Here's one sure to divide the masses....

[bopst]

evolution vs. creationism

As a thinking person, well, you don't have to be the hardest dick in the porno flick to figure out where I stand on this one.

I do think creationism should be taught though. Not in science class, but in history or social studies. Creationism is not a science; it is a belief. It is an important part, though exceedingly laughable, divisive and dangerous part, of our culture and it needs to be taught, and here's the important part, as a belief and not as fact.

I understand that religion is important to a great many people and I for one have seen firsthand that's one's irrational belief in imaginary friends have made them decent people. On the other hand, religious belief has also caused the lion's share of death, war and evil in this world (check your history books or, if you prefer, current events).

I will continue to believe that if we to evolve as a race of people, we have to shed our antiquated notions of spirituality.

Still, I think that creationism should be taught in schools only to show how hysterical human beings can be in explaining the origin of life....

[TJ Wells]

evolution vs. creationism

As a thinking person, well, you don't have to be the hardest dick in the porno flick to figure out where I stand on this one.

I do think creationism should be taught though. Not in science class, but in history or social studies. Creationism is not a science; it is a belief. It is an important part, though exceedingly laughable, divisive and dangerous part, of our culture and it needs to be taught, and here's the important part, as a belief and not as fact.

I understand that religion is important to a great many people and I for one have seen firsthand that's one's irrational belief in imaginary friends have made them decent people. On the other hand, religious belief has also caused the lion's share of death, war and evil in this world (check your history books or, if you prefer, current events).

I will continue to believe that if we to evolve as a race of people, we have to shed our antiquated notions of spirituality.

Still, I think that creationism should be taught in schools only to show how hysterical human beings can be in explaining the origin of life....
creationism is correct...should be taught in schools because its not fair JUST to teach evolution...thats biased

[MrChainsaw389]

If you need any reason to take science over religion, think of it like this: People who believe in science over religion couldn't give a flying shit what bible beaters do or say, however Religion has been trying to censor what science says for thousands of years.

[bopst]

Teach it as a belief, not as fact. That's the destination that needs to be made....

[tragic.beauty]

I think that it should be taught as a theory, almost like Darwinism, although I do believe in creationism completely...I think it's good to have Darwinism and all of the other evolution taught, but if they teach creationism, too, it's good because people will be armed with enough information about both to make a choice in what they believe.

[SkaBum14]

People who believe in science over religion couldn't give a flying shit what bible beaters do or say

That's actually not true. There are a lot of scientists whose driving force is to disprove God, Creation, etc. I'm not saying that's the majority, but there are a lot that do that (just like there are a lot of Christian scientists that are only looking for data to support their pre-existing beliefs). Science isn't always completely objective. I remember hearing in a class I took about one scientist who was an atheist and was doing research to try and disprove something related to the Bible, but at the very end he said he came to the point where he realized whatever it was he was trying to disprove was right, yet he still refused to believe it. It's been a while since I went over all of this stuff, so I'm kind of rusty and it's hard for me to remember.

[bopst]

Again, one can be supported by scientific logic and simple fact and the other is basely solely on belief.

Evolution taught in science and creationism in social studies or history...

[SkaBum14]

Oh, and as for my position on this: I'm still not sure. It actually isn't as clear-cut as taking the position of either creationism OR evolution. There are plenty of different theories involving a universe created by God that contains evolution within it. I've taken plenty of classes on this and I'm definitely more confused and unsure of my position than when I started........which is a good thing. I will say that being a Christian does not mean that you have to automatically completely reject all forms of evolution. There's been some stigma put on that word and plenty of people automatically blow off anything related to evolution when they know nothing about it and they don't really have any reason to do so. Again, I'm still not sure about my position in this, but I think people need to be more open to at least learning and trying to figure this stuff out, instead of automatically picking one side and then trying to knock down the other.

[Trainsaw]

Evolution, there's not very many facts behind creationism rather than "Someone said it happened", there are more facts and proof on evolution's side. But as far as i've seen no one has yet to prove God exists.

[bopst]

Sure, that's why it should be taught though not in science class.

Also, the people behind this creationism movement are some seriously scary fucks. They want it their way. This has nothing to do with offering valid theories on the origin of man. No, they want the Christian principles to be accepted as the undisputed truth and that's when I get my, "fuck you and your imaginary friends" flag out...

[Trainsaw]

I think the theory of creationism should be in a religion's class, not so much even history, maybe to touch on breifly of what was going on at that time and some of the belief's, but there are so many different religions i don't see why we should pick out what one thinks and teach it. Especially now that we have scientific proof and studies on evolution. IMO i think the reason they want evolution out is that they're scared of the fact they might have devoted their lives to something that might not be true, creationism that is.

[SockMonkeyRiot]

they should teach this.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/05/26.html

[Throwback]

I hate people who claim that you can teach evolution, but not creationism. Both take a large amount of faith to believe and both can be easily argued outside of 'Nuh uh, God made me in His image cuz he luvz0rz me!!!!!!11one'

[SuperWoman7700]

How about you all click here:

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=71469

As for me, I believe that God created everything.

[VeloriumCamper]

im learning evolution right now in school. my teacher makes such a stress on religion. i think people need to realize were not trying to put crazy thoughts into your/our childrens heads and just think of it as any other topic.

[Love As Arson]

Teach creationism in Sunday school. Evolution has a scientific basis, therefore, should be taught in school.

[richter915]

ya move this to education...me and Trevor (GhostYouAre) started this and it never really went anywhere.

Evolution does not require faith, so whoever said that is wrong. You don't go to some temple and worship Darwin. Evolution is based on data collected and gathered through experimentation. Please find the scientific basis of Creationism...there is none, that is why it should not be taught within a science class because it is a topic taught in the Bible thus it should only be taught in a Bible Studies course.

To TJ Wells...again it's not bias because creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution. It's an alternative based on faith.

to SuperWoman...if you think that God created "everything"...what do you mean...do you mean all life? If that's the case, how do you explain fossils of bacteria that date over millions of years ago? How do you explain dinosaurs if you believe the earth is only around 6000 years old? I'm not trying to bash you...I'm just posing the questions I have...please answer them. Thanks

That's actually not true. There are a lot of scientists whose driving force is to disprove God, Creation, etc. I'm not saying that's the majority, but there are a lot that do that (just like there are a lot of Christian scientists that are only looking for data to support their pre-existing beliefs). Science isn't always completely objective. I remember hearing in a class I took about one scientist who was an atheist and was doing research to try and disprove something related to the Bible, but at the very end he said he came to the point where he realized whatever it was he was trying to disprove was right, yet he still refused to believe it. It's been a while since I went over all of this stuff, so I'm kind of rusty and it's hard for me to remember.
I dunno what scientists you're talking about. I think many modern physicists attempt to just understand at the beginning of the universe...they're not looking to take down all forms of faith.

