Evolution and What Is Science

[TheNiche]

I feel pretty confident that LTAWACS' post was accurate.

That statement leaves room for doubt, does it not? If so, then I will accept your interpretation. But I must still reject LTAWACS'.

[AtticaFlinch]

That statement leaves room for doubt, does it not? If so, then I will accept your interpretation. But I must still reject LTAWACS'.

Theories aren't immutable, so yes, it does leave room for doubt. The Hubble telescope could discover God at the edge of the universe tomorrow playing Texas Hold 'Em with Satan, or the rapture could happen which would serve to confirm at least part of the Bible therefore casting doubt on everything in toto that opposes the Bible. Then again, it's just as likely the Hindu god Ganesha will come to Earth and win the WWE title belt using his patented elephant headbutt move, or that Xbalanque and Hunapu will guide us all to Xibalba in a canoe made from a hollowed ceiba tree trunk and lead us to victory on the ball court. It could be that Thor will leave Valhalla to star in a movie based on a comic book based on his life, and it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster materializes on my dinner plate to give me next Saturday's Power Ball numbers. These things could happen to nullify LTAWACS' post, but they're pretty damned unlikely.

Yeah, there's room for doubt, but not much.

[LTAWACS]

Well, anything generally. But specifically, are you sure of the claims that you made?

Yes. I am.

[lockmat]

I don't know about this one, and I'm certainly not going to bother debating over the English translation. I'd say that your best bet is to look into verse 7, see how that one translates, and be wary of confining your analysis of a dead tounge to what seems semantically correct in our language.

What's your line of thought on why verse 7 should be looked at to determine if he was claimin to be truth or not? I'm not understanding.

That sounds like capitulation to the possibility that the biblical timeline can be brought into question.

I don't think it's caputulation, it's just saying it's not it's main focus. It is historically accurate, although it's purpose is not to teach us about history.

[20thStDad]

Morals can be taught with or without religion involved. My kids are young enough where we haven't really chosen a path yet, but based on my own upbringing I can say that even if they go to Sunday school they can grow up with open minds and decide themselves what to believe. I do feel that when it comes to teaching morals, the religious side has a bit more teeth to it since it teaches consequences. Otherwise you're endlessly trying to convey that being a good person is just something you should do...because I said so.

[lockmat]

I'm not going to argue with your conclusion as I do think the Bible is false and the faith is invalid, but out of curiosity, how do you figure everything about Christianity is invalidated if the Genesis is full of nothing more than antiquated mythology? Are the teachings of Jesus any less relevant because radiometric dating proves inexhaustibly that the Earth is over four billion years old as opposed to six thousand years old? I hardly think so. The teachings attributed to Jesus offer many valuable moral and ethical guidelines that hold true regardless of the age of the Earth or the processes involved in creating it.

In short, if creation is false, then God is not real and the bible has no authority; jesus has no authority; it's a lie. How can the rest be trusted? I think the link here gives a good thorough explanation.

http://www.gotquestions.org/biblical-creationism.html

Here is a more lengthy explanation with the main topic of our conversation in the latter half (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0804.asp)

[sevfiv]

I have a quick question that I've been tossing around for a while with no leads - does anyone know someone who is religious (practicing) that grew up with no religious upbringing...as in came to it on his/her own without any family/friends presenting, encouraging, or practicing?

[lockmat]

Bryan is my prophet. So it is written.

Now that I, the corporeal manifestation of God, have substantiated it...would you dare doubt me? Depending on my mood I might transform you into a pillar of garlic salt; I've done it before, I'll do it again.

But the God of the bible has authority as it claims to be the creator. It is important for us to know rights of a creator. The bible uses a good example in Romans.

Romans 9:20-21 (it's actually speaking in the context of salvation)

The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Created things don't question their creator. Suburban strip centers don't ask the developer why they made them ugly that way. The developer can do whatever he wants with his materials. The created thing does not decide.

