Why is religion forced on people?

bro_tony. The only disagreement we have is the fact that you think you are not wrong.. You are wrong, and the facts clearly show it.

Let me ask you a simple question. Why are you so threatened by the idea that our species evolved from lower life forms?

I never said that you were a religious fanatic bro_tony. You seem to have misunderstood me. I also never once mentioned that I believe that you do not respect others beliefs.

I am really speaking of those terrible people who stop you at street corners trying to drag you to their church despite you telling them that you are not interested.

Simple anser is if religions didn’t try to propagate themselves and recruit new members, they would die out.

jimahl…thank you :-)

Answer:

cause people, suck.

Orange Bible? Jehovahs Witnesses never had an orange bible.

it would be obvious your house in on fire, there’s evidence and proof. When it comes to the matter of faith and religion, there’s none.

I suggest you go back and read that analogy once again. As from as bro is concerned there is no evidence or poof that his house is on fire. He has not seen any single evidence or proof. Show him one piece of evidence and I guarantee he will run out of his house. There is no proof or evidence as far as he is concerned and why is that so? Because he says “I refuse to listen to you or even look at what you are pointing to! Go away!”

Breads of lizards are evolving into snakes. Fossils.

I have decided to not get into any discussion about evolution because it is a waste of time. But whenever people hold up “Fossils” I am forced to think when will people see the fact that fossils have indeed been collected but the stories woven around them is questionable?

I highly doubt you’ld believe me if I were to tell you what archeologist believe the origins of Christianity to be.

Which archeologists? What about Bible archeologists? Do you mean to say that all fake or foolish people who have spent their lives going around finding stuff that are non-credible and can be easily explained away. Did they find anything at all? Does anything they find come under your definition of “facts”?

I don’t want to get into any argument on this subject but I would just like to say this. Even Richard Dawkins in an interview agreed that life cannot come from primordial soup by itself. In other words intelligence is necessary for life. But he just explained it away by saying that the intelligence must an alien from some other planet who should have evolved like us!! In other words it is not “evolution shows that God did not create us” but “God did not create us and we will make evolution show that”.

And there in lies the crux of your problem.

I wasn’t aware that I had a problem. If I do in fact have a problem, I have no idea what it is.

Do you believe in gravity?

I do.

It was you who jumped into this conversation but stating evolution is ONLY a theory. The conversation took off from there. You are right, we will never agree, so there is no reason to continue.

Agreed.

But I do find this rather sad that you would completely disregard science,

Cheer up my friend! I do not completely disregard science. I enjoyed helping my daughter build a model volcano!

which has enhanced human beings lives far beyond anything relgiion has done for us,

Amen! That is why I am not religious. Religion kills, redemption saves. Avoid religion, seek redemption!

because of a blind faith in something there is no proof for.

That’s what faith is. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

You seem like a pretty smart guy,

Thank you jimahl. Again, I appreciate your courtesy. It displays a level of intellectual maturity and confidence, as opposed to the insecurity displayed by the use of name-calling and insults.

and it does baffles me.

I know, and I am sorry but (and this is not meant to be a jab) it is not possible for you to understand. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

That was a pretty funny story

Yes, it was. I am glad that we were able to end this discussion with an element of levity. I look forward to debating with you again.

Why is religion forced on people?

Let me begin by saying that I do not believe that “religion” should be forced on anyone. Actually, from what you have described; “religion” has not been forced on you. Throughout history, religion has been forced on people and when those people resisted, they were imprisoned or put to death.

What you are describing is people trying (and perhaps not using the most effective methods) to convince you to adopt their beliefs as your own.

I cannot speak for all those people but I am willing to give my perspective. The best way for me to do that is with an analogy (I hope you don’t mind). Here goes…

Lets say that I am sitting at home, typing on my computer. You are walking down my street and you notice that the second story of my house is on fire. You run up to my door and yell “Hey, your house is on fire! Get out! Get out now!” I come to the door and I ask, “What? What is wrong with you?” You say, “Your house is on fire! You have to get out!” I reply, “Thanks, but I’m not interested. I’m busy answering a question on FunAdvice.com”. You yell, “If you don’t get out you are going to be killed!” I snicker and say, “I don’t believe that. If you want to believe that my house is fire, fine. But I refuse to believe it.” You say, “Look!” as you point to the flames shooting out of my roof. “Listen to the sound of your house crackling as it burns!” “NO!” I exclaim. “I refuse to listen to you or even look at what you are pointing to! Go away!”