Sometimes I feel that people just believe that God created everything cause they don't have the knowledge to understand modern science.

[richter915]

kinda of like how evolution should be taught
evolution has no religious basis to it. It is purely scientific in nature and it is always referred to as a THEORY, never a law. Evolution is just the theory with the most evidence behind it. Many creationists often see creationism as law though and that is a problem.

[SkaBum14]

I dunno what scientists you're talking about. I think many modern physicists attempt to just understand at the beginning of the universe...they're not looking to take down all forms of faith.

Yeah, I don't remember who. It's been awhile. I wasn't saying a ton of scientists are out to tear down all forms of faith either, I was just bringing an example of the fact that there are some out there who do try to do that to some degree. Obviously, it'd be isolated cases for the most part. It was just an example I remembered.

[mps]

evolution has no religious basis to it. It is purely scientific in nature and it is always referred to as a THEORY, never a law. Evolution is just the theory with the most evidence behind it. Many creationists often see creationism as law though and that is a problem.
:ditto: too true...and didnt we have a thread just like this a few weeks back where no one could agree on anything? ..anyways evolution has logic behind it which an educated christian can understand (regardless of whether they believe it or not, if they read the theory it can make sense), as well as a non religious person. But creationism is based purely of if you are religious, which therefore is not as widely accepted.

[richter915]

Trust me there is ALOT of faith behind evolution. It's not completely scientific
I dunno what you mean by faith then. When I say faith I mean that someone can go to a religious leader and that leader will explain to them "yes, this is how life began." I do not know of evolution being the theory of choice for religious leaders but Creationism is professed in the Bible/Torah/Koran and this idea is taught in religious services.

[VinnyVegas]

The problem is that people fear the unknown. To combat that fear people latch onto certain beliefs. It is foolish to align yourself with either side of the argument, because it will never be proven either way. The argument will just go in circles.

There is a lot of substance to most of the scientific research done on the subject, like richter915 pointed out. There is however no 100% conclusive evidence to support any of the positions. Because of this, I have personally resigned myself to the fact that I don't know where we came from.

Once you admit that you don't know something and are likely to never know, you free yourself from all the dogmatic bullshit associated with the argument. This is hard for a lot of people to deal with, especially people like myself who rely heavily on science to explain the world around us.

On another note..I actaully had a kid in one of my geology classes argue that God put dinosaur bones in the earth.

[richter915]

and possibilities, chances not everything is completely certain.
but there is more evidence supporting the "chance" and "possibility" of evolution in comparison to creationism.

[richter915]

The problem is that people fear the unknown. To combat that fear people latch onto certain beliefs. It is foolish to align yourself with either side of the argument, because it will never be proven either way. The argument will just go in circles.

There is a lot of substance to most of the scientific research done on the subject, like richter915 pointed out. There is however no 100% conclusive evidence to support any of the positions. Because of this, I have personally resigned myself to the fact that I don't know where we came from.

Once you admit that you don't know something and are likely to never know, you free yourself from all the dogmatic bullshit associated with the argument. This is hard for a lot of people to deal with, especially people like myself who rely heavily on science to explain the world around us.

On another note..I actaully had a kid in one of my geology classes argue that God put dinosaur bones in the earth.
right we can't know 100% for sure again that's why it's the THEORY of evolution. you're free to believe whatever u want...I just choose to believe the theory which has the more scientific evidence to it.

[richter915]

:headshake no way.
well that's where the difference comes in. You see the Bible as pure fact where as I see it as a book with certain elements of fiction. I see scientific testing as more believable.

[Rebs]

I believe in evolution. Both topics should be given equal time in school, although I disagree with schools adding religious beliefs in to their study topis. I understand when we study different religions in history, but when my English teacher gives me speeches about how I should read the bible, it pisses me off.

[richter915]

I believe in evolution. Both topics should be given equal time in school, although I disagree with schools adding religious beliefs in to their study topis. I understand when we study different religions in history, but when my English teacher gives me speeches about how I should read the bible, it pisses me off.
ya like we're saying...the topic of creationism can be mentioned in "regular" classes but it should be taught in religious classes because of it's basis in religion.

[Love As Arson]

Why not teach the Greek mythological idea of what creation was? Or, even the Norse mythology?

Because, they're not scienfitc theories. It's something of a spiritual nature, which has nothing to do with school.

[MrChainsaw389]

please read that Long thing I quoted and then i'll responded to your question with, "because we teach the big bang in school too"
I'm being totally serious when I ask this: If the bible said the sky was pink, and you looked up at it and it was clearly blue, what would you do/think?

[Love As Arson]

I'm being totally serious when I ask this: If the bible said the sky was pink, and you looked up at it and it was clearly blue, what would you do/think?
Our concept of blue is wrong, and what we construe as blue is actually named pink.

[Cal Smith]

I'm being totally serious when I ask this: If the bible said the sky was pink, and you looked up at it and it was clearly blue, what would you do/think?

On the same token if the Bible said it would rain everywhere at once on June 7, and it did what would you do? Probably the logical thing and start reading the Bible and taking it seriously. Same goes for your scenario. If the Bible was obviously wrong or flawed you'd take notice. Either way I dont understand the point of the question.

[MrChainsaw389]

I was just curious to see what he would say. Most hardcore catholics can find a way to prove the bible correct in absolutely any scenario.

And if you want to find something that has more correct predictions then anything, read some Nostradamus

[Cal Smith]

Why not teach the Greek mythological idea of what creation was? Or, even the Norse mythology?

Because, they're not scienfitc theories. It's something of a spiritual nature, which has nothing to do with school.

Easy...........because the Greek mythological idea of creation is not a firmly held belief by many. Maybe hundreds of years ago that might hold true, but obviously not now.

[richter915]

Easy...........because the Greek mythological idea of creation is not a firmly held belief by many. Maybe hundreds of years ago that might hold true, but obviously not now.
so just because the "majority" believes in something of this nature (something non-scientific and related to organized religion)...it MUST be taught? No...our society is so diverse....that's a horrible way to go about it.

