Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[Angel7]

Are you done with your emotional appeal?

Maybe you could have responded In a nicer way, that was a very good quote .
It’s true, if you don’t beleive in G-d, you don’t have a sense of sin, nor do you probably understand how long “ETERNITY” is. Do you really want to risk your soul. Of course, it is hard for us to preach the difference between sin, if you don’t believe in G-d.

What is it, that makes you NOT want to believe, maybe we can help each other here.

 

[severntofall]

When statistics are presented demonstrating that religious people are less moral than atheists (and such evidence seems to be abundant), the appropriate response for he believer is that the Church is a hospital for sinners rather than a museum for saints.

When statistics are presented to suggest that atheists are less moral than believers (though such evidence does not seem to be available), the appropriate reponse for the atheist is that whether or not believers are better or worse behaved may be evidence that belief is good for society but it is in no way evidence that God exists.

Either way, I don’t see much point in the debate about who is better behaved.

Best,
Leela

I agree totally; however if one were to draw statistical comparisons it would probably make more sense to compare violent criminal behavior by nation. When doing so you will certainly find that the nations with the lower attatchments to religon also tend to see significantly less violent crime on average. Japan the nation with the lowest percentage of religious citizens also happens to be the nation with the lowest percentage of violent crime. This fact seems to hold true with other low faith nations as well. I agree with Dawkins in that it has less to do with religion that educaton, it’s just that intelligence tends to be accurate indicators of religious adherance (the higher one the lower the other statistically).

 

[liquidpele]

Maybe you could have responded In a nicer way, that was a very good quote .
It’s true, if you don’t beleive in G-d, you don’t have a sense of sin, nor do you probably understand how long “ETERNITY” is. Do you really want to risk your soul. Of course, it is hard for us to preach the difference between sin, if you don’t believe in G-d.

What is it, that makes you NOT want to believe, maybe we can help each other here.

Why do you not put the “o” in God ?

 

[Angel7]

I agree totally; however if one were to draw statistical comparisons it would probably make more sense to compare violent criminal behavior by nation. When doing so you will certainly find that the nations with the lower attatchments to religon also tend to see significantly less violent crime on average. Japan the nation with the lowest percentage of religious citizens also happens to be the nation with the lowest percentage of violent crime. This fact seems to hold true with other low faith nations as well. I agree with Dawkins in that it has less to do with religion that educaton, it’s just that intelligence tends to be accurate indicators of religious adherance (the higher one the lower the other statistically).

Personally I wish they stopped teachign evolution is schools, when there is jsut as much if not more evidence for Creationism. Students should Choose their side, and get as much evidence from both sides. I have found alot of evidence, and sites, that actualy debunk alot of Evolutionary Proof.

Ex. The classic School text-book example of Horse evolution

Never happened,

Marsh’s ‘Horse Evolution’ is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. “The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.”

Again, Schools Also force Evolution on Students to early.
I was Taught that Dinosaurs Lived on Earth MILLIONS of Years ago, oblivious to the fact of the innacuracies of carbon-dating.

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived “millions of years ago” instead.
This is common practice.

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.
“We didn’t tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples.”
This test was done on August 10, 1990

I got that from a site. Anyway. (Personally I believe in Creationism, I know others disagree)
I wish we could have a neutral point, and let people choose, and be proven. Rather then forced into a secular point of view.

(Carbon Datin is only good to like 30,000 years.
Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago.

Quoted that from ( angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html )

 

[Angel7]

Why do you not put the “o” in God ?

Simply a form of Respect to the Lord’s name. It’s a personal Choice. The Jewish people do it, I thought I would adopt it.

 

[j1akey]

Angel7:

It’s true, if you don’t beleive in G-d, you don’t have a sense of sin, nor do you probably understand how long “ETERNITY” is. Do you really want to risk your soul. Of course, it is hard for us to preach the difference between sin, if you don’t believe in G-d.

What is it, that makes you NOT want to believe, maybe we can help each other here.

The short answer is that believing in God, any God whether it’s the catholic god or the greek gods, goes against everything I know and think.