So basically, God is truth and claims to be truth. He has revealed himself so we should not be affraid of that. If I had made it up or it was my own idea, then yeah I would be affraid. But as we've discussed, the bible says it was "God breathed" and that God wrote it through man, so it is authoritative.

[AtticaFlinch]

In short, if creation is false, then God is not real and the bible has no authority; jesus has no authority; it's a lie. How can the rest be trusted? I think the link here gives a good thorough explanation.

http://www.gotquesti...reationism.html

Here is a more lengthy explanation with the main topic of our conversation in the latter half (http://www.answersin...k/2006/0804.asp)

Nah. Those relate the creation myth to a building's foundation, which it hardly is. It's fairly simple to agree with the Bible without taking it literally. All you have to do is accept that even though it's God inspired, it's written by men. Men are not infallible. What made sense at one point in time isn't going to make sense for all time. I know a number of people who believe in the same God as you (or at least some close proximation) who are perfectly comfortable accepting that God is divine but the Bible is not.

And, iIf you accept the Bible as literal truth, you'd have to do a lot of effin' weird rituals that aren't even legal today.

[lockmat]

Forget the term "missing link". It is a fact that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. It is NOT speculation. References? There are tons online. And in your local library too.

Ok, so I read that the scientific name is transitional fossil. However, it is plausible that those are simply variations or even bigger/younger animals. And if things evolved over millions of years, there should be a humungous inventory of these transitional forms. I would highly doubt these are available. It cannot be a complete chain if one link is missing.

There are rocks older than this. Sin is a relative term.

There is probably no reason to argue it here, but I understand that radioactive carbon dating is not reliable; at least there are scientists who believe so. I know everyone will say it is, and I am no expert in it, so it's probably not worth getting in to. We can just agree to disagree.

[lockmat]

Perhaps the teachings (dont kill, dont steal, dont eat pork(?)) present in all of these religious texts are ultimately good and may provide some kind of moral framwork. However it may be that the WAY they are presented are becoming more and more dangerous. We should be able to teach certain things (dont kill, dont steal) without all the religious/creator/jesus mythology.

So, while teaching our children that stealing is not a good thing, it is deplorable that we teach them that some guy named jesus was here to save us all and that he is the only way we can be "saved" and everyone else on this planet has got it wrong ala 'my saviour is better than yours'.

In evolution, there are no morals, except the ones you make up for yourself; there is no authority. It's the survival of the fittest. We are just evolving into the newest and best species. Nobody can tell me stealing and lieing is wrong; what authority do they have to tell me that?

[lockmat]

Nah. Those relate the creation myth to a building's foundation, which it hardly is. It's fairly simple to agree with the Bible without taking it literally. All you have to do is accept that even though it's God inspired, it's written by men. Men are not infallible. What made sense at one point in time isn't going to make sense for all time. I know a number of people who believe in the same God as you (or at least some close proximation) who are perfectly comfortable accepting that God is divine but the Bible is not.

And, iIf you accept the Bible as literal truth, you'd have to do a lot of effin' weird rituals that aren't even legal today.

The entire bible's main focus is redemption. If God did not create man and they did not sin, what is he redeeming them from?

The old testament follows the seed promise through the nation of israel. The seed promise is revealed as Jesus. The rest of the new testament is telling us how to live in light of redemption. If we do not need to be redeemed then there is no pont of sanctification. If evolution is true, we need no redemption, we're just another point in time, another transitional fossil waiting to happen.

Also, all those rituals were for israel to do at that time. They didn't really do anyting. They were a symbol for the israelites. now that Christ has come, those are no longer necessary. They were also to protect the promised seed and to cleanse israel. The promised seed is here now and salvation is open to jews and gentiles alike, so there's no need.

[TheNiche]

What's your line of thought on why verse 7 should be looked at to determine if he was claimin to be truth or not? I'm not understanding.