At that point, depending on your personality, you might walk away in tears, saddened by the fact that I wouldn’t listen to you; or you might shrug your shoulders and say, “Okay, okay. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”; or you might try to grab me and drag me out of my house with me fighting you off.

Either way, I “win” and you go away, knowing that I am going to die, and you couldn’t convince me to get out of a burning house. Then I go back to my computer and type about how some idiot, some nutcase, some pompous jerk, tried to force his beliefs on me. Meanwhile, the house is burning down around me.<

You may not agree with the message in this analogy, and I’m sure someone on here will discredit it in some clever way, but I hope it gives you some insight as to why some people have a passion for trying to convince other to adopt their beliefs.

Since the subject of fossils is being discussed, I have a question. Why is there a fossil layer? If plants, animals, and people have been living, dying, evolving, etc. for millions of years, I would think that fossils would be evenly distributed throughout the various geological layers. The fact that there is a fossil layer is evidence of a world-wide flood.

What do you mean a fossil layer? There is not just one. There are many levels of strata in our crust, and carbon dating tells us when these layers were at the surface. At the deepest and oldest levels, there are no fossils of any life. At the levels approximately 4 billion years ago, the first single celled organisms are found. And as we get to higher strata, life becomes more numerous and complex. This is fact, not theory. There is no scientific evidence of a world wide flood. If water could rise to cover all land, where did the water come from? And when is subsided, where did it go?

I am not convinced of the “facts”. I do not believe it to be wise to regard something as “fact” when not ALL of the evidence is taken into consideration, and especially when much of the evidence is willfully ignored.

What evidence is not being taken into consideration, or is willfully ignored? Evidence does have to be credible, and be based on the scientific method.

I agree that every individual should examine their personal beliefs, but I do not understand the concept of “personal truth”. Truth is truth, regardless if anyone personally accepts it as such.

Yes, that is true. What he meant is your personal truth is just wrong, or in other words (ala enternallymisinformed) not true. It is you and other creationist who do not accept truth for no other reason other than it doesn’t fit with your litteral interpretation of the bible.

That said, I do not force what I believe to be truth on anyone. I feel strongly that everyone has the God-given right to be wrong.

Maybe you don’t, but there are many who believe as you do, but they also think that your ‘truth’ should be taught along side real science. Do you think we should stop teaching evolution in science class?

Because some people (as bro_tony points out) actually BELIEVE that they will be saving you by converting you to their religion.

You got it! Glad I could help.

Best I find is to say yes to everything they say to get them to leave you alone as soon as possible.

I don’t think this is the best way them to leave you alone.

1. That would by lying (unless, of course, you don’t have a problem with lying)
2. You would almost guarantee that they will return to check up on you.

If you want them to leave you alone as soon as possible, simply (and politely) say, “Thank you, but I am not interested.”

At least that would work for me. I would simply reply, “Okay. Have a nice day” and you would be rid of me.

** If someone doesn't know that their house is burning that means they must be blind and deaf, have no sense smell, nor ability to feel the heat. Belief in an all powerful being, who created the universe and is watching over us, has no such evidence for us to see hear touch or smell. **

Amen jimahl!

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

Okay. Have a nice day.

bro_tony, a water canoopy?

I imagine that they will sound insane to anyone who rejects the Bible as anything other than truth. (My words)

• And what held this water canopy in the sky?*

I don’t know

• You do realize there is not one shred of physical evidence to support anything you have said here.*

Yes (at least none that I can provide)

At least you are honest about it. Most creationists claim it is an anti-god conspiracy among scientists, and that the science is wrong.

I don’t claim that it is or isn’t a conspiracy. I do know that the Bible mentions false science (1 Timothy 6:20)

Creationism starts off with the premise that it cannot be wrong?

Agreed.

Let me ask you a simple question, how do you know the bible is right? I understand you accept it as truth, but how do you KNOW it is the truth. Do you just take the word of those who came before us?