Non-belief is the default state when we’re born. Gods were by man to explain the universe around them, at the time of course the universe was just the earth and whatever they saw in the sky which they thought was realy close, not light-years away. Even if there was a god is he/she/it vain enough that we need to worship it in order to have a good afterlife even if such a thing exists?

A popular argument goes something like “isn’t it safer to just believe in case you’re wrong?” which is kind of what I get out of what you said there. This is basically Pascal’s Wager which is as follows

1. 
   *]If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
   *]If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
   *]If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
   *]If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain
   
   .
   
   Firt, it this wager is a fallacy because there’s infinite number of hypothetical gods out there. Who’s to say the abrahamic god is the right god? If there was no possibility of more than one god then I could say this makes sense but there is the possibility since we’re talking hypothetically here.
   
   The counter argument for Pascals Wager is this.
   
   1. 
      *]If you believe in a single God, you will have to choose one out of infinite possible varieties.
      *]If any percent of the possible gods will punish you eternally, then there is an infinite number of gods who, if they exist, would punish you for eternity.
      *]If there is only one god, then your chance of worshipping it, and not a nonexistent entity instead, is one out of infinity.
      *]Therefore you will almost surely fail to pick up the correct “One True God”.
      *]So if a god does exist, the chance of you going to any variety of heaven is infinitesimal, regardless of whether you are religious or not.
      
      The wager also assumes that some such god will be so impressed with my ability to worship and grovel that I’ll have a good afterlife. I think that if there is such a supreme being out there that this sort of thing is below his ability to care. Beings that need attention demand worship.
      
      The wager also assumes that the person has the “ability” to believe in a god.

 

[liquidpele]

Simply a form of Respect to the Lord’s name. It’s a personal Choice. The Jewish people do it, I thought I would adopt it.

Oh… because for a second there I thought you had simply lost your marble…

 

[liquidpele]

Personally I wish they stopped teachign evolution is schools, when there is jsut as much if not more evidence for Creationism. Students should Choose their side, and get as much evidence from both sides. I have found alot of evidence, and sites, that actualy debunk alot of Evolutionary Proof.

Ex. The classic School text-book example of Horse evolution

Never happened,

Marsh’s ‘Horse Evolution’ is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. “The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.”

Again, Schools Also force Evolution on Students to early.
I was Taught that Dinosaurs Lived on Earth MILLIONS of Years ago, oblivious to the fact of the innacuracies of carbon-dating.

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived “millions of years ago” instead.
This is common practice.

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.
“We didn’t tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples.”
This test was done on August 10, 1990

I got that from a site. Anyway. (Personally I believe in Creationism, I know others disagree)
I wish we could have a neutral point, and let people choose, and be proven. Rather then forced into a secular point of view.

(Carbon Datin is only good to like 30,000 years.
Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago.

Quoted that from ( angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html )

Sigh… I don’t know if this is even worth replying to.

First off, regardless of what you believe, the experts in the field (ie the palaeontologists) are overwhelmingly in support of evolution. It has also bee shown in action in both tiny, small, and large animals.

Second, carbon dating is not used on things older than about 50k years for the reasons you specify, and thus other dating methods are used (did you really believe they were just guessing or something??). Let me introduce you to howstuffworks.com:

science.howstuffworks.com/dinosaur-bone-age.htm

Third, you appear to have major misconceptions about what evolution even is… watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

 

[j1akey]

Angel7:

Personally I wish they stopped teachign evolution is schools, when there is jsut as much if not more evidence for Creationism. Students should Choose their side, and get as much evidence from both sides. I have found alot of evidence, and sites, that actualy debunk alot of Evolutionary Proof.

I challenge anyone to show me any actual proof for creationism. Not circular logic proof which isn’t evidence or proof at all but actual tested and observable in any way type of evidence. Something where you can say “Go here and look at this and tell me what you think” type of evidence.

It isn’t a matter of students choosing sides. Evolution is a proven scientific theory, there are entire libraries on the subject.

If people want to believe in fallacy’s then fine but you can’t pass it off as science when it’s completely faith based and all of the “evidence” is faith based as well.