Based on the content, I suspect that that's where you're going to find differences between God (the entity), God (the magnificence), or some other clue as to what was actually meant. Take your own advice, though...go through everything around it to put it all in context.

One way or another, there's insufficient information conveyed in the English-language version to really understand what is meant.

I don't think it's caputulation, it's just saying it's not it's main focus. It is historically accurate, although it's purpose is not to teach us about history.

OK, then it is a historical document (according to you). It is also a religious text. It is both.

[lockmat]

Based on the content, I suspect that that's where you're going to find differences between God (the entity), God (the magnificence), or some other clue as to what was actually meant. Take your own advice, though...go through everything around it to put it all in context.

One way or another, there's insufficient information conveyed in the English-language version to really understand what is meant.

Ok, i will have to do that later.

OK, then it is a historical document (according to you). It is also a religious text. It is both.

Yes, it is a historical document; but it was not written as a history lesson.

[AtticaFlinch]

So basically, God is truth and claims to be truth. He has revealed himself so we should not be affraid of that. If I had made it up or it was my own idea, then yeah I would be affraid. But as we've discussed, the bible says it was "God breathed" and that God wrote it through man, so it is authoritative.

You can't do this. You can't use the Bible's words as proof the Bible is legitimate. It's like using a word to define itself. The Bible is completely useless to prove the legitimacy of the Bible.

Ok, so I read that the scientific name is transitional fossil. However, it is plausible that those are simply variations or even bigger/younger animals. And if things evolved over millions of years, there should be a humungous inventory of these transitional forms. I would highly doubt these are available. It cannot be a complete chain if one link is missing.

As I said before, you obviously have no idea just how difficult the process is for fossils to transmute from organic material to rock. The fact so many do exist is the amazing thing. Given the necessary conditions, it's amazing anything has survived at all to clue us into the planet's prehistory.

There is probably no reason to argue it here, but I understand that radioactive carbon dating is not reliable; at least there are scientists who believe so. I know everyone will say it is, and I am no expert in it, so it's probably not worth getting in to. We can just agree to disagree.

Carbon dating is incredibly reliable and amazingly accurate, but only up to about 64,000 years, and only with organic material containing carbon. After that, you get into other radiometric dating that uses relative and absolute dating to gauge something's age. C-14 isn't used at all for fossils. Not ever. The most common technique for dating fossils is looking at their relative position in a geological stratigraphic layer, and dating the potassium/argon isotope ratios. That's the most common, those these dates are nearly always cross-referenced with other radiometric tests.

Speaking of which, how do you account for the enormous time difference is the scientific fact of the Earth's age and your Biblical conjecture for the same thing? 4.3 billion years old is much different than 6,000 years old, and while there is a whole lot of evidence for the 4.3 billion years, there's only the Bible for the 6,000 years.

In evolution, there are no morals, except the ones you make up for yourself; there is no authority. It's the survival of the fittest. We are just evolving into the newest and best species. Nobody can tell me stealing and lieing is wrong; what authority do they have to tell me that?

Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily selfish. It's a mistake most fundamentalists who try to debate the topic make.

Are you suggesting that if God wasn't real, it would be perfectly reasonable to steal and lie? Are you saying that the betterment of your species and your planet isn't reason enough to be ethical? Do you need consequences for your misdeeds in order to be a good person? Do you need fear of punishment?

[TheNiche]

In short, if creation is false, then God is not real and the bible has no authority; jesus has no authority; it's a lie. How can the rest be trusted? I think the link here gives a good thorough explanation.

http://www.gotquestions.org/biblical-creationism.html

Here is a more lengthy explanation with the main topic of our conversation in the latter half (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0804.asp)

Maybe the inconsistency is part of God's plan; a test of faith. God did that kind of thing a lot back in the OT.

[sevfiv]

In short, if creation is false, then God is not real and the bible has no authority; jesus has no authority; it's a lie. How can the rest be trusted?

Exactly...I think you just answered the question.

