Creationism vs. Evolution

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: wir3d i have to tell that the spiritual world is very true.  I have an uncle who was a very very bad person.  Recently he came out coma after 5 heartattacks and and 2 strokes.  This is how he came out of it.  His 22 year old daughter was reading to him the bible and in the coma lying down he could hear her.  Then he saw a tunnel of flames and he was walking through the tunnel and he was at the gates of hell.  His mom and dad were behind the gates and his dad told him "go back it's not your time" and he woke up out of the coma and he's fine now.  I heard this twice from two sides of my family.quote>

And how are you to say that he would not have recovered had he not been read the bible? Just because two things both happen doesn't mean they are related. See: "correlation does not imply causation". You're just making an assumption here.

actually we were created from dirt and here is a scientific fact.  We have all the cemicals that are in dirt but i don't know what they are.quote>

 

For one thing, the saying "you are what you eat" is important to remember here. We either eat plants directly, or eat animals which in turn ate plants. And those plants grew to what they are from tiny little seeds by pulling nutrients out of the ground. So of course if it's in the dirt, it's in us. But that's because what we eat came from dirt, not because some deity made us from it.

For another, there are 91 naturally occurring basic elements of which just about everything is made. Sure, we have all the same chemicals that are in dirt, but we also have all the same chemicals that are in, say, a computer. Oh my god, we came from computers!

Evolutionism and Creationism are not a scientific at all. They are based on faith. But there are no ways to prove both wrong. quote>

There is, strictly speaking, no way to prove creationism wrong. But evolution? It's scientific. If it is wrong, it's completely possible to prove so. It's been well over 100 years and nobody's done so yet. Seems pretty solid a theory to me.

The only way is to wait and see.quote>

I presume you're implying seeing the afterlife once you die. Or  Armageddon. Either way, the argument is flawed since A- not everyone believes in those things and B- why wait when you can look into it now?

Me as a Christian i do believe that Evolution is wrong because they are many ways to prove it wrong. For instance. Statistics and probability are great enemies of Evolution.quote>

Nonsense. Statistics and probability actually support evolution. Sure, not much happens from one generation to the next, but give it hundreds of thousands, millions of years and those little baby steps really start to add up.

Because Evolution utilizes random mutations as the main engine of their postulate, we can then use the laws of probability to exam their claims. Many evolutionists cry foul here, but they have no reason to do so as they also use probability to lay out their claims.quote>

Random mutations happen all the time. The key is whether or not any that are beneficial or really make a difference happen. The probability of it happening in a given birth is very small- let's say it's .00000001. But with a million births, the probability of at least one of them having that mutation becomes .00995 (according to the Binomial probability distribution). Now keep those million births over just 1000 years, And it

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: wir3d

Originally posted by: coolotter88 somatic cell mutations does not  a new species make.quote>

> >does not a new species make?!? yea that just goes to show that ignorant people like you who dont even know how to put a sentenc  together believe in evolution becuase it involves no real science and doesn't require any knowledge of anything.quote>

> >Coolotter88 was making a literary allusion here, which you evidently didn't catch. There is no need to insult people or to  attack others personally, even if you do disagree with them or don't understand them. Also, there are many people posting here  for whom English is not their native language, so please be understanding when people don't use perfect English or spelling.  

> >

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: wir3d If evolution was true why don't we see  today things mutating into different organisms?

> >Let me guess because it take billions of years right?quote>

> >Actually we do. The nylon bug for example. This resulted from a frameshift mutation and allowed the organism to use as food  something completely different (nylon oligomers) to the food of its predecessors (carbohydrates). So this was a sudden mutation that occured in a very short space of time, and resulted in a new functional ability.   

> >

Originally posted by: wir3d Ok if everything mutates, (like monkeys evolved into humans) then explain to me why are their still monkeys? did they just not  mutate? and if it takes billions of years for something to mutate, then why aren't their monkeys nowadays that are kind of  human, kind of monkey, but still mutating.  And also mutations never add.  For instance like a human.  If some sort of  radiation were to mutate me i would get one eye instead of two.  Mutations never add.  