[Cal Smith]

I was just curious to see what he would say. Most hardcore catholics can find a way to prove the bible correct in absolutely any scenario.

And if you want to find something that has more correct predictions then anything, read some Nostradamus

I'd say read Isaiah for accurate predictions as well

[Cal Smith]

so just because the "majority" believes in something of this nature (something non-scientific and related to organized religion)...it MUST be taught? No...our society is so diverse....that's a horrible way to go about it.

What? Then explain why the big bang is taught? Wait..............it's a majority held belief by many. Perhaps 50 years from now the big bang theory will be an afterthought.

[MrChainsaw389]

So diverse that we force kids with faith to sit through a class that teaches theories as fact.
It's called religion class at my school :)

[Cal Smith]

So diverse that we force kids with faith to sit through a class that teaches theories as fact.

Exactly..............it's the same thing. Both are theories. Now I don't have a problem with creationism being taught in another class besides science, but to suggest it shouldn't be taught because it theory is a contradiction to your own argument.

[richter915]

So diverse that we force kids with faith to sit through a class that teaches theories as fact.
woah. So now you're arguing that only people who do not believe in "faith" believe in evolution? That's like saying believing in evolution is a sin. Evolution is not taught as fact because it is not fact. It is a theory and it will always be a theory. the reason it is taught with more emphasis is because it's difficult to understand all the various aspects of evolution in one day. Like we've said various times...if kids are so "faithful" they can learn about creationism in a bible studies course, not a science course.

[richter915]

What? Then explain why the big bang is taught? Wait..............it's a majority held belief by many. Perhaps 50 years from now the big bang theory will be an afterthought.
the reason why the big bang is taught is because of the large amount of scientific fact behind it. It's not just a random idea. It has scientific basis and should therefore be taught in a scientific course. I know what you're arguing but take note of what I said in the parenthesis...children of various cultures and creed should not be required to learn the belief of one religion becaus it is the popular one at the time in a science class.

[Cal Smith]

Isiaiah 53 is a perfect example and it isn't vague like nostradamus

chapter 49 as well..........."This will prove that I will reestablish the lond of Israel and reasign it to its own people again"..............and what happened in 1948?

[richter915]

Remember that sticker that was taken off of those books, "Evolution is a theory, not fact."
the reason it was taken off was because it was so retarded. If evolution requires a sticker...so should creationism...so should any other theory. If a kid can't read the book and still remember it's a theory...he's gotta get his head out of his ass.

[Love As Arson]

The probability argument is so flawed, I don't even know where to begin.

[richter915]

...It doesn't have much fact behind it.
ok not fact. Scientific and mathematical evidence then.

[MrChainsaw389]

The probability argument is so flawed, I don't even know where to begin.
Let them believe whatever you want. Trying to convince a christian they are wrong is like trying to convince a sumo wrestler to eat a salad.

[richter915]

mathematical and scientific evidence is in favour of creation when it comes to the big bang.
Right just like the geocentric model had a lot of evidence behind it...until Copernicus came around. We've seen science "disprove" aspects of Christianity...maybe it'll do it again, I don't know...

[mps]

Let them believe whatever you want. Trying to convince a christian they are wrong is like trying to convince a sumo wrestler to eat a salad.

Haha I know what you mean, some people are so stubborn. And we cannot be accused of being stubborn for not believing in god (because spirituality is a different matter), but christians can be accused of being stubborn for not accepting that there may be another theory apart from creationism, that is more universal (in the sense that you dont have to be religious or non religious to understand the concepts).

[richter915]

chapter 49 as well..........."This will prove that I will reestablish the lond of Israel and reasign it to its own people again"..............and what happened in 1948?
this is a stretch and even I don't believe it, But Israel was established by nations where Christianity dominated...who's to say that maybe the reason it was created is because they just wanted to "prove" something in the Bible.

[Love As Arson]

chapter 49 as well..........."This will prove that I will reestablish the lond of Israel and reasign it to its own people again"..............and what happened in 1948?
Yes, he must have been talking about 1948.

[Cal Smith]

the reason why the big bang is taught is because of the large amount of scientific fact behind it. It's not just a random idea. It has scientific basis and should therefore be taught in a scientific course. I know what you're arguing but take note of what I said in the parenthesis...children of various cultures and creed should not be required to learn the belief of one religion becaus it is the popular one at the time in a science class.

then should children of Christian beliefs be forced to learn and accept the big bang as how the earth was created?

Let them believe whatever you want. Trying to convince a christian they are wrong is like trying to convince a sumo wrestler to eat a salad.

unfortuantely that could be seen as a two way street.

[richter915]

then should children of Christian beliefs be forced to learn and accept the big bang as how the earth was created?



unfortuantely that could be seen as a two way street.
again I do not see how this idea is being "forced" upon anyone. These children are free to go to sunday school...free to take theology courses...free to take bible study courses...but within a science class, the theory or theories which have the most scientific support will and should be taught. I don't see what's wrong with teaching science in a science class and religion in a religion class.

[mps]

[QUOTE=Cal Smith]then should children of Christian beliefs be forced to learn and accept the big bang as how the earth was created?[QUOTE]

The big bang is science, not a religion.

[richter915]

hahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahah hahahahah ahahahahah ahahaha
Wait the geocentric model is where the sun rotates around the earth?
ya geocentric is everything (sun, stars, planets) revolves around us...heliocentric is what was proved to be correct.

[Love As Arson]

Let them believe whatever you want. Trying to convince a christian they are wrong is like trying to convince a sumo wrestler to eat a salad.
I am a Christian, I simply don't believe as they do.

[richter915]

It's those freemasons I tell you
are those the guys who put secret code on the dollar bill to help nicholas cage on his quest for some long lost treasure?

[Cal Smith]

this is a stretch and even I don't believe it, But Israel was established by nations where Christianity dominated...who's to say that maybe the reason it was created is because they just wanted to "prove" something in the Bible.

A stretch.................? It's fact. You might not believe that's what he was referring to, but the honest truth is it was a prediction and it came true. Historians would be probbaly who would say this, and since there has never been anything remotely close to this idea I'd say you have no legs to stand on.

Yes, he must have been talking about 1948.

Like I just said.............you can excuse it either way you want, BUT you can't deny that is factual. There was a claim in the Bible.............and it's come true hundreds of years later. That's a pretty big coincidence

[Love As Arson]

mathematical and scientific evidence is in favour of creation when it comes to the big bang.


well please begin some where.
Improbable things happen all the time.