[AtticaFlinch]

The entire bible's main focus is redemption. If God did not create man and they did not sin, what is he redeeming them from?

Why does he have to redeem man? You've never satisfactorily answered why the tree of knowledge was placed in the Garden of Eden in the first place.

The old testament follows the seed promise through the nation of israel. The seed promise is revealed as Jesus. The rest of the new testament is telling us how to live in light of redemption. If we do not need to be redeemed then there is no pont of sanctification. If evolution is true, we need no redemption, we're just another point in time, another transitional fossil waiting to happen.

Fair enough. So why, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, do you believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and the God of the Bible (as you interpret him)?

Also, all those rituals were for israel to do at that time. They didn't really do anyting. They were a symbol for the israelites. now that Christ has come, those are no longer necessary. They were also to protect the promised seed and to cleanse israel. The promised seed is here now and salvation is open to jews and gentiles alike, so there's no need.

This is a cop-out answer. It seems to me people like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe as literal truth, and you're hung-up on the inconsequential parts.

[TheNiche]

But as we've discussed, the bible says it was "God breathed" and that God wrote it through man, so it is authoritative.

I am the Creator. And here, now (RIGHT NOW), I...the FSM, a manifestation of the true god...am telling you that your conception of God is false. It is my word that He has "breathed" and that I have truthfully transcribed into English (not Greek, not Hebrew). It is authoritative. By the powers vested in me by Him, I said so.

So there.

[20thStDad]

Nah. Those relate the creation myth to a building's foundation, which it hardly is. It's fairly simple to agree with the Bible without taking it literally. All you have to do is accept that even though it's God inspired, it's written by men. Men are not infallible. What made sense at one point in time isn't going to make sense for all time. I know a number of people who believe in the same God as you (or at least some close proximation) who are perfectly comfortable accepting that God is divine but the Bible is not.

(raises hand). This is where I am. And the creation myth argument always gets me going. I've walked out of a sermon where some idiot preacher decided to try to disprove evolution with a series of incoherent video clips from some other idiot who thought he knew what geology was. Things like that make it impossible to call myself a Christian, if being that blind and closed-minded is a requirement to do so. Same God (honestly I think they're all the same), different fluff.

[ricco67]

Here is one thing that gets mentioned occasionally, but never really mentioned on here (as far as I can remember), but what if there is life on other planets? Of course, it depends if we're talking bacteria or other high life forms, would you warship a god or the local Deity?

For example:

Jesus was the son of god, but only for earth (and maybe the solar system?), but what if he other "sons" across the galaxy? Are they all equally valid?

it's not to say the Bible is invalid, but simply a "local history" book.

perhaps God is a rolling stone.

[LTAWACS]

Ok, so I read that the scientific name is transitional fossil. However, it is plausible that those are simply variations or even bigger/younger animals. And if things evolved over millions of years, there should be a humungous inventory of these transitional forms. I would highly doubt these are available. It cannot be a complete chain if one link is missing.

Given that you're not aware how evolution works, how can you be so sure? Every species is transitional. They are all spawning descendants of one form or another. Some continue. Most do not. For one to say "where are the transitional forms?" is silly. Even the fossils we've found are transitional. They are "in between" other species or extinct. There is no one "transitional" fossil or species. It is like saying "Fossil A has been found. Fossil C has been found. But where is B? Huh?". What you neglect to see is that C is "transitional" from B to D. D from C to E. So on and so forth. This is why they are all transitional because when extant, all where evolving to fit into their environment. Some adapted successfully. Most did not.

There is probably no reason to argue it here, but I understand that radioactive carbon dating is not reliable; at least there are scientists who believe so. I know everyone will say it is, and I am no expert in it, so it's probably not worth getting in to. We can just agree to disagree.

It is reliable. Most geologists agree that it is. There will always be some who say it is not. When one of them proves it's not or comes up with a better way to date ancient rocks, he or she will win the Nobel prize I'm sure.