> >

quote>

> >If parents have children then why are there still parents?

> > Actually monkeys did not evolve into humans. Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. Humans and Apes had a common ancestor,  as did Apes and monkeys. However humans and apes diverged from monkeys earlier than humans diverged from apes.

[Sam 163]

Sorry about my previous post. I'll repost it once I've got all those feral smileys out of it.

Edit: Ok second attempt at posting:

Originally posted by: wir3d

Originally posted by: coolotter88 somatic cell mutations does not a new species make.quote>

does not a new species make?!? yea that just goes to show that ignorant people like you who dont even know how to put a sentenc together believe in evolution becuase it involves no real science and doesn't require any knowledge of anything.quote>

Coolotter88 was making a literary allusion here, which you evidently didn't catch. There is no need to insult people or to attack others personally, even if you do disagree with them or don't understand them. Also, there are many people posting here for whom English is not their native language, so please be understanding when people don't use perfect English or spelling.

Originally posted by: wir3d If evolution was true why don't we see today things mutating into different organisms?

Let me guess because it take billions of years right?quote>

Actually we do. The nylon bug for example. This resulted from a frameshift mutation and allowed the organism to use as food something completely different (nylon oligomers) to the food of its predecessors (carbohydrates). So this was a sudden mutation that occured in a very short space of time, and resulted in a new functional ability.

Originally posted by: wir3d

Ok if everything mutates, (like monkeys evolved into humans) then explain to me why are their still monkeys? did they just not mutate? and if it takes billions of years for something to mutate, then why aren't their monkeys nowadays that are kind of human, kind of monkey, but still mutating.  And also mutations never add.  For instance like a human.  If some sort of radiation were to mutate me i would get one eye instead of two.  Mutations never add.

quote>

If parents have children then why are there still parents?

Monkeys did not evolve into humans. Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. Humans and Apes had a common ancestor, as did Apes and monkeys. However humans and apes diverged from monkeys earlier than humans diverged from apes.

It is a fallacy that monkeys are unevolved humans or that some species are greater or less evolved. Monkeys have travelled an evolutionary path as long as humans have and any other species on the earth today. Both monkeys and humans are still experiencing mutations.

In fact there was a recent article I read (I can't remember where) showing that the rate of evolutionary change in some parts of the human brain, I think relating to language, are occurring faster than ever before.

Actually in a way monkeys are kind of monkey and kind of human as you put it, and vice versa. Humans and monkeys share many common features. They have more features in common than either do with jellyfish for example. This is why humans and monkeys are classified in the order Primates. However Chimpanzees share more features in common with Humans, and both humans and chimpanzees have fewer features in common with monkeys than they do with each other. This is the basis of taxonomy.

Similarity based on shared features:

monkey        chimpanzee       human           jellyfish

  |               |              |     &nb

[wir3d 2]

And also in Charles Darwin's book HE says in his prefax that  lack or abundance of transitions fossils will prove or disprove my theory .  So if evolution were right we should have already have seen a transition fossil by then.  But we haven't found one right?  And why would people have to make stuff up like making fake transtions fossils if evolution were true?? 

[Sam 163]

wir3d, how about cleaning up some of the quotes in your posts? I assume this quote is yours and not Duke87's, but I really can't tell who said what in your post.

Originally posted by: wir3d

And also in Charles Darwin's book HE says in his prefax that lack or abundance of transitions fossils will prove or disprove my theory . So if evolution were right we should have already have seen a transition fossil by then. But we haven't found one right? And why would people have to make stuff up like making fake transtions fossils if evolution were true??

quote>

You are quite right. There hasn't been only one found, there's been thousands found. And overall they have confirmed that (A) evolution does occur and (B) that predictions (obtained from other lines of evidence) as to the details are largely correct.

Every living thing that has offspring is transitional. It is transitional between its parents and its children. If you have children then you are transitional. If you don't then you aren't (yet).

We've already covered the idea that living things tend to have similarities. Individuals that are closely related (both in a familial and a taxonomic way) have more similarities than those that are not closely related.