[Cal Smith]

again I do not see how this idea is being "forced" upon anyone. These children are free to go to sunday school...free to take theology courses...free to take bible study courses...but within a science class, the theory or theories which have the most scientific support will and should be taught. I don't see what's wrong with teaching science in a science class and religion in a religion class.

You didnt answer my question. In one instance you say.........."children of various cultures and creed should not be required to learn the belief of one religion becaus it is the popular one at the time in a science class." That being the case how come children of a various culture/religion like Christianity should have to hear 1 version of how the earth came about?

I'm not arguing to teach creationism in science class I'm simply arguign that many of you are being hypocritical.

[richter915]

A stretch.................? It's fact. You might not believe that's what he was referring to, but the honest truth is it was a prediction and it came true. Historians would be probbaly who would say this, and since there has never been anything remotely close to this idea I'd say you have no legs to stand on.



Like I just said.............you can excuse it either way you want, BUT you can't deny that is factual. There was a claim in the Bible.............and it's come true hundreds of years later. That's a pretty big coincidence
no no you misunderstood what I said. I'm saying that what if these nations (the UK, the US etc.) got together and said "hey, the Bible said Israel would return...and now is a perfect time to give it back and it'll make the Bible look like fact"...ya know what I mean. It's kinda like somebody guesses something, and people force it to happen. That's why I said it's a stretch because it sounds completely absurd.

Now does the Bible (or any other Holy Book) guess anything that has happened before the time it was written BUT the writers of the Bible didn't have the technology to guess it happening. Like...does the Book say...a comet hit the earth causing dust to rise up, blocking the sun, and killing off tons of life? Now we have the technology to say "yes, this thing did happen and the Bible guessed it...wtf"

[Love As Arson]

A stretch.................? It's fact. You might not believe that's what he was referring to, but the honest truth is it was a prediction and it came true. Historians would be probbaly who would say this, and since there has never been anything remotely close to this idea I'd say you have no legs to stand on.



Like I just said.............you can excuse it either way you want, BUT you can't deny that is factual. There was a claim in the Bible.............and it's come true hundreds of years later. That's a pretty big coincidence
Are you sure it's not a reference to the Babylonian exile?

[richter915]

You didnt answer my question. In one instance you say.........."children of various cultures and creed should not be required to learn the belief of one religion becaus it is the popular one at the time in a science class." That being the case how come children of a various culture/religion like Christianity should have to hear 1 version of how the earth came about?

I'm not arguing to teach creationism in science class I'm simply arguign that many of you are being hypocritical.
Because in a science class, the theory/idea with the most scientific thought will be taught to the students. In my science courses, we did know about the ideas of creationism...we were introduced to it...but after the book said "life began as a result of one all powerful Creator" we didn't go on further because that is when you have to bring in Religious Texts in order to study it and that is where problems will pop up. So students are not hearing just one side, they're given many options but what is taught is what has the most scientific strength behind it. I hope that answers ur question.

[Love As Arson]

Ya those are the ones


like the odds of intelligent life?
How improbable must something be before it's designated an act of god?

[richter915]

Like I just said.............you can excuse it either way you want, BUT you can't deny that is factual. There was a claim in the Bible.............and it's come true hundreds of years later. That's a pretty big coincidenceBut then ur giving the Bible as much credit as Nostradamus for his various predictions. Or HG Wells for predicting the use of nuclear power in submarines.

[Cal Smith]

no no you misunderstood what I said. I'm saying that what if these nations (the UK, the US etc.) got together and said "hey, the Bible said Israel would return...and now is a perfect time to give it back and it'll make the Bible look like fact"...ya know what I mean. It's kinda like somebody guesses something, and people force it to happen. That's why I said it's a stretch because it sounds completely absurd.

It is completely absurd, which is why I dont even know why you brought it up.

Quick question: Why is the study of the big bang any more scientific than the study of creationism? The whole concept of science is observation.

[richter915]

It is completely absurd, which is why I dont even know why you brought it up.

Quick question: Why is the study of the big bang any more scientific than the study of creationism? The whole concept of science is observation.
haha ya me neither...just bullshitting.

[Cal Smith]

Are you sure it's not a reference to the Babylonian exile?

well it was created for the jewish people and descendants of Isaac so i assume when the verse says "own people" it refers to the Jewish people

[richter915]

Quick question: Why is the study of the big bang any more scientific than the study of creationism? The whole concept of science is observation.
well the concept of the big bang is seen as a scientific theory. I don't know what the Bible says about it at all though. I know the Koran "supports" the ideas discussed in the big bang theory. Creationism on the other hand is almost completely faith based...there's just not a lot of scientific evidence behind it especially in comparison to the idea of evolution.

[Cal Smith]

Because in a science class, the theory/idea with the most scientific thought will be taught to the students. In my science courses, we did know about the ideas of creationism...we were introduced to it...but after the book said "life began as a result of one all powerful Creator" we didn't go on further because that is when you have to bring in Religious Texts in order to study it and that is where problems will pop up. So students are not hearing just one side, they're given many options but what is taught is what has the most scientific strength behind it. I hope that answers ur question.

So we always only teach one scientific theory? That's a new concept to me.

well the concept of the big bang is seen as a scientific theory.

I'm being a stickler here cause i have a point. You're not answering WHY the study and idea of the big bang is anymore scientific than the creationism theory. That's what I want to know.

[richter915]

So we always only teach one scientific theory? That's a new concept to me.



I'm being a stickler here cause i have a point. You're not answering WHY the study and idea of the big bang is anymore scientific than the creationism theory. That's what I want to know.
well give me an example where that's not the case. Other ideas are introduced but not thoroughly analyzed unless it has a large amt of scientific evidence behind it.

I know for example in chemistry...there were various models introduced for the structure of atoms...heck there's one known as the "plum pudding model"...but the one we study the most is the Bohr Model because of the evidence supporting it.

[Love As Arson]

well it was created for the jewish people and descendants of Isaac so i assume when the verse says "own people" it refers to the Jewish people
I could simply ascribe it to the Jews going back to their homeland after the exile.

[Cal Smith]

I could simply ascribe it to the Jews going back to their homeland after the exile.

lol.........why do you insist on arguing when it's referring too? It has no bearing on my point, which is that it was a prediction..............and did come true in the future.

well give me an example where that's not the case. Other ideas are introduced but not thoroughly analyzed unless it has a large amt of scientific evidence behind it.