Every time I’ve ever seen an argument for creationism and presented with “evidence” such as the C14 argument you put in your post, it’s usually filled with half-truths and missing alot of information that was conveniently left out so it wouldn’t interfere with the desired conclusion.

For Example:

Carbon dating, also known as radiocarbon dating, is a scientific procedure used to date organic matter. It depends upon the radioactive decay of carbon-14 (14C), an unstable isotope of carbon. A measurement of the proportion of 14C as opposed to 12C remaining in the sample is made to determine how long ago the carbon was “fixed” from the atmosphere. Carbon dating has a certain margin of error, usually depending on the age and material of the sample used.

Carbon-14 has a half life of about 5700 years, and it is used to date biological samples up to about 60,000 years in the past.

Because the level of atmospheric 14C is not constant, dates must be calibrated based on 14C levels in samples of known ages.

Radiometric dating, of course, poses a huge problem for people who believe that the universe is 6000-odd years old. A favorite tactic of young-Earthers is to cite studies which show trace amounts of 14C in coal or diamond samples, which - being millions of years old - should have no original atmospheric 14C left. Recent studies, however, show that 14C can be created underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create 14C from 12C in a manner similar to its creation in the atmosphere. Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as “cluster decay” where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.)

This fact is extremely inconvenient and is therefore usually omitted in creationist literature.

Also:

One way Young Earth Creationists and other denialists try to discredit radiometric dating is to cite examples of occasions where a radiometric technique does not give an accurate result. This is frequently because the selected technique is used outside of its appropriate range

 

[severntofall]

Personally I wish they stopped teachign evolution is schools, when there is jsut as much if not more evidence for Creationism. Students should Choose their side, and get as much evidence from both sides. I have found alot of evidence, and sites, that actualy debunk alot of Evolutionary Proof.

Hmmm…this is of course an answer to a question I never asked, but Hey…I love it.

Ex. The classic School text-book example of Horse evolution

Never happened,

Marsh’s ‘Horse Evolution’ is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. “The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.”

I’ll be honest with you, I know nothing about Marsh and his theory of horse evolution so I’ll pass on this.

Again, Schools Also force Evolution on Students to early.
I was Taught that Dinosaurs Lived on Earth MILLIONS of Years ago, oblivious to the fact of the innacuracies of carbon-dating.

What I’ve found about carbon date misconceptions is the fact that most people know nothing about it. Carbon dating is based upon the rate of at which carbon radiation dissipates from land based organic material.

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

Actually you are correct. Carbon dating determines the amount of carbon-14 remain in a land based organic object and then extrapolates it’s age. Since we don’t actually have access to any “dinosaur bones” but rather we have fossils of dinosaur bones, then carbon-14 dating cannot be used to determine their age for two reasons. Carbon-14 dating can only determine the age of a land based organic object that is younger than 60,000 years old (dinosaur fossils are massively older) and since fossils are composed of non-organic minerals as opposed to organic material then carbon dating is ineffective (carbon-14 is only found in organic objects). There are other radioactive test that can determine the age of fossils, but creationists never like to mention that fact. In their world carbon-14 dating is the only option, and this just isn’t true.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

Correct! As I just explained, there are various accurate radioactive dating tests that can do the job, carbon dating just isn’t one of them…again, creationists like to pretend that carbon-14 dating is the only option, which either indicates their ignorance or honesty (emm…lack thereof).

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

I’d love to see that evidence, since a fossil cannot be carbon dated! There is no carbon is a mineralized fossils (I.e all fossils) as carbon is an organic product. Now if the fossil were covered by shellac or some variety of organic preservative then that would have brought about a distorted result, but again fossils cannot be carbon dated as they contain no carbon to date.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived “millions of years ago” instead.
This is common practice.

What isn’t common practice is carbon dating objects void of carbon.

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.
“We didn’t tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples.”
This test was done on August 10, 1990

Again, while you can carbon date a bone (as it will contain carbon) a fossil by definition cannot be carbon dated. Whatever carbon they detected in the test was from something else (again likely a preservative shellac frequently used to protect fossils). Who did this test anyway, any scientist with half a brain can tell the difference between a bone and a fossil.