It may be a needle in a haystack to find in the fossil or genetic record the exact individual that gave rise to another particular individual that led after many generations to some other particular individual that belongs to a group with certain feature changes that we are interested in. But we don't need to find every single precise individual in the lineage. We can deduce that we only have to find individuals that are closely related to the ones we are interested and they will have similar features. The more closely related they are, the more features they are likely to share. Therefore, by looking at the features that are shared by the organisms we find, we can reconstruct a view of the lineage we are interested in.

We can even do this if we have only living representatives. For example if we have monkeys, apes and humans, we can tell by the features they share the features that any common ancestor had. The common ancestor of apes and humans would have had certain features, probably those that are shared by both apes and humans. We can also deduce that the common ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans had features common to all three. In this way we can build up a picture of what we think we are looking for. We can then use other lines of evidence to test this view.

We can also determine an approximate timescale based on molecular clocks, and rates and numbers of genetic changes, and what is already known about taxonomically related groups from the fossil record.

We can use biogeography to tell us where on the earth the common ancestor may have lived.

As we find and add in more relationships we build up a clearer picture. For example, Neanderthals are more closely related to humans than they are to chimpanzees. This gives us further information to help build up the picture of what happened.

So from these three pieces of evidence, we know what to look for in a transitional species, where and approximately when. So much reliable information can be obtained this way that we don't even really need a fossil, but its nice to have confirmation.

The whale lineage is a good example of where an example of this process has occurred. We know from a lot of different lines of evidence that modern whales are most similar to the artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates including camels, hippopotamus, pigs etc.). This provides clues as to what we are looking for in a common ancestor, and approximately when (the Eocene approximately 50 million years ago). Once it was also figured out where to look (India, Pakistan, Kashmir etc), then the fossils of

[coolotter88 2]

you want evidence of evolution in these "missing link" fossils?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

human evolution fossils, lucy for example, all of our extinct friends of the Homo genus (har har, very mature)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

the article says, the molars of the different horses, and their legs show that they've changed throughout the millions of years.

it's really simple actually

"lucy look like monkey, lucy monkey friends look like monkey"

millions of years later

"lucy children look like human, lucy monkey friends' children look like monkey"

correct me if i'm wrong, but that sounds pretty accurate.

similarly, "lucy 'mutated and ugly' child of mommy and daddy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

that one is helpful too, I remember homologous structures from biology, see, our bone structure in the arms is very similar to many other mammals, bats, whales, seals. their bones may be stretched out or squished, but they still remain in the same relative position. they all have the 5 finger bones, though those with flippers don't have them separate

not only that, vestigial structures are also proof that evolution is correct on the origin of species

why would a whale have bones in the middle of nowhere near their butt?

"well, maybe they descended from bear-like animals that lived on land"

hey, wow, I remember one of those, Pakicetus, from some book detailing how life came out of water onto land and back into the water again.

and there you have it, 3 items that prove evolution is not, "lucy monkey friends get sunburn, lucy monkey friends mutate into human", but rather, everyone is from a common ancestor.

[patriots_1228 51]

even as a catholic, i think creationism is a bunch of hogwash.

The fact that your uncle saw "hell" doesn't have anything to do with creationism. It has to do with the existence of heaven and hell. Even so, your Uncles vision could be just a vision. Some people see flying purple dragons that tell them to smoke more weed. Does that mean the dragons are real?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 even as a catholic, i think creationism is a bunch of hogwash.

The fact that your uncle saw "hell" doesn't have anything to do with creationism. It has to do with the existence of heaven and hell. Even so, your Uncles vision could be just a vision. Some people see flying purple dragons that tell them to smoke more weed. Does that mean the dragons are real?quote>

 

Pot doesn't cause hallucinations when smoked. Maybe when eaten, but if you're seeing purple dragons it wasn't pot you were smoking.

And without going into a long spiel, there is some evidence that the dragon myths have some basis in fact. Not fire-breathing dragons; but simply enormous lizards that would have terrified humans. The medieval caricatures with wings and fiery breath came much later, and we know that these ideas aren't possible.