I know for example in chemistry...there were various models introduced for the structure of atoms...heck there's one known as the "plum pudding model"...but the one we study the most is the Bohr Model because of the evidence supporting it.

Perhaps the question I should ask first is what is scientific evidence? And what "scientific evidence" is used in the big bang theory? Again "Science" is observation..............so I'm having a hard time acceptign that someone observed the big bang theory.

[richter915]

I'm being a stickler here cause i have a point. You're not answering WHY the study and idea of the big bang is anymore scientific than the creationism theory. That's what I want to know.
I thought I explained this in a previous post but I'll reiterate...The big bang theory has more scientific "proof" behind it where as creationism requires evidence from a Holy Book which takes that theory into the realm of theology, not science.

[idlewillkill]

I believe that science and God can go hand in hand. (A surpreme being put evolution into place.)

[Love As Arson]

lol.........why do you insist on arguing when it's referring too? It has no bearing on my point, which is that it was a prediction..............and did come true in the future.
It does have a bearing on your point, which is the prophecies can easily be manipulated into talking about whatever you want.

[Cal Smith]

I thought I explained this in a previous post but I'll reiterate...The big bang theory has more scientific "proof" behind it where as creationism requires evidence from a Holy Book which takes that theory into the realm of theology, not science.

Scientific Proof? What is scientific proof? You keep attaching the word "scientific" to everything and that's my point.

Example: Historians, Scientists, etc....., etc......... can look at the genealogy records in Genesis and see the accuracy. So is this "scientific" proof? Or just proof?

[richter915]

Perhaps the question I should ask first is what is scientific evidence? And what "scientific evidence" is used in the big bang theory? Again "Science" is observation..............so I'm having a hard time acceptign that someone observed the big bang theory.
Scientific evidence is commonly believed as anything that can be recreated or proven using scientific technique. You should also know that the use of math also falls under this. There's a good deal of scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang. Just look at this website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang . Science is observation but what we as humans "observe" is the effects of the big bang. No one could have possible seen the big bang but people are able to notice that the universe is expanding and other things which supports the big bang theory.

I believe that science and God can go hand in hand. (A surpreme being put evolution into place.)
that's something I also like to believe. God got the ball rolling but then nature took over.

[Cal Smith]

It does have a bearing on your point, which is the prophecies can easily be manipulated into talking about whatever you want.

manipulate this for me........."I will reestablish the land of Israel and reasign it to tis own people again" Seems pretty straight forward too me.

Scientific evidence is commonly believed as anything that can be recreated or proven using scientific technique. You should also know that the use of math also falls under this. There's a good deal of scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang. Just look at this website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang . Science is observation but what we as humans "observe" is the effects of the big bang. No one could have possible seen the big bang but people are able to notice that the universe is expanding and other things which supports the big bang theory.

Your going in a big circle...........what's scientific technique? Are you saying math is? And if you are then would creationism be scientific if it has evidence in mathmatical terms?

[richter915]

Your going in a big circle...........what's scientific technique? Are you saying math is? And if you are then would creationism be scientific if it has evidence in mathmatical terms?Scientific techniques include experimenting things. Performing tests, collecting data...things along those lines. Things you do when you work in a lab. Math falls in that category because much of physics revolves around the use of math to help create evidence for hypotheses. E=mc^2 is the most famous mathematical equation but is used in physics to show how much energy mass can be created. I dunno what mathematical evidence supports the idea of creationism without having to bring in Holy text. If you can scientifically test the theories in creationism without having to refer to the Bible...then I guess that would give it some scientific basis.

[Love As Arson]

manipulate this for me........."I will reestablish the land of Israel and reasign it to tis own people again" Seems pretty straight forward too me.

Well,for one, it's not talking about 1948, and the fact that you're acting as if it is, shows how prophecy can be manipulated into what you want to see it as.

[idlewillkill]

Scientific techniques include experimenting things. Performing tests, collecting data...things along those lines. Things you do when you work in a lab. Math falls in that category because much of physics revolves around the use of math to help create evidence for hypotheses. E=mc^2 is the most famous mathematical equation but is used in physics to show how much energy mass can be created. I dunno what mathematical evidence supports the idea of creationism without having to bring in Holy text. If you can scientifically test the theories in creationism without having to refer to the Bible...then I guess that would give it some scientific basis.


true creationism is a matter of faith, not scientific basis.

[richter915]

true creationism is a matter of faith, not scientific basis.
my point exactly. And since it is a matter of faith it should be taught in faith based classes and courses.

[Cal Smith]

Scientific techniques include experimenting things. Performing tests, collecting data...things along those lines. Things you do when you work in a lab. Math falls in that category because much of physics revolves around the use of math to help create evidence for hypotheses. E=mc^2 is the most famous mathematical equation but is used in physics to show how much energy mass can be created. I dunno what mathematical evidence supports the idea of creationism without having to bring in Holy text. If you can scientifically test the theories in creationism without having to refer to the Bible...then I guess that would give it some scientific basis.

So basically if we can run the scientific method on it than it's science?

[idlewillkill]

my point exactly. And since it is a matter of faith it should be taught in faith based classes and courses.


I cant agree with that, faith is a belief in something. you have to have faith or stock in evolution to totally agree with it. If only evolution was discussed in the classroom, that would only be presenting half of the story.

[richter915]

So basically if we can run the scientific method on it than it's science?
hmm I'd say yes for the most part though I'm sure there are things in the Bible you can prove scientifically but since the Biblical emphasis holds more weight on whatever it may be...it would be a religious thing, not a scientific thing. A lot of it also depends on interpretation too I guess. But regardless, creationism cannot be science because of it's basis on what's explained in the Bible. Science must stay seperate from faith...that's my belief at least.

I cant agree with that, faith is a belief in something. you have to have faith or stock in evolution to totally agree with it. If only evolution was discussed in the classroom, that would only be presenting half of the story.
but that's being absurd. If you say that "I have faith in the Rangers winning the cup this season for such and such reasons" it's not the same as saying u have religious faith. If you want to say that believing the scientific evidence that supports evolutions means u have faith in it...then I guess ur right, I dunno.

[AShannon04]

I personally think that both should be taught, but our education systems should emphasize that creationism a belief held by certian people to be true.

[Cal Smith]

Well,for one, it's not talking about 1948, and the fact that you're acting as if it is, shows how prophecy can be manipulated into what you want to see it as.