I cannot prove that the Bible is right. It is a matter of faith. I do not necessarily take others’ word for it, I simply believe the Bible when it claims to be the very word of God. Therefore, I believe God and His word to be without error.

Is there any real science to it?

To believing it? No. I believe it by faith.

What is it that makes so sure you are not wrong?

Faith

Because your view of science really seems like (and I mean no direspect with this) you are just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling ‘na-na-na-na-na, I can’t here you’.

Not so. I respect science (geology, meteorology, zoology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.), I only lose interest when “science” opposes my final authority.

bro_tony. The only disagreement we have is the fact that you think you are not wrong.. You are wrong, and the facts clearly show it.

Jimahl, The only disagreement we have is the fact that you think you are not wrong. The “facts” are disputable. (purely rhetorical)

See what I mean? We could go on like this forever. There is no point in continuing.

Let me ask you a simple question. Why are you so threatened by the idea that our species evolved from lower life forms?

Since your question seems to be sincere, I will do my best to give you the most honest and sincere answer that I can (whether you accept it as such is up to you).

The honest fact is that I am not at all threatened by the idea that our species evolved from lower life forms because I simply do not believe it to be true.

The Bible is my final authority. I understand that it is not yours and I imagine that you would make the argument that the Bible was written by fallible men, tampered with, and used to deceive people like me, and that I am a fool to place my trust in it.

However, I surmise that scientific data is your final authority. I could make the argument that the scientific data that you place your trust in was compiled by fallible men, tampered with, and used to deceive people like you, and that you are a fool to place your trust in it.

Bottom line, we disagree. The original question of this thread is “Why is religion forced on people?” I don’t believe that I am doing that. I respect everyone’s right to agree or disagree with me without being insulting of demeaning. If you want to believe in the Theory of Evolution as a fact, go right ahead. It doesn’t bother or threaten me at all.

If and when the Bible is proven to be wrong, I will have a lot of apologizing to do, but I don’t believe that it has been, or ever will be, proven wrong. And until it is, I will continue to use it as my final authority.

I hope you will recognize and respect the fact that this post is not argumentative and that I have attempted to answer your simple question as sincerely as I could.

The only thing that bugs me is the fact that I, as a tax payer, am forced to fund the teaching of something that I do not believe in.

And there in lies the crux of your problem. Do you believe in gravity? It is just as much a fact as evolution. It was you who jumped into this conversation but stating evolution is ONLY a theory. The conversation took off from there. You are right, we will never agree, so there is no reason to continue.

That is correct. As I stated previously, the Bible is my final authority.

But I do find this rather sad that you would completely disregard science, which has enhanced human beings lives far beyond anything relgiion has done for us, because of a blind faith in something there is no proof for. You seem like a pretty smart guy, and it does baffles me.

** why do you think he would he not know his house is fire?*

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/12/ap/strange/main5380136.shtml*

That was a pretty funny story, but not exactly the same as your analogy. And definately not the way eternal co-opted it.

bro tony it would be obvious your house in on fire, there’s evidence and proof. When it comes to the matter of faith and religion, there’s none. And there is always option 4, knock you out and drag you out of the building. Or I could just walk away convinced you were suicidal or just flat out ignorant, in that case I wouldn’t even see why your genes should be in the gene pool, walk away and let you die.

Now to answer the question, you have to consider, these people truly believe in this. They feel compelled to spread what they believe is truth. If you believed you found absolute truth, would you not feel compelled to share so others may reap and benefit from this absolute truth. There are those who do take it too far, and it is frustrating. But hey, you reap what you sow. One’s forever sowing and reaping. If they’re sowing intolerance and injustice, then they’ll soon reap it.

Also bro tony I take it you didn’t pay attention to science in high school? Heard of Galapagos Island? There people have surveyed and documented forms of evolution. Breads of lizards are evolving into snakes. Fossils. The facts are there. I will not argue that yes, things are tampered with by men, but nothing is untouched, everything is tampered with by men, religion especially. I highly doubt you’ld believe me if I were to tell you what archeologist believe the origins of Christianity to be. You have to find your own truth; PERSONAL TRUTH. Just because you may find something believable doesn’t mean someone else will.

If water could rise to cover all land, where did the water come from? And when is subsided, where did it go?