The gates of Babylon depicted a 'dragon' approximately 30 feet tall in chains at the entrance to the city. If it were merely fantasy, it would be the only such depiction on Babylon's walls that had no basis in fact, out of thousands of depictions that showed daily life in the city. Think of it as the world's biggest iguana, held as a tourist attraction. That would be much closer to the truth.

The whole 'dragon' thing is connected to the topic at hand; but I'm not going to go into it because I really don't want to get into antediluvian history and science with those who reject the whole idea of antediluvian.

[patriots_1228 51]

that whole dragon thing was based off of the "heroine Hero" from south park. I mean, there were probably dragons at one point in time, similar to what you mention, but im taking bout the smiley herion hero dragon

[Godzillaman 21]

Meh...if this is still on dragons...watch Reign of Fire...probably the best explanation for them...now...back on topic...

[Odainsaker 2,134]

And I was thinking of Carl Sagan's invisible, immaterial, floating dragon who breaths heatless fire hidden away in his garage. Is it really there if there is no physical test with which we can detect it, and if it really is completely undetectable and unexaminable, does it even really matter if it exists or not?

One of the History Channels had an interesting program "Ancient Monster Hunters" where researcher Adrienne Mayor traced the monsters of mythology (dragons, griffins, giants, cyclops) to areas now known for prehistoric fossils of dinosaurs, mastodons, and the like. It may be that ancient peoples misunderstood what they were looking at and constructed their monster myths around their own rationalizations for the bizarre giant fossils they would have found.  How would the ancient Greeks, not having seen a mastodon, interpret or explain a giant beastly skull with no obvious normal eyeholes but with a huge central hole (for the trunk) at the top front of the head?  Take TV entertainment history with a grain of salt, but they may not be too far off base.

[wir3d 2]

Well i just know that you guys have been in the school system an haven't exposed a lot to other things, like creation. But all i know is that which one takes more faith to believe in: someone or something creating the universe or that it magically happened.

[patriots_1228 51]

Well, you could beleive a mix.

I beleive god started the big bang. It sounds kinda stupid, but i think both theories can co-exist. I beleive there is a god, but he didn't create the world we live in. He just set up the experiment and let things work themselves out. If he did create our current animals, why are naked mole rats so ugly?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: wir3d Well i just know that you guys have been in the school system an haven't exposed a lot to other things, like creation. But all i know is that which one takes more faith to believe in: someone or something creating the universe or that it magically happened.quote>

Oh yes, creation is discussed, where it belongs to be discussed, in the philosophy or religion (optional) classes, there's no place for creation in biology classes, as creation is not part of biology.

Believeing in something that is highly counter-intuitive, fails at the second logical sentence, fails at objectivity, universality, lack of progress and consistence needs way more faith.

[Mulefisk 15]

Originally posted by: wir3d Well i just know that you guys have been in the school system an haven't exposed a lot to other things, like creation. But all i know is that which one takes more faith to believe in: someone or something creating the universe or that it magically happened.quote>

What, you haven't been in the school system? People don't believe that evolution is right, they just simply accept it as the most reasonable answer. We look at the evidence around us and draw a conclusion based on that. That's all there is to it. No magic or anything. It's like looking at a green leaf and saying "this leaf is green". If you want to believe that all leaves are purple, you are free to do so, but you would be wrong. If someone found solid evidence that god created the earth, evolutionists would believe in creationism.

[coolotter88 2]

again, evolution is on the origin of species, creation is on the origin of life, 2 different topics here.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: wir3d Well i just know that you guys have been in the school system an haven't exposed a lot to other things, like creation. quote>

Haven't been exposed to creation? I can't speak for others, but I certainly have been "exposed" to it. I was, believe or not, in Sunday school for a couple years, and I do come from a catholic family of which many of them are active and practicing. I know the drill. God creates the universe and everything in six days, then rests on the seventh one. That story is why we have a seven day week, after all.

The fact of the matter remains, though, that creationism is supported only by the bible, whereas evolution is supported by loads of empirical evidence.