How foolish and contradicting you're being. I have only suggested 1948 because in fact in 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people which were the original settleres and God's chosen people accroding to the Bible.

I'm not saying that 1948 is specifically what Isaiah was referring too. I'm arguing based on fact, neither of us know the referrence. On the other hand, you ARE saying it's not about 1948 and looking quite hypocritical.

[Love As Arson]

why is it not talking about 1948 Dom?
The historical context suggests it's a reference to Israel's return to it's homeland after the Babylonian exile.

[Cal Smith]

hmm I'd say yes for the most part though I'm sure there are things in the Bible you can prove scientifically but since the Biblical emphasis holds more weight on whatever it may be...it would be a religious thing, not a scientific thing. A lot of it also depends on interpretation too I guess. But regardless, creationism cannot be science because of it's basis on what's explained in the Bible. Science must stay seperate from faith...that's my belief at least.

Thankyou for clearign your opinion up.

[Love As Arson]

How foolish and contradicting you're being. I have only suggested 1948 because in fact in 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people which were the original settleres and God's chosen people accroding to the Bible.

I'm not saying that 1948 is specifically what Isaiah was referring too. I'm arguing based on fact, neither of us know the referrence. On the other hand, you ARE saying it's not about 1948 and looking quite hypocritical.
Biblical scholars will agree that it is about the Babylonian exile.

[idlewillkill]

but that's being absurd. If you say that "I have faith in the Rangers winning the cup this season for such and such reasons" it's not the same as saying u have religious faith. If you want to say that believing the scientific evidence that supports evolutions means u have faith in it...then I guess ur right, I dunno.


well faith is just a simple noun that means belief

[Cal Smith]

The historical context suggests it's a reference to Israel's return to it's homeland after the Babylonian exile.

what historical context? only historical context i get from that particular scripture is "who" God is referrign to in saying he would return the land to its "own" people. That would be the Jewish people.

[Love As Arson]

what historical context? only historical context i get from that particular scripture is "who" God is referrign to in saying he would return the land to its "own" people. That would be the Jewish people.
The context of the time period the book was written within.

[Cal Smith]

The context of the time period the book was written within.

Maybe I'm missing somethign but Isaiah is thought to have been written around 700 BC, and I'm not real familier wtih the Babylonian exile but I'm seeing that this occured between 540 and 582 BC?

[Love As Arson]

Maybe I'm missing somethign but Isaiah is thought to have been written around 700 BC, and I'm not real familier wtih the Babylonian exile but I'm seeing that this occured between 540 and 582 BC?
Actually, Isaiah is seperated into three parts, written by different authors, the first of which was written around 700 BC, however, the second part, which consist of chapters 40-55, was written by an unknown prophet during the time of the Exile, and his writings were taken and ascribed to Isaiah.

[OnLegendary21]

I've never been one for fairy tales, so I'm siding with evolutionism.

[idlewillkill]

I've never been one for fairy tales, so I'm siding with evolutionism.


great input jackass

[Cal Smith]

Actually, Isaiah is seperated into three parts, written by different authors, the first of which was written around 700 BC, however, the second part, which consist of chapters 40-55, was written by an unknown prophet during the time of the Exile, and his writings were taken and ascribed to Isaiah.

"Actually"............lol...........it's one belief that it's written by two different authors because of the style of writing in the different sections. It's not fact either way and most likely never will be, so don't use "actually" as if it's fact. Some even believe there were three authors. You're talking like it's fact and are being very deceiving.

I do enjoy how you toss everything aside for your own belief. And what I mean is automatically you assume there are two authors, automatically you assume that it can't be referrign to 1948, and automatically you think it's referring to the Babylonian exile and automatically you toss it to the side. How perfect that it automatically fits into YOUR conception...........

I'll be the 1st to admit that I can't tell you how many authors there was, or the referrence of the author in that particular scriputre. On the other hand, the land of Israel in 1948 was returned back to the Jewish people, so if I were to attribute that to the scripture I'd be dead on, whether I was right because of a big coincidence or because that's what he was actually referring to is up to interpratation. You can't accept that though..........

[Love As Arson]

"Actually"............lol...........it's one belief that it's written by two different authors because of the style of writing in the different sections. It's not fact either way and most likely never will be, so don't use "actually" as if it's fact. Some even believe there were three authors. You're talking like it's fact and are being very deceiving.

I do enjoy how you toss everything aside for your own belief. And what I mean is automatically you assume there are two authors, automatically you assume that it can't be referrign to 1948, and automatically you think it's referring to the Babylonian exile and automatically you toss it to the side. How perfect that it automatically fits into YOUR conception...........

I'll be the 1st to admit that I can't tell you how many authors there was, or the referrence of the author in that particular scriputre. On the other hand, the land of Israel in 1948 was returned back to the Jewish people, so if I were to attribute that to the scripture I'd be dead on, whether I was right because of a big coincidence or because that's what he was actually referring to is up to interpratation. You can't accept that though..........
I did refer to the three authors when I said it was seperated into three parts.

And I say actually, because it is pretty much accepted as fact among biblical scholars. I suppose I shouldn't take their word for it. I mean, what do they know.

I don't assume anything. I looked at the passage, when it was written and came to the conclusion that what it was referring to was the Babylonian Exile.

My whole point is you can take a passage in the scripture, discard the context, attribute an event to it, and say,"Hey, this proves something".

[Cal Smith]

I did refer to the three authors when I said it was seperated into three parts.

And I say actually, because it is pretty much accepted as fact among biblical scholars. I suppose I shouldn't take their word for it. I mean, what do they know.

I don't assume anything. I looked at the passage, when it was written and came to the conclusion that what it was referring to was the Babylonian Exile.

My whole point is you can take a passage in the scripture, discard the context, attribute an event to it, and say,"Hey, this proves something".

Fact is fact..........you dont have to accept fact........it's fact. Asof now you can't show for fact how many authors their are, and actually if i'm not mistaken most scholar THINK their are 2 authors.....not three.

Am I wrong in saying that this particular passage could be referring to the israel of 1948?

I don't assume anything. I looked at the passage, when it was written and came to the conclusion that what it was referring to was the Babylonian Exile.

Understatement of the day:

---"Well,for one, it's not talking about 1948"

---"Biblical scholars will agree that it is about the Babylonian exile."

---"Actually, Isaiah is seperated into three parts, written by different authors"

Of course not...............you assume nothing..........eventhough all the above is up for interpretation and can not be at this time be proven fact :headshake

[Love As Arson]

Fact is fact..........you dont have to accept fact........it's fact. Asof now you can't show for fact how many authors their are, and actually if i'm not mistaken most scholar THINK their are 2 authors.....not three.

Am I wrong in saying that this particular passage could be referring to the israel of 1948?



Understatement of the day:

---"Well,for one, it's not talking about 1948"

---"Biblical scholars will agree that it is about the Babylonian exile."

---"Actually, Isaiah is seperated into three parts, written by different authors"

Of course not...............you assume nothing..........eventhough all the above is up for interpretation and can not be at this time be proven fact :headshake
The proof of the different authors is in the different styles of writings, and historical references, but you can choose to deny this.

And yes, you are wrong in saying it's a reference to 1948, but as I've said, if you want to deny the proof, then feel free to do so at your leisure.

[Cal Smith]

The proof of the different authors is in the different styles of writings, and historical references, but you can choose to deny this.

And yes, you are wrong in saying it's a reference to 1948, but as I've said, if you want to deny the proof, then feel free to do so at your leisure.

That's called evidence.......not proof. Like I said, I'm not denying this, I'm simply saying we don't know (or everyone besides you doesnt know).

Again it's called evidence not proof. I suggest you learn the difference between a normative and a positive statement.

Proof is whatever evidence compels you to form an opinion. Now if you can prove this evidence is factual than your proof would be factual. Unfortuantely we cant prove how many authors there were, what was going through there head when they wrote that scripture, and what they were referring too.

I'm not denying anything if you would read and have actual said the opposite. Anyone can see this.........and if you'd like I'd quote myself.

[bopst]

Here's a one word question for those of you who believe in creationism......DINOSAURS.

[Cal Smith]

Here's a one word question for those of you who believe in creationism......DINOSAURS.

Here's a question for those of you who believe in evolution........DINOSAURS.

Point being.......both are impossible to explain. If you can explain how dinosaurs and every other living creature came from a cosmic egg I'll give your props, just as I'd expect props for being able to explain God's timetable of how things worked, considering Genesis does not go into great detail.

That's the benefit of faith. If you want to rest your hat on being able to explain everything with science than you'd have to be able to explain everything (dinosaurs, big bang, where the cosmic egg came from, etc..........). By believing and accepting in a higher power are able to exempt yourself from such explanation.

[Alex Djaferis]

i believe in God and I believe in Dinosaurs.

its possible to have an understanding of both ends...or a lack there of in some cases.

[CircaEnder]

i believe i dont care.. and that im happy to be alive..but if someone had a knife to my throat id have to say
something like evolution..just anything cept what the bible says haha.

[bopst]

Come on now, explain dinosaurs. That's a mighty big hole in the whole creationism argument. Oh, and why no mention in the Bible? You'd think that dinosaurs would have been mentioned. You know, something like we were doing God's work and then a big fuckin' lizard come and chased us all away. An exceeding odd and telling omission...

And please, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, well, just a belief. Seems to me, if it truly was the word of god, why would mere mortals feel compelled to rewrite it every so often. Did god fuck up or something?

Again, religious belief should be taught in history class or social studies but definitely not in science class. There is no science in belief, plain and simple.

[CircaEnder]

Come on now, explain dinosaurs. That's a mighty big hole in the whole creationism argument. Oh, and why no mention in the Bible? You'd think that dinosaurs would have been mentioned. You know, something like we were doing God's work and then a big fuckin' lizard come and chased us all away. An exceeding odd and telling omission...

And please, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, well, just a belief. Seems to me, if it truly was the word of god, why would mere mortals feel compelled to rewrite it every so often. Did god fuck up or something?

Again, religious belief should be taught in history class or social studies but definitely not in science class. There is no science in belief, plain and simple.
The bible IS horribly weak.. and anything they dont explain it says to have "Faith" wich is a word that really means. "Please just believe this bullshit and dont question it..cause thats when you see its Bullshit..so just believe"

[Alex Djaferis]

Come on now, explain dinosaurs. That's a mighty big hole in the whole creationism argument. Oh, and why no mention in the Bible? You'd think that dinosaurs would have been mentioned. You know, something like we were doing God's work and then a big fuckin' lizard come and chased us all away. An exceeding odd and telling omission...

And please, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, well, just a belief. Seems to me, if it truly was the word of god, why would mere mortals feel compelled to rewrite it every so often. Did god fuck up or something?

Again, religious belief should be taught in history class or social studies but definitely not in science class. There is no science in belief, plain and simple.


there is a mention of dinosaurs somewhere. ive read it. let me look it up for you. Its really subtle, and depending how you want to look at it, it doesnt explain much or all the hows and whys etc...its just interesting.

i would write more, but i honestly hate writing out what i believe and all my explanations on these issues...because 1/ it takes too long...2/ things like this should be discussed in person.
its too bad we cant all meet up in a coffee shop here in amsterdam and talk about this :D
.

[Cal Smith]

Come on now, explain dinosaurs. That's a mighty big hole in the whole creationism argument. Oh, and why no mention in the Bible? You'd think that dinosaurs would have been mentioned. You know, something like we were doing God's work and then a big fuckin' lizard come and chased us all away. An exceeding odd and telling omission...

And please, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, well, just a belief. Seems to me, if it truly was the word of god, why would mere mortals feel compelled to rewrite it every so often. Did god fuck up or something?

Again, religious belief should be taught in history class or social studies but definitely not in science class. There is no science in belief, plain and simple.

Have you read Job? (and you nicely glossed over an explanation as well.........can you not explain how Dinosaurs came about from the big bang?)

There is no defenite answer in the Bible about the existance of dinosaurs, just as there is no defenite answer in the bible about the existance of the Dodo Bird. There are possible explanations I could run through, but it would obviously be pointless because you've already decided it's not true. Is there a defenite answer how dinosaurs came about from the big bang?

[Alex Djaferis]

The bible IS horribly weak.. and anything they dont explain it says to have "Faith" wich is a word that really means. "Please just believe this bullshit and dont question it..cause thats when you see its Bullshit..so just believe"

thats where teh church went wrong. as soon as they brought control..its all fucking politics and money nowadays.