In evolution, there are no morals, except the ones you make up for yourself; there is no authority. It's the survival of the fittest. We are just evolving into the newest and best species.

Evolution is not about morals. It's about how life diversifies. It has nothing to say about morality. It's about how species evolve to adapt to their environment.

Nobody can tell me stealing and lieing is wrong; what authority do they have to tell me that?

Somebody DID tell you stealing is wrong. Perhaps your parents. What authority? Parental authority.

[lockmat]

You can't do this. You can't use the Bible's words as proof the Bible is legitimate. It's like using a word to define itself. The Bible is completely useless to prove the legitimacy of the Bible.

I have nothing else to offer but the bible. In that same sense, how can we even trust science? If science is observation, who is to say that scientists observations are correct? Afterall, we can all look at a red square and it can be a different color to each one of us, apparently.

As I said before, you obviously have no idea just how difficult the process is for fossils to transmute from organic material to rock. The fact so many do exist is the amazing thing. Given the necessary conditions, it's amazing anything has survived at all to clue us into the planet's prehistory.

Fossilization fits perfectly into the worldwide flood. And remember, all the biblical arguments are not a reaction to evolution. It's been written for 2,000 years.

Speaking of which, how do you account for the enormous time difference is the scientific fact of the Earth's age and your Biblical conjecture for the same thing? 4.3 billion years old is much different than 6,000 years old, and while there is a whole lot of evidence for the 4.3 billion years, there's only the Bible for the 6,000 years.

If God spoke creation into existence, he can certainly make it look old from the beginning (don't we do this with buildings and other things and make them look old when they're new?). And when the worldwide flood happened, volcanoes went off and there were earthquakes, so who knows how that effected things.

Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily selfish. It's a mistake most fundamentalists who try to debate the topic make.

Are you suggesting that if God wasn't real, it would be perfectly reasonable to steal and lie? Are you saying that the betterment of your species and your planet isn't reason enough to be ethical? Do you need consequences for your misdeeds in order to be a good person? Do you need fear of punishment?

If evolution was real it would be perfectly ok to steal and lie. On what authority are you ready to tell me it's not? And it's not about my species, it's just about me. Afterall, I want the next generation of species to come from me, not someone else. What is good? Who defines good? My standard of good could be different than yours.

Maybe the inconsistency is part of God's plan; a test of faith. God did that kind of thing a lot back in the OT.

I don't think God is out to decieve us, but yes, it's possible. He has revealed in the bible plausible events to explain the things we are debating. More than anything he wants us to have faith in him, synonumous with trust. If he just gave us facts, that would not be trust, and most people wouldn't believe the facts anyway.

[lockmat]

Why does he have to redeem man? You've never satisfactorily answered why the tree of knowledge was placed in the Garden of Eden in the first place.

He does not have to redeem man. He chose to. Love is a choice first, not merely an emotion. I explained why the tree was there in prior post. I suppose that's what you're referring to when you say I have not satisfactorily answered it. The Bible does not tell us why; my explanation before was dedution through a holistic understanding of the bible. I don't really even need to know why. I know I am created by God and I am a sinner and he has offered redemption as a gift, not something I deserve. It's like trying to figure out why the fire happened when all you really should be doing is trying to get out (and please, that is not a direct analogy to why we should trust and obey).

Fair enough. So why, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, do you believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and the God of the Bible (as you interpret him)?

As said before, God has put it in everyone's hearts that we know he is real and exists, so that's already taken care of. He has shown his greatness through creation. There are fulfilled prophecies. His wisdom is perfect and true.

This is a cop-out answer. It seems to me people like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe as literal truth, and you're hung-up on the inconsequential parts.

It's not a cop-out answer. True, people a lot of times do pick and choose, but this is not one of them. God told them those commandments in a historical place and real time. He told it to the Israelites and nobody else. Once Jesus came, through living his perfect life, he fulfilled the law. There is nowhere else in scripture that tells the rest of us or the Jews, in this time, to continue those rituals. But the most important thing to remember is that Jesus lived the law perfectly, so we don't have to. It's his grace.