 

But all i know is that which one takes more faith to believe in: someone or something creating the universe or that it magically happened.quote>

There are two flaws here.

One, if god created the universe, who or what created god? Where did he come from? Or did he just "magically happen". A deity only takes things one step further back. It doesn't and can't solve the question of "how is it that there is something now and wasn't anything before". It's a mystery, certainly. One which science really can't explain all that well. Sure, there was a big bang, but what caused it? And what was there before it? Saying "god caused it" would answer that question, but it would only beg the same questions about god's origins, and you're back at square one except now you have some faceless deity in there which we have no actual evidence beyond the word of a 2000+ year old book (which, by the way, was written by mere men) supporting.

Two, evolution isn't "it magically happened". There is absolutely no magic or anything supernatural involved. It may be random, yes, but it's perfectly sound scientifically.

It would seem to me that it takes an awful lot of faith to believe in a god, which we have no real reason to believe exists beyond just blind faith, but it doesn't really take much faith at all to believe in a theory which has withstood the test of time and has continually been supported rather than refuted by scientific findings.

[Boggy1 45]

patriots_1228: In that case your more of a diest, like me. We diests believe that the Universe was artificially created - not necessarily by a God - and that who/whatever created it abandoned it straight after, or at least takes absolutely no active role in the Universe whatsoever. Think of it as the most perfect Control experiment ever created. Oh, and diests also have the added belief that the Universe contains absolutely no supernatural or parascience at all.

wi3rd: In fact, Religious Education classes in the UK are compulsory up to age 16, and they teach an extreamly broad syllabus of religion, including many different faiths and belief systems. I had ample and pretty much equal exposure to creationism and evolution, with only one key difference, evolution was taught as science, creationism was taught as belief.

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: wir3d Well i just know that you guys have been in the school system an haven't exposed a lot to other things, like creation. But all i know is that which one takes more faith to believe in: someone or something creating the universe or that it magically happened.quote>

Oh yes, creation is discussed, where it belongs to be discussed, in the philosophy or religion (optional) classes, there's no place for creation in biology classes, as creation is not part of biology.

Believeing in something that is highly counter-intuitive, fails at the second logical sentence, fails at objectivity, universality, lack of progress and consistence needs way more faith.quote>

Do you know why there is no creation is biology class? Because some rebels took god out of the picture of schools.  In the 70s you were allowed to pray and bring a bible to class.  But know some democrates did not like this and wanted God out of the picture.  That's why we don't hear about creation in biology class.

Oh and there was just a recent discovery about the Red Sea.  If you guys know the story of Moses you will hear that God told Moses to take the Isarelites out of Egypt.  And they crossed the Red sea right.  But the Egyptians rode in chariots and did not get across and drowned.

So as i was saying there are chariot remains from the Egyptians.  And if you ask why you did not hear this is because the media does want people to hear this.  They want to keep it on the low down.  So if you say that this is fake then why would the media want to stop it from getting out?

[Boggy1 45]

wir3d: Why would you want to have creationism in a biology class? Creationism has nothing to do with biology or any other sort of biological process. It doesn't belong in a science class.

Also, I thought a fundamental part of the American Constitution was seperation of the Church and the State? So, if education is controlled by the state, then surely the church should have no part in it.

God (and other dieties) belong in a Religious Education class.

[wir3d 2]

just click on the link.

[Boggy1 45]

Since you didn't answer my statements and question, I assume that you can't answer them.

As for the link, let me dircet you to a very wise quote delivered by Duke a few posts up: corrolation does not imply causation.

Because after all, a few chariots in the sea obviously must mean that the tale of Moses is true. Because after all, it can't be true that a few chariots happened to fall into the red sea. Or maybe the red sea has risen and buried a few chariots that were already on the ground. There are lots of possible answers, so please, use Occams Razor and conclude for yourself which is the most logical. I'm sure there were hundreds of chariots that have fallen into the Red Sea, its a large expanse of water, for instance due to boats transporting them sinking.

