now you're just grasping at straws.


here's another thing i'll never understand...if the good word is so good, why must people attempt to con others into teaching it, or believing it?

why do they have to sneak it in?
and, why didn't the creators leave us proof of their existence.

surely she would have known there would be questions, and the problems that not having the answers to those questions would cause to her creation.

I never understood why religious people feel the need to drag others into their religion mindset...my "soul" doesn't need saving, it's perfectly fine now...the only reason I see is money given to the preacher, so he can go get a 3rd lear jet, or a 7th house...

self validation?
points with the big guy?

No grasping at straws whatsoever.

As far as your statement "why must people attempt to con others into teaching it, or believing it?"...
Not sure what you are referring to regarding that statement. I don't know of any situation where there is conning going in regards with teaching creation.
Cannot same the same about the theory of evolution though.

Sneak what in?

God is not plural, so there isn't "creators" or "their" regarding God.

There is plenty of evidence of the existence of God.
Common sense for starters.
Creation secondly.

still beating that dead horse, huh...

No horse to beat.

lol... everything seems to point to self validation...

I noticed you haven't posted your proof yet...

Proof of what?

exactly...

Last night I was pondering DNA and genetic informational code.
In evolution its common that humans share much of our DNA code with the rest of the life on this planet. More so with certain species than others.

Creationism suggests that each species has its own DNA code.

I would think it might be a fairly straight-forward test to separate all the common code from DNA and see what remains for each tested species.
Then compare the similarities of DNA between species close in the evolutionary chain. Then remove all those similarities until only the human DNA that is unique remains.
Would that remaining DNA be viable on its own.

The eye is not always an eye. Sometimes it is only a patch of photosensitive cells.
Mr monkey, Mr gecko, Mr bird and Mr human all have spines but Mr octopus doesn't.
Mrs mouse, Mrs monkey and Mrs human all have mammary glands but Mrs scorpion, Mrs chicken and Mrs fish do not.

Evolution happens constantly but it happens infinitesimally unless a drastic mutation occurs that changes the offspring from its parents drastically (which does occur).
Humans have been humans for all of our recorded history. We look pretty much the same as we did when we first started looking. That is around 5,000 years.
Evolution with pronounced body style changes occurs over tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years.
Even with evolution its important to realize that the human body plan has only existed for around 2 million or so years. Even at such a short time frame the evidence now compared to 2 million years ago shows evolutionary change.

Which came first; The Chicken or the Egg?
The answer is simple.
The Chicken egg came before the chicken.
It was a viable mutation of its predecessor.
From cross species fertilization.
We force this type of thing all the time.
If you need an example just think of a mutt.

actually, there's a few scorpion species that don't need a male to reproduce, they hatch perfect little clones of themselves...

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-91992008000100003

I see you didn't.

Yes, the focus of the scorpion was in the fact that they do not have mammary glands not on how they reproduce.
How mammary glands is an evolutionary variation example. Its own evolutionary branch.

cool...the article did say that there are a few spider species as well that can reproduce asexually...seems to fit into what you're saying....

now that's my kind of woman, and my kind of conversation!!

I take it you have a thing for clones?

Okay firstly any scientific conclusion is falsifiable by definition, so nothing about the evolutionary model in any way excludes involvement by God, a pantheon of Gods or a magically empowered Micky Mouse for that matter. Simply show testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature, subject it to peer review and remember your hypothesis is falsifiable and lay it on me baby.

But that's science, which is about critical thinking. Teaching the evolutionary model, more correctly termed a working model than a speculative theory, is about showing testable results and critical thinking. It may be readily challenged by students who use scientific method to do so, any other means of counter-argument belong in a subject other than science, such as philosophy or theology.


It should also be noted that the evolutionary model is not described by natural selection but by complex evolutionary diversity, ie. mutation, which is observable. Natural selection is merely the process by which some species remain and others are extinct, the actual causality is mutation.


Also, CrystalFairy was correct when she mentioned earlier that hominid species are not a linear evolution, many coexisted and some are branches from common ancestors, like homo sapiens and neandertal, just like bonobos and chimpanzees are two, separate, coexisting species from a common ancestor. Homo Sapiens and Neandertal lived alongside each other from approx.180,000yrs ago until 25,000yrs ago. All modern humans have some amount of Neandertal DNA and Homo Sapiens Archaic DNA, which are not directly related, so we are in fact crossbreeds and not entirely a separate species from either of them.


But this is all about critical thinking and has no relationship with our social existence, science is an academic exercise and of itself maybe quite brutal, at the very least it is apathic. It doesn't care if your feelings are hurt by a new fact, but people do.

Within a theological or philosophical class creationists can freely challenge the evolutionary model upon the basis of "what if". However if they are to do so within a science class it is upon deaf ears if it is not performed by showing testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature, with its hypothesis subject to peer review and regarded by the arguer as readily falsifiable.

Otherwise from your own religious conventions you are just an arguer, the Hebrew term for which is satan, which is a verb and not an identity, for point of historical theological fact.

As it is there is plenty of arguing for creationists within a theology class, because the historical genesis first written in Archaic Hebrew can be read many different ways due to such a limited literary vocabulary using ridiculously generalised terms for lack of a complex linguistic development at this time. For this reason many Rabbi preferred to transcribe in Pheonican, Greek or Aramaic. And that's how we run into problems with books like Genesis and Kings and some other of the earliest ones. Trying to write something like "chariot" in Archaic Hebrew can come off sounding like "flying dragons" when you translate it to Modern Hebrew, then "winged serpents" translated to Greek and it only gets worse when you then translate the Greek into Latin and worse again into High German and Old English and finally modern English and that's what happened with the Old Testament creationists and pentacostals love so much. Most Catholic and Jesuit priests straight up warn people off the OT and tell them to concentrate on the NT. For example did you know Hebrew angels translated into Greek is damon, into latin is demon, and into Old English is devil? In modern English the terms angel and devil are largely determined by context of the passage, it's the same word in Old Hebrew and in Greek, with identical meaning, that of divine messengers and spiritual guides. With this in mind it is no surprise in some OT passages angels are the ones who wipe out entire populations, or send a ruler mad. NT sort of replaces that entire concept with Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, but then your pentacostals try to mash it all together and have divine spirit and evil spirits, which is really pantheism when you think about it. That's okay, Judaism began originally as pantheism and was up until sometime between the 6th-4th century BC, when it was still an oral tradition. The earliest scriptures clearly outline a pantheon of numerous minor deities and at least two major ones, but was rewritten in modern Hebrew as a duality of one being, the LORD God and the creator God, but they have different personas among passages, they act differently.

So there's plenty to argue about within theology, you don't need to screw up a science class to do it.

Thank You
Only one thing missing...
Were you taught Darwinian Theory at school?
In our discussions we might digress to talk about Creationism and Evolution but the intent of this OP is the title question.