[LTAWACS]

The wholesale rejection of scientific findings will continue as long as people continue to adhere to religion and blind faith. Blind faith is the very cancer in our societies that will one day destroy us. In 2 or 3 pages of evidence and logic exercises, some of you (for fear of the unknown) still say that there is a god or a creator and the bible says so. Why can't we believe in ourselves? One cannot use the thing being defined to define it. Remember back in elementary school? When you're language teacher tasked you to define a list of words? She always said that you cannot use the word in the definition. In this same way, one cannot say "the bible is the breath of god so it is authoritative". THIS is what is draining our species. THIS is what will become our eventual destruction. The refusal to be open minded and modifying one's beliefs in light of new evidence. We always fall back to "the bible says so, so it MUST be true". This is not conducive to our advancement as a species.

[lockmat]

I am the Creator. And here, now (RIGHT NOW), I...the FSM, a manifestation of the true god...am telling you that your conception of God is false. It is my word that He has "breathed" and that I have truthfully transcribed into English (not Greek, not Hebrew). It is authoritative. By the powers vested in me by Him, I said so.

So there.

This is not a challenge, although I know the wording might sound that way. But what would it take for the bible to be validated? I would think you're answer is that something else should validate it. But if that's the case, there is always something that needs to validate the thing prior. It's endless. God is eternal. Nobody created him so he is the one true validation.

Maybe that is not the answer you would give, so I am all ears.

[AtticaFlinch]

I have nothing else to offer but the bible. In that same sense, how can we even trust science? If science is observation, who is to say that scientists observations are correct? Afterall, we can all look at a red square and it can be a different color to each one of us, apparently.

Other scientists say it's correct. One person performing one test doesn't make something a scientific fact. The ultimate triumph of science is its use of testing over and over again by many people, often across the entire planet, to come to any conclusions.

Fossilization fits perfectly into the worldwide flood. And remember, all the biblical arguments are not a reaction to evolution. It's been written for 2,000 years.

And as Niche brought up, 2000 years ago people believed the sun revolved around a flat Earth. I don't know why you put so much stock into the knowledge of ancient people. By and large, they had very little understanding of the world around them. In place of real answers they just made a load of wacky crap up.

If God spoke creation into existence, he can certainly make it look old from the beginning (don't we do this with buildings and other things and make them look old when they're new?). And when the worldwide flood happened, volcanoes went off and there were earthquakes, so who knows how that effected things.

Goelogists know! Geologists know exactly how that affected things! And NO, fossil creation isn't consistent with any sort of flood, let alone the preposterous idea of a biblical flood. You do realize there isn't even enough water on the planet to cover all the Earth's surface, not even if the polar ice caps melted? Geez, the process of fossilization often can take longer the age you've set on the Earth!

If evolution was real it would be perfectly ok to steal and lie. On what authority are you ready to tell me it's not? And it's not about my species, it's just about me. Afterall, I want the next generation of species to come from me, not someone else. What is good? Who defines good? My standard of good could be different than yours.

It could be different than mine, and it probably is. But, we don't exist outside of our species in a vacuum. We've developed laws as a way to ensure our mutual survival, and even though we haven't rooted out all the bad seeds, if religion's place on the pedestal is bumped for reason, we'd all be more concerned with the good of all people, not less. As it is, religion creates the idea of chosen people or wrong people or people who are going to suffer for eternity anyhow, so their place in this world is negligible.

I don't think God is out to decieve us, but yes, it's possible. He has revealed in the bible plausible events to explain the things we are debating. More than anything he wants us to have faith in him, synonumous with trust. If he just gave us facts, that would not be trust, and most people wouldn't believe the facts anyway.

Why would it make sense to trust someone who's deliberately deceived us? That's asinine.