Lastly, even if everything you’ve said were valid…it would do nothing to prove creationism, it would just disprove evolution. You didn’t provide a single ounce of evidence of creation ex-nihlo…something which nobody has ever seen.

 

[Angel7]

I challenge anyone to show me any actual proof for creationism. Not circular logic proof which isn’t evidence or proof at all but actual tested and observable in any way type of evidence. **Something where you can say “Go here and look at this and tell me what you think” type of evidence. **

It isn’t a matter of students choosing sides. Evolution is a proven scientific theory, there are entire libraries on the subject.

If people want to believe in fallacy’s then fine but you can’t pass it off as science when it’s completely faith based and all of the “evidence” is faith based as well.

Every time I’ve ever seen an argument for creationism and presented with “evidence” such as the C14 argument you put in your post, it’s usually filled with half-truths and missing alot of information that was conveniently left out so it wouldn’t interfere with the desired conclusion.

For Example:

Also:

Heh Ive posted a few links here and there put tell me what you think about this,

Also You say Paleontologists agree to Evolution?
Then you Agree that there has been a great lie to the text book horse evolution scenario.

Marsh’s ‘Horse Evolution’ is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. “The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.”

I also know what Evolution is basically.
Gases in early Earth Athmosphere, with lighting, creates Amino Acids, these Acids then Turn into basic Life, (first they are self replicating) then they get the ability to retain Info. DNA. and they pass it on.

First off, the Counter arguement to this

The gases Used in the Experiment by Miller, in his experiment to recreate amino acids, like the Theory, was not Perfect.

Miller’s experiment was done in 1953 and assumed that the primitive Earth Atmosphere consists of

Hydrogen (H2), Nitrogen (N2), Carbon dioxide (CO2), Water (H2O), Ammonia (NH3), and Methane (CH4)
Furthermore, Miller assumed that the was no oxygen (O2) (he had to, because when you add O2 to the mixture, one spark and the whole atmosphere will blow up !!!)

Problems with this assumption:

Hydrogen (H2) is very light and will rise to the upper layers of the atmosphere very rapidly - in other words, hydrogen will not be present in the lower layers where the chemical reactions occur.

Since there is no oxygen in the atmosphere (this is necessary condition for the Miller experiment - when oxygen is present along with methane, lightning will cause a huge fireball…) there is no ozon layer to filter out the high energy rays from the sun !!!
Now, ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere are susceptable to high energy radiation and these molecules will be split apart by ultra-violet and gamma raditions !!!

Hence, you will not find ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere.

In the 1960’s Geologists questioned whether the primitive Earth Atmosphere had these gases
By mid 1975, Biochemist Marcel Florkin declared that the assumption of the primitive Earth Atmosphere was wrong

In 1995, Science magazine reported that experts now dismissed Miller’s experiment because the primitive Earth Atmosphere was nothing like what Miller had assumed:

Hydrogen (H2) would have escaped into deep space

Ammonia (NH3) and Methane (CH4) are easily obliterated by ultra violet light from the sun

Science now believe that the primitive Earth Atmosphere consists of:

Nitrogen (N2), Carbon dioxide (CO2), Water (H2O),
(And may even contain Oxygen according to NASA scientists !!!)

Now, when Miller’s experiment is REPEATED WITHOUT Hydrogen (H2), Ammonia (NH3) and Methane (CH4), we get:

Formaldehyde and Cyanide. These Gases would Destroy Bacterial life, not create it

Since Miller’s experiments, there have been many more proposals on theories about “how life began” (e.g., in mud, near sub-oceanic lava exhausts, etc).
No theory on “how life began” is accepted by all evolutionists - everyone has his/her favorite theory
In fact, the lack of ideas on how life began among the evolutionists cannot be over-stated: basically, they don’t have a clue on how life really began… only guesses without much substantial evidence…

(all that was quotes from ichthus.info/Evolution/evolution.html . The link i mentioned eariler in the post.

 

[reggieM]

I would guess that not believing in a god would mean that a person is not inspired by their emotions or philosophical musings enough to ever even consider such a thing.

