Evolution is a very flawed theory and nothing more than that. It is nothing more than a reason(excuse!!!) for people to hold onto the notion that there is no great authority to answer to. I have news for you it takes more faith to believe that all taht existis today evolved from a puddle of ooze than it does to believe that we have a loving creater who sent his son to die for our many transgressions. Many many scientists of our and darwins day will admit that they will not let go of this theory because it would mean admiting that they have to let go of there own lustfull appitites and answer to a higher authority. Your site is a discrace. Repent.
Ah, can't you just smell the ignorance? Evolution has facts and evidence backing it up. The religions.... not so much. So who's the one blindly holding on to beliefs because they don't want to be wrong?
so... the fact that millions of people accept the fact of evolution while still being religious, even still being Christians... that doesn't make a bit of difference does it? lol. i'm sure this nutball would insist that those people aren't "real Christians". sigh. and once again we get hateful mail from a person who couldn't spell properly if they had to.
exactly. i hear stuff like this time and time again.
in fact, we just heard it from that hilarious guy in his "Open Letter". nothing that Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, James Dobson et al says can be laid at the feet of Christianity because they're not "real Christians".
Would it matter if science did not even exist? I wouldn't accept the treatment or the orders of the God of the Bible based on the lack of respect and hate. The premise of the argument the writer makes is that we only don't believe in God because we have a scientific excuse. Science makes no difference in my acceptance of the Biblical God. I respect myself too much to follow a serial/mass murderer.
an excellent point Gaytor! i make that distinction often when i'm asked what it would take for me to believe in their god. i tell them that it would take empirical peer reviewed repeatable evidence to make me believe but that that wouldn't make me worship said god. i'm just not interested in worshiping a bloodthirsty megalogmaniacal genocidal tyrant. i have too much respect for myself to debase myself in that way. so even without science demonstrating to me that a god's existence is so improbable to be beyond a thinking person's ability to even consider, i still wouldn't worship the god of the bible.
exactly. and even if they didn't and couldn't understand he might have told his disciples something and made it clear that he was telling them that thing so that they would pass it down to future generations so that those future generations, with their fantastic technology, would be able to see that only he, among all the other people in the ancient world, knew this thing that those of us in the future had only realized with our technology.
but of course there would have been no reason for him to do so because he taught that the Kingdom of Man was coming within his and his disciples' lifetime. no one thought to write anything down because as far as they were concerned no one needed to keep anything for posterity. posterity would be well aware of Jesus' message because future generations would be living in the soon to come Kingdom of Man. heaven and hell, second comings, and the rest wasn't invented until later, well after Jesus had died.
Quite so, Nelson. Acknowledging the existence of a god (assuming convincing evidence was presented) and deciding that that god is worthy of worship are two totally different things. The god described in the Bible is such that I would consider it a moral imperative to oppose him, if he existed.
Ok this thread is a old and cold but I had to respond. I was checking links to my website when I came across this thread. I wrote the page cited by doone: http://www.hpcisp.com/~kls/what.html The mention seems to be in response to the puddle of ooze comment in the original post.
My article was in response to a couple episodes of the Universe which I happen to enjoy but which sometimes contains bad science or just bad editing. The information about the moon, tides, and the primordial soup comes straight from the show. The interpretation of the information is mine.
I have no intention of debating my faith or your atheism on this site. Sorry I won't be much fun in that regard. I used to post on Creation/Evolution boards so I know how it goes. My point in writing is to ask that everyone be careful when quoting others that you aren't misquoting them or taking them out of context. You know how you hate it when the young earth creationists do it, so please extend the courtesy in reverse.
As for the original post - I doubt seriously they have ever read my page. Whilst the atheist will see creationist written all over it, in general the creationist sees evolution. My real position is, yes I believe in a Creator. Yes I accept evolution explains a lot of the fossil record. Does it explain it all? I am not totally convinced but it doesn't matter to me as it does not affect my faith.