We've got a saying down here in Texas. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... won't get fooled again.

[lockmat]

Given that you're not aware how evolution works, how can you be so sure? Every species is transitional. They are all spawning descendants of one form or another. Some continue. Most do not. For one to say "where are the transitional forms?" is silly. Even the fossils we've found are transitional. They are "in between" other species or extinct. There is no one "transitional" fossil or species. It is like saying "Fossil A has been found. Fossil C has been found. But where is B? Huh?". What you neglect to see is that C is "transitional" from B to D. D from C to E. So on and so forth. This is why they are all transitional because when extant, all where evolving to fit into their environment. Some adapted successfully. Most did not.

I understand, I will have to look for them online. Is there one species or whatever...a string of transitional forms, that we have from any point in time to the present? i will look, but if you already know of a source online, I'd like for you to share it with me.

It is reliable. Most geologists agree that it is. There will always be some who say it is not. When one of them proves it's not or comes up with a better way to date ancient rocks, he or she will win the Nobel prize I'm sure.

Why are the scientists who do not agree that it is reliable discounted?

Evolution is not about morals. It's about how life diversifies. It has nothing to say about morality. It's about how species evolve to adapt to their environment.

I did not say it is about morals. But it has moral ramifications.

Somebody DID tell you stealing is wrong. Perhaps your parents. What authority? Parental authority.

Yeah, my parents told me it was wrong, but by what authority do they have to tell me that, in the name of evolution, their parents? What about their parents? For me to respect that, I need a final authority. Evolution does not provide that, therefore, I do not have to adhere to whatever authority someone else claims they have.

[lockmat]

The wholesale rejection of scientific findings will continue as long as people continue to adhere to religion and blind faith. Blind faith is the very cancer in our societies that will one day destroy us. In 2 or 3 pages of evidence and logic exercises, some of you (for fear of the unknown) still say that there is a god or a creator and the bible says so. Why can't we believe in ourselves? One cannot use the thing being defined to define it. Remember back in elementary school? When you're language teacher tasked you to define a list of words? She always said that you cannot use the word in the definition. In this same way, one cannot say "the bible is the breath of god so it is authoritative". THIS is what is draining our species. THIS is what will become our eventual destruction. The refusal to be open minded and modifying one's beliefs in light of new evidence. We always fall back to "the bible says so, so it MUST be true". This is not conducive to our advancement as a species.

If one is undiscerning in their open mindedness, then truth will never be reached, because someone will always have another idea.

[AtticaFlinch]

I understand, I will have to look for them online. Is there one species or whatever...a string of transitional forms, that we have from any point in time to the present? i will look, but if you already know of a source online, I'd like for you to share it with me.

Oh god yes. There's a ton of information, and there's a ton of evidence. However, you'll have to stop looking at evolution as having a delineated string, and think of it more an amorphous web. Here's the evolution of just the Homo genus (to which we belong). Every one of the species listed has representative fossils, all in various stages of morphological transition (ie. missing links).

Why are the scientists who do not agree that it is reliable discounted?

Because their conslusions are unverifiable and their test results cannot be duplicated. Look up a priori and post priori.

I did not say it is about morals. But it has moral ramifications.

Only if you continue to insist the only reason you're a good person is because you fear the consequences of being bad. If you could take a second and recognize all the other reasons not lying, not stealing and not murdering is beneficial to human groups (and in turn individual humans), this wouldn't be such an issue for you.

Yeah, my parents told me it was wrong, but by what authority do they have to tell me that, in the name of evolution, their parents? What about their parents? For me to respect that, I need a final authority. Evolution does not provide that, therefore, I do not have to adhere to whatever authority someone else claims they have.

In the name of what is good for the group as a whole. It doesn't do society much good to allow people to run around raping and murdering at their own whims. Therefore it's not legal. It's a pretty simple concept. Murder isn't illegal merely because your God says it's wrong. Murder is illegal because it disrupts the herd.