That’s at least one additional aspect to atheism that you’re claiming.

“Atheists are not inspired by their emotions or philosophical musings enough to even consider the evidence for God”.

So, the motive for an atheist to explore the ideas supporting the existence of God depends entirely on the lack of inspiration they get from their emotions or musings.

There is a massive amount of information that one can explore concerning faith, religion and the existence and nature of God. Simple intellectual integrity should be enough motive to explore and study such things – especially for a person who spends time on a religious website arguing against the existence of God.

But the fact that your emotions prevent you from taking this intellectual exploration further means that atheism is primarily dependent on emotions, not reason.

Personally, that conforms with my view. Atheism is an emotional issue and it usually can only be dealt with successfully at that level (even in terms of having a meaningful conversation).

The atheist should try to explain why there is an emotional block against “even considering such a thing”.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**I also know what Evolution is basically.
Gases in early Earth Athmosphere, with lighting, creates Amino Acids, these Acids then Turn into basic Life, (first they are self replicating) then they get the ability to retain Info. DNA. and they pass it on.
**

Nothing to do with evolution ^^^^^^^^
**
First off, the Counter arguement to this

The gases Used in the Experiment by Miller, in his experiment to recreate amino acids, like the Theory, was not Perfect. **

Miller experiments are old news, why not try reading some UP TO DATE science instead of junk creationist sites.

 

[Angel7]

Hmmm…this is of course an answer to a question I never asked, but Hey…I love it.

I’ll be honest with you, I know nothing about Marsh and his theory of horse evolution so I’ll pass on this.

What I’ve found about carbon date misconceptions is the fact that most people know nothing about it. Carbon dating is based upon the rate of at which carbon radiation dissipates from land based organic material.

Actually you are correct. Carbon dating determines the amount of carbon-14 remain in a land based organic object and then extrapolates it’s age. Since we don’t actually have access to any “dinosaur bones” but rather we have fossils of dinosaur bones, then carbon-14 dating cannot be used to determine their age for two reasons. Carbon-14 dating can only determine the age of a land based organic object that is younger than 60,000 years old (dinosaur fossils are massively older) and since fossils are composed of non-organic minerals as opposed to organic material then carbon dating is ineffective (carbon-14 is only found in organic objects). There are other radioactive test that can determine the age of fossils, but creationists never like to mention that fact. In their world carbon-14 dating is the only option, and this just isn’t true.

Correct! As I just explained, there are various accurate radioactive dating tests that can do the job, carbon dating just isn’t one of them…again, creationists like to pretend that carbon-14 dating is the only option, which either indicates their ignorance or honesty (emm…lack thereof).

I’d love to see that evidence, since a fossil cannot be carbon dated! There is no carbon is a mineralized fossils (I.e all fossils) as carbon is an organic product. Now if the fossil were covered by shellac or some variety of organic preservative then that would have brought about a distorted result, but again fossils cannot be carbon dated as they contain no carbon to date.

What isn’t common practice is carbon dating objects void of carbon.

Again, while you can carbon date a bone (as it will contain carbon) a fossil by definition cannot be carbon dated. Whatever carbon they detected in the test was from something else (again likely a preservative shellac frequently used to protect fossils). Who did this test anyway, any scientist with half a brain can tell the difference between a bone and a fossil.

Lastly, even if everything you’ve said were valid…it would do nothing to prove creationism, it would just disprove evolution. You didn’t provide a single ounce of evidence of creation ex-nihlo…something which nobody has ever seen.

My point was to show Carbon Dating was innacurate, not Force Creationism.

If I used that to Dis prove Evolution, I would feel like a hypocrite, Because the evidence I gave itself kinda went in a circle .

I wanted to say that I believe Students should choose and get a good neutral standing in schools. Rather then Chug Creationism or Evolution Down there throats.

Also, It is called a Theory of Evolution. That is all it is. A theory.