And as for the media not releasing it? Because its not a big story. People are finding remains of ancient stuff every day, all over the place. Oh and also, a few news websites have reported on it if you do a Google search.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: wir3d Well i just know that you guys have been in the school system an haven't exposed a lot to other things, like creation. But all i know is that which one takes more faith to believe in: someone or something creating the universe or that it magically happened.quote>

Oh yes, creation is discussed, where it belongs to be discussed, in the philosophy or religion (optional) classes, there's no place for creation in biology classes, as creation is not part of biology.

Believeing in something that is highly counter-intuitive, fails at the second logical sentence, fails at objectivity, universality, lack of progress and consistence needs way more faith.quote>

Do you know why there is no creation is biology class? Because some rebels took god out of the picture of schools.  In the 70s you were allowed to pray and bring a bible to class.  But know some democrates did not like this and wanted God out of the picture.  That's why we don't hear about creation in biology class.

Oh and there was just a recent discovery about the Red Sea.  If you guys know the story of Moses you will hear that God told Moses to take the Isarelites out of Egypt.  And they crossed the Red sea right.  But the Egyptians rode in chariots and did not get across and drowned.

So as i was saying there are chariot remains from the Egyptians.  And if you ask why you did not hear this is because the media does want people to hear this.  They want to keep it on the low down.  So if you say that this is fake then why would the media want to stop it from getting out?quote>

Biblical, judeo-christian faith has no place in biology class. I mean, how long could that chapter be. "God mad stuff"... "Chapter Two: the other, longer theory that has a bit more evidence". And then we'd have to teach EVERY creation story on Earth. What makes the Judeo-Christian creation story any more accurate than the Native American one? Is it because they are in power and have nukes? A bit of scrolls in the Dead Sea doesn't prove creation.

Secondly, Moses and the Egyptian chariots are completely unrelated to evolution. You can't link the two at all. Parts of the bible are historically accurate, thats not completely in dispute. The Bible is one of the most important historical texts ever. Doesn't prove creationism at all.

The problem with "missing link" fossils is that doubters will continue to ask for a link. For example...

Link A with Z

okay, I found H

find the link between A and H then

I found B

Okay, find the link between A and B....

uh...

then find the link of the link....and so on.

Doubters will NEVER except that two fossils are directly link and will continue to demand more linkages. It follows the principle that decimals are infinite as well. there are infinite numbers between 0. and 0.01 just by adding another place holder. 

[wir3d 2]

im not linking moses and evolution together.  Im just simply proving that there is a part in the bible that true.  If you actaully "click" on the link then you will see.  And maybe read the bible once .

[Boggy1 45]

Though I don't doubt the belief that many parts of the Bible are true, or at least inspired by the truth, your story of finding chariot remains in the Red Sea certainly do not prove it. One iota.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 again, evolution is on the origin of species, creation is on the origin of life, 2 different topics here.quote>

 

But it is the topic of thread, no?

The way I see it, faith is belief in things unseen, and science is a belief in only things that are seen. Some things we can't see indeed are true, and have evidence. Some things we can see, and can be totally misconstrued or twisted through ignorance and bias. 

Like Hawking said, "God does play dice, sometimes He just throws them where we can't see them."

The main problem is one they both have in common: the people who put all their eggs in either 'infallible' basket. Both are fallible from a human standpoint, both have weaknesses and strengths. Fools can quote either one. Either can lead the gullible, and even the sophisticated, down the completely wrong road. And yes, either one can challenge the common sense of the most 'rational' person.

There are questions that stump the best minds of both evolutionism and creationism, some of these have been covered here and some have not. Wir3d has hit on some of the archaeological surprises of those investigating the Bible as history. On a historical level, the Bible has made fools of most of its detractors. Something paraded as 'not possibly true' was later (quietly) confirmed by further study. 

Science has a lot of evidence, but from a legal standpoint it still doesn't completely fulfill the 'burden of proof' for evolution. There are enough holes and unanswered questions to fail if it were a murder trial. Science often fails because of the tendency of scientists (like anyone else) to jump the gun and declare something before all the evidence has even been gathered. The latest information on Global Warming shows how far the hysteria has gone beyond the empirical proof. The science on climate change has been turned on its head so many times it's getting dizzy. Bias likely has much to do with it.

to coin a phrase, that's my 24¢ worth. Gotta adjust for inflation!

