly high evolved conscious level yet.

So because evolution lacks morality, we should be teaching alternative theories to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.

And I also didn't state that we must be at a highly evolved consious. My exact quote was

In case you hadn't noticed, we've taken it upon ourselves to punish people who kill. To put it in simple terms, maybe humans have "evolved" to think that killing each other is bad.

MAYBE. I don't know where our morality came from (hence the maybe), but that, yet again, has nothing to do with evolution.

[Hardcore Newbie]

So why are they still calling evolution a theory?

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

I dont know about you but I doubt many religions actually talk about aliens creating us.

Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree! However - how you measure the amount of evidence is up to you, yet 100 years ago people may have presumed intelligent design to be a more formidable theory as opposed to evolution because there was little or nothing to support evolution.

Your statement only presumes that the future holds no hope for creationism and proving intelligent design in terms of evidence.

Did anyone teach evolution before there was proof of it?

So your saying there is always a way to dispute fact?

I say if you jump off a 100 story building, when you hit the ground your heart will stop.

Theres always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

Free-fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[quaz808]

Here is the answer to all of your questions

The Official God FAQ

[quaz808]

:wtf: