Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Norsefire, Aug 20, 2008.
thats is a new one to me. care to explain.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
sometimes if you take a step back and look at it from a different view a solution may arrive.
You have to be pretty fuckin naive to believe a 7 ft tall human came from a microscopic unicelled bacteria over time. Then again there is ID, which postulats that life cannot come from non-life. Nobody knows, all you need to do is have sex and spread your genes.
Oooh, too many spankings.
So, where did that 7 ft tall human come from? Inquisitive minds want to know.
That has to be sarcasm.. :roflmao:
If life didn't come from non-life, then where DID it come from ??
wait let me call the director in charge of life...oops I lost the number. maybe your children will give you the exact answers, thats why you have to have sex, i mean you can't possibly be smarter than your kids. Only by then you will probably be physically and mentally degraded, but don't worry cause nobody would care. I hate to get into this topic cause I'm no expert. Life cannot come from non life, and thats all you probably need to know. Sorry.
So massive a contradiction with so few words. Impressive.
Is this some sort of attempt at an insult ?
Maybe I didn't catch your tone the way you intended people to..
Anyway, it seems pretty arrogant to state an absolute like that while at the same time admitting that you don't know anything about the topic.
I'll ask again. If life didn't come from non-life, then where DID it come from ??
I think that's highly unlikely, provide evidence please.
Also.. are you saying your ass is not living tissue ?
... is grass.
If you can't see that for yourself, I can't tell you. Think about it !
Kindly define 'life'.
Mycoplasm genitalium is pretty much the simplest form of life that we know of with a genome of 400 units. Is it still life if it has 350? 300? 100? 3?
At what stage is it not life but just a molecule replication process?
i think that life evolves. im sure i will never see it and im sure it will never be proven in my life time. evolution does fit the evidence/data that we have. so it is by far the best scientific theory we have available to us explaining what we have found as fossil evidence and comparing it to the present.
i think a teacher would be wrong if they taught evolution as a fact. i cant see any other place for evolution other than science class and then maybe only as a definition of. i suppose it could be discussed as a topic in philosophy but not taught there. the same would apply towards religion. i see no other place to discuss religion in public school other than in a cultures related class and again only to explain what different types of religion there are. or as a discussion topic in philosophy. few theoretical sciences need to be in k-12 schools except for in the most advanced classes.
what would concern me is if a teacher was to spend an exorbitant amount of time on evolution. especially in a fundamental science class. at that point i would be concerned that the teacher was trying to convince students that they should discard their religion. the same but opposite would apply to intelligent design theory and religion. i am not for religion in the school. i do not want school teachers teaching religion to my children and i certainly dont want Huxley in there telling my kids that they have to choose because they cant believe in both.
so i guess the question i have is to what purpose does in depth teaching of evolution or ID serve? myself speaking as a believer in god and as a believer in evolution, proof that the two can coexist. trust me its not easy, especially here, so many want me to pick a side and discard the other i suppose, more huxley humanists. the theory of evolution has little to do with anything except explain creation of life. religion does the same (it has other bits i wont discuss here and now as they do not pertain to this situation). why is evolution the hot bed? i don't hear many people complaining about teaching how Hawaiian island chain was formed or the grand canyon. Lyell's (whats up with the Charles?) geology theories create just as many religious waves as darwins do.
so, what purpose does it serve to be well versed in evolution?
how much info about evolution is needed?
just curious what overall thoughts are, its not a challenge or an attempt to trick.
yeah i just commented on that in another thread. according to the bible life came from nothing. except with adam and eve. adam came from mud or dirt. eve came from adam. so you could say that the bible preaches life from nonliving material.
china... yao ming
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i think bio molecular replication would work as the first stage of life.
Creationism is nonsense; ID is not creationism. Simply because something is talking about creation doesn't make it creationism. Creationism is the actual concept of the Abrahamic God creating Earth in six days 6,000 years ago, and creating man and all of that stuff
ID is simply suggesting a higher intelligence created/ guided the development of Mankind. It's not a ridiculous concept at all, there's just no evidence for it.
There's also ID in the sense of the entire universe. Again, not a ridiculous concept, but there's no evidence for it.
SnakeLord, what do you think of this concept:
"[It generally views evolution as a tool used by God...Human beings having developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.]"
Separate names with a comma.