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: wir3d im not linking moses and evolution together.  Im just simply proving that there is a part in the bible that true.  If you actaully "click" on the link then you will see.  And maybe read the bible once .quote>

I think it's pretty common knowledge that parts of the bible are true historical events. I fail to see how this is support on the side of creationism, however.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Do you know why there is no creation is biology class? Because some rebels took god out of the picture of schools.  In the 70s you were allowed to pray and bring a bible to class.  But know some democrates did not like this and wanted God out of the picture.  That's why we don't hear about creation in biology class.quote>

I'm not in the US, and here, no serious biology teacher, catholic or not, believes in creationism, that's why they want it out of the school books.

Originally posted by: wir3d

So as i was saying there are chariot remains from the Egyptians.  And if you ask why you did not hear this is because the media does want people to hear this.  They want to keep it on the low down.  So if you say that this is fake then why would the media want to stop it from getting out?quote>

And? Chariot remains under the sea are not proving the exode, there are no egyptian sources that confirm that an entire army got drowned under the sea, and we do have historical texts from egyptians.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: wir3d Do you know why there is no creation is biology class? Because some rebels took god out of the picture of schools. quote>

"Rebels"? I'll admit that secular progressivism likes to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but "rebels" is a bit extreme of a word. Bear in mind, not everyone is a Christian, so the point of not teaching Christian beliefs as fact is to be fair to those who are not Christian- and there's this thing called separation of church and state which makes that important. Still, I daresay it was a bit extreme to scrap it completely. The key is that you need to teach "Christians believe this", not "this is fact", because, well, it's not fact. Even so, creation is not biology, it's theology. It has not place in a science class, it belongs in a religion class. The trouble is that religion classes have become a huge taboo in American public schools, so it now gets no mention at all.

In the 70s you were allowed to pray and bring a bible to class.quote>

And I agree with you 100% that that should be allowed. But it's a slippery slope since the teachers have to remain completely neutral on the matter, and that's not easy to do.

But know some democrates did not like this and wanted God out of the picture.  That's why we don't hear about creation in biology class.quote>

We don't hear about creation in biology class because creation is not biology. It has no place there. Also, don't pin this specifically on democrats as if there aren't people of other political persuasions that support it and democrats that don't. That's just being prejudiced.

Oh and there was just a recent discovery about the Red Sea.  If you guys know the story of Moses you will hear that God told Moses to take the Isarelites out of Egypt.  And they crossed the Red sea right.  But the Egyptians rode in chariots and did not get across and drowned.quote>

I know the story. But, frankly, I don't believe a word that a site called "arkdiscovery.com" says. It reeks of Judeochristian propaganda. Try and cite a more trustworthy source, eh?

Besides, the supposed crossing site shown there is of the east arm of the Red Sea... east of Mount Sinai, therefore impossible since according to the bible, the Israelites were not still being chased by the Egyptians when Moses received the ten commandments. The thing he marks out on that satellite photo as Mount Sinai is not mount Sinai. In other words, this guy is "rewriting" that bit of the bible to make some supposed little discovery that we don't even know actually happened fit the story. If the bible were true, he shouldn't need to bend the story to make things fit.

So as i was saying there are chariot remains from the Egyptians.  And if you ask why you did not hear this is because the media does want people to hear this. They want to keep it on the low down.quote>

Oh, so now there's a huge big media conspiracy to wipe out religion. ....okay, certain networks maybe, but Fox would cover it.

I'd say it's far more likely we didn't hear of it because it's utter bullcrap. If this actually were serious, irrefutable evidence of that story, we'd be hearing all about it, trust me.

So if you say that this is fake then why would the medi

[patriots_1228 51]

dude...just cause part of the bible is true doesn't mean the other part is.

Jesus existed. We know that.

But that doesn't prove he was the son of god. Thats where faith comes in.