There is enough Evidence against it, If not more, then there is for it. (some of which is eeasily countered, others need more explanation)

 

[Angel7]

**I also know what Evolution is basically.
Gases in early Earth Athmosphere, with lighting, creates Amino Acids, these Acids then Turn into basic Life, (first they are self replicating) then they get the ability to retain Info. DNA. and they pass it on.
**

Nothing to do with evolution ^^^^^^^^
**
First off, the Counter arguement to this

The gases Used in the Experiment by Miller, in his experiment to recreate amino acids, like the Theory, was not Perfect. **

Miller experiments are old news, why not try reading some UP TO DATE science instead of junk creationist sites.

That is where they claim the Origin of Life is from? Single celled, self replicating Organisms. That then Grew into Macro evolution.

I find it difficult, to understand how Chemicals can form life.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Also, It is called a Theory of Evolution. That is all it is. A theory.

This shows a lack of understanding of even basic science. It’s not worth arguing with someone that doesn’t even know what the word theory means. If you don’t even understand basic words, what chance do you have on the actual science?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

That is where they claim the Origin of Life is from? Single celled, self replicating Organisms. That then Grew into Macro evolution.

I find it difficult, to understand how Chemicals can form life.

Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution. **NOTHING!!! **:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[liquidpele]

Also, It is called a Theory of Evolution. That is all it is. A theory.

There is enough Evidence against it, If not more, then there is for it. (some of which is eeasily countered, others need more explanation)

No. Saying that it’s just a “theory” means you don’t even understand how science works… sigh. You didn’t want the video I linked for you did you? Here is is again.

youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Please watch it before you try to make any more claims, as you obviously have some misconceptions.

 

[j1akey]

Angel7:

I wanted to say that I believe Students should choose and get a good neutral standing in schools. Rather then Chug Creationism or Evolution Down there throats.

I’ll be back for more to address earlier statements after I drive home from work and stalk and kill a pizza before putting a stick through it and spinning it over an open fire but I wanted to ask something first.

When you say creationism should be taught in schools to give students a choice I’m assuming you mean science class? What exactly makes creationism a scientific field. How does it follow the scientific method? What peer reviewed papers have every been published and passed the test?

The whole starts with a premise that we were all created by god. There of course is no evidence for this. It cannot be proven or for that matter disproven. Science doesn’t start with the conclusion. You can’t put a faith based.

The “just a theory” argument is starting to get rediculous as I’ve seen it in multiple threads. A Scientific Theory is the highest level of scientific achievement. Nothing is “just” a theory in science.

Either you deliberately misuse the word to fit what you want it to mean or you have no basic understanding of how science actually works.

 

[severntofall]

My point was to show Carbon Dating was innacurate, not Force Creationism.

No, you specifical described tis info as proof of creationism at the start of your post. Of course, this effort of your only served to prove that carbon dating is ineffective on objects without carbon in them.

If I used that to Dis prove Evolution, I would feel like a hypocrite, Because the evidence I gave itself kinda went in a circle .

I wanted to say that I believe Students should choose and get a good neutral standing in schools. Rather then Chug Creationism or Evolution Down there throats.

At present, the argument for creationism seems to be “Evolution is stupid, and contradicts the book of genesis neener neener neener!”

Listen, I like Catholics, my friends are catholics (my wife and mother), I used to be a devote catholic…my advice is that you ignore anything a protestant evangelical has to say. Those people are idiots and they will happily lie knowing that most of us have no idea what the truth is. Catholics have always been propents of science and reason…don’t forget that! Evolution does not mean that there is no god…you can believe in both. Evolution is not your enemy, evangelicals are…they’re lying spiteful humans who are so obsessed with sola scripture (a heracy in the church BTW) that they have abondoned their brains for their evil agenda.

Catholics are good folks… I like em (my wife is one), but evangelicals are the enemy, yours and mine. Just assume that anything they have to say is a lie…please.

Also, It is called a Theory of Evolution. That is all it is. A theory.

You mean like the theory of gravity. Look up the word theory please and you’ll notice that it has many meanings.

There is enough Evidence against it, If not more, then there is for it. (some of which is eeasily countered, others need more explanation)

I’m yet to see any evidence against evolution. Granted there are still gaps in the theory but no evidence against it.

Again, stop getting your info from evangelicals!