[Cal Smith]

there is a mention of dinosaurs somewhere. ive read it. let me look it up for you. Its really subtle, and depending how you want to look at it, it doesnt explain much or all the hows and whys etc...its just interesting.

i would write more, but i honestly hate writing out what i believe and all my explanations on these issues...because 1/ it takes too long...2/ things like this should be discussed in person.
its too bad we cant all meet up in a coffee shop here in amsterdam and talk about this :D
.

it's in Job

[Alex Djaferis]

Job 40:15-19

is interesting

[bopst]

Um, there is absolutely no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. You say there is a minor mention? Really? You'd think hulking masses of reptilian flesh would have garnered more than a casual mention.

Again, I'm all for teaching young impressionable minds about the history of imaginary friends. An understanding of the superstitions of primitive man is essential in understanding how the world's cultures have developed and are defined.

But

This ain't science, folks. Sorry, I know a lot of you want to believe that it is, but it ain't. Not by a long shot. Your beliefs don't qualify as scientific study. End of fuckin' story....

[Alex Djaferis]

Um, there is absolutely no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. You say there is a minor mention? Really? You'd think hulking masses of reptilian flesh would have garnered more than a casual mention.

Again, I'm all for teaching young impressionable minds about the history of imaginary friends. An understanding of the superstitions of primitive man is essential in understanding how the world's cultures have developed and are defined.

But

This ain't science, folks. Sorry, I know a lot of you want to believe that it is, but it ain't. Not by a long shot. Your beliefs don't qualify as scientific study. End of fuckin' story....

thats just as short sighted.

just because Science cant explain something, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

[Cal Smith]

Um, there is absolutely no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. You say there is a minor mention? Really? You'd think hulking masses of reptilian flesh would have garnered more than a casual mention.

Again, I'm all for teaching young impressionable minds about the history of imaginary friends. An understanding of the superstitions of primitive man is essential in understanding how the world's cultures have developed and are defined.

But

This ain't science, folks. Sorry, I know a lot of you want to believe that it is, but it ain't. Not by a long shot. Your beliefs don't qualify as scientific study. End of fuckin' story....

I'm not saying they do, but if you want to use dinosaurs to prove some point about creationism.........i would really expect that you'd be able to explain them using evolution. Which you've failed to even address for some odd reason :huh: (almost as if you can't explain it)

[bopst]

Please....

Dinosaurs fit into the scientific explanation of the evolution of man rising up through the primordial goo through a series of provable and documented steps in the progression of life on mother fuckin' earth. Dude, what the fuck do think fossils are? They document the steps by which life has evolved to this point in time. The slow progression of life, adopting and evolving with changes in the earth's climate, atmosphere and habitat, is not a belief; it is based on good ol' motherfuckin' evidence.

You need to stop trying to prove that your belief is anything but what it is; A BELIEF. And that's fine. Hell, more power to ya. But, never forget, your theories about the origin of life being created by a Christian version of the supreme being are just theories.

Now, you explain dinosaurs. I'm teeming with fascination at how you'll tackle that one....

[SuperWoman7700]

I believe in evolution. Both topics should be given equal time in school, although I disagree with schools adding religious beliefs in to their study topis. I understand when we study different religions in history, but when my English teacher gives me speeches about how I should read the bible, it pisses me off.
Reading the certain book of the Bible help us to more fully understand literature. There are many authors that were influenced by the Bible, so reading it can help us understand the story.

[bopst]

Exactly, but it ain't science....

[Cal Smith]

Please....

Dinosaurs fit into the scientific explanation of the evolution of man rising up through the primordial goo through a series of provable and documented steps in the progression of life on mother fuckin' earth. Dude, what the fuck do think fossils are? They document the steps by which life has evolved to this point in time. The slow progression of life, adopting and evolving with changes in the earth's climate, atmosphere and habitat, is not a belief; it is based on good ol' motherfuckin' evidence.

You need to stop trying to prove that your belief is anything but what it is; A BELIEF. And that's fine. Hell, more power to ya. But, never forget, your theories about the origin of life being created by a Christian version of the supreme being are just theories.

Now, you explain dinosaurs. I'm teeming with fascination at how you'll tackle that one....

You never explained where dinosaurs came from. All you did was say they show the progression of life. That's not science, it's history. I want you to explain how dinosaurs evolved from the big bang? What gave them life? What gave humans life after the end of the dinosaurs?

[Love As Arson]

That's called evidence.......not proof. Like I said, I'm not denying this, I'm simply saying we don't know (or everyone besides you doesnt know).

Again it's called evidence not proof. I suggest you learn the difference between a normative and a positive statement.

Proof is whatever evidence compels you to form an opinion. Now if you can prove this evidence is factual than your proof would be factual. Unfortuantely we cant prove how many authors there were, what was going through there head when they wrote that scripture, and what they were referring too.

I'm not denying anything if you would read and have actual said the opposite. Anyone can see this.........and if you'd like I'd quote myself.
All the evidence points to it being correct that there were more than one author. The evidence points to it being a reference to the Exile. The evidence is such that there is little to no doubt that the statements I've made about Isaiah and that passage is correct.

You know, there are many Mormons who say Joseph Smith predicted the Civil War. Now, for someone of faith you'd say, "Well, he's right" or "He could be right", but in historical context, with all the events that happened during the time of his prediction, anyone could have told you a Civil War was imminent.

[Rebs]

anyone else read the play "Inherit the Wind?" Its about the "monkey trial" where the teacher was put on trial for teaching Darwinism. Its a fascinating book. The characters are based off of clarence darrow and the other actual lawyers

[McDiggity]

Is it so hard to believe that God uses science? I don't think God has a magic wand that he waves and boom, a miracle happens. I feel he used the principles of science to create this world, and that he uses science in everything he does. By no means am I undermining God, if fact I admire Him more with these beliefs, seeing that there is order to everything. God is not the author of confusion.

I know dinosaurs exsisted because I'm able to get to point A to point B everyday in my car. It's not "magic fun juice" that fuels my car, it's fossil fuel from dinosaurs and plants that lived millions of years ago...

Genesis was not meant to be comphrensive of everything that had happened up to that point; more so it's a summery to tell the story of what happened up until the time of Moses. Thousands of years pass in pages. I don't think God literally created the earth in six days, or even six thousand years. Rather, by 'day' I understand it to mean 'period of time.' It wouldn't be the first time the scriptures used symbolism...

Given the choice between evolution and creationism, I'd rather my children learn evolution at school (and creationism at Sunday school). Science needs to be taught, be it evolution or whatever. It's the way the universe runs. Like anything in life, you can't take everything you learn in school at face value. I don't believe in all aspects in evolution, but there are valueable things to be learned from it.