Those are good questions. I could give you a brief summary of what I believe to be the answers, but you would reject them because they have their basis in the Bible.

• What he meant is your personal truth is just wrong*

No offence, but I will allow her tell me what she meant, if she chooses to.

It is you and other creationist who do not accept truth

Repeatedly insisting that the Theory of Evolution is “truth” is not going to convince of anything. Honestly, I do not even know what the point of this debate is.

for no other reason other than it doesn’t fit with your litteral interpretation of the bible.

That is correct. As I stated previously, the Bible is my final authority.

Maybe you don’t, but there are many who believe as you do, but they also think that your ‘truth’ should be taught along side real science.

I suppose that there are but I only speak for myself.

Do you think we should stop teaching evolution in science class?

I honestly could not care less what you teach in your science class. The only thing that bugs me is the fact that I, as a tax payer, am forced to fund the teaching of something that I do not believe in.

Fossil records are observable, and experience has told us how to determine there age. So yes, evolution has been observed through fossil records. Where do you think all the fossil evidence came from.

Since the subject of fossils is being discussed, I have a question. Why is there a fossil layer? If plants, animals, and people have been living, dying, evolving, etc. for millions of years, I would think that fossils would be evenly distributed throughout the various geological layers. The fact that there is a fossil layer is evidence of a world-wide flood.

Thex13thxchild,

I agree with everything that you said in your previous post with the following exceptions:

Breads of lizards are evolving into snakes. Fossils. The facts are there.

I am not convinced of the “facts”. I do not believe it to be wise to regard something as “fact” when not ALL of the evidence is taken into consideration, and especially when much of the evidence is willfully ignored.

You have to find your own truth; PERSONAL TRUTH.

I agree that every individual should examine their personal beliefs, but I do not understand the concept of “personal truth”. Truth is truth, regardless if anyone personally accepts it as such. That said, I do not force what I believe to be truth on anyone. I feel strongly that everyone has the God-given right to be wrong.

If you think that intelligent design/creationism should be taught along side evolution, then you are trying to force religion on people.

I never said that.

But you are obviously threathened by it, or you would not need to defend such pseudo-science and the hacks that created it,

Again, I am not threatened by it (no matter how many times you say it) and I do not feel the slightest need to defend my beliefs.

Either that, or you are not too smart, which I don’t think is true.

Thank you for the complement.

I could care less as long as you keep your beliefs out of my kids science class.

Not a problem. I have never, nor do I ever intend to, take part in any campaign to have my beliefs taught in your (or anyone else’s, other than my own) kid’s science class.

To me the bible need to proven true. Until then it is not known. That is how I look at it. I will believe something when the evidence support is.

I understand and I respect your position.

I respect the way you have conducted yourself in this disussion, and I respect your right to believe what you want.

Thank you.

However, I do not respect the actual belief itself. It flies in the face of logic and facts.

I understand. And again, I respect your position.

There is no dispute that it does occur

There is, but you choose to ridicule anyone that does dispute it. Perhaps you have looked at all the evidence and have chosen to believe the theory. Good for you. You can BELIEVE whatever you want.

experience and observation has proven that evolution absolutely happens. There is no doubt.

I don’t know of anyone who has personally experienced and observed evolution.

I see you cherry picked your definition.

Nope. I cut and paste straight from Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory (second definition)

scientific theories must be falsifiable

How ironic that the word “falsifiable” occurs in your definition. “Falsify: to make false or incorrect, esp. so as to deceive” (Dictionary.com)

A scientific theory is not conjecture,

I simply defined the word “theory”. Put whatever word you want in front of it. “Theory” means theory.

it is something that has been tested, retested, retested again,

How has evolution been tested, retested, and retested again?

and has never been disproven,

A belief cannot be proven or disproven.

and is widely accepted by experts in the field.

Belief in God is widely accepted too. Therefore (using your logic) it is safe to say that the existence of God is a fact.

Are you an expert?

On what? Belief in the Theory of Evolution? No. I do not claim to be an expert in something that I do not believe in.

Can you show me an expert who can dispute the overwhelming evidence?

Sure. There are too many to list here, but here are a few.

http://www.icr.org/ http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/ http://www.drdino.com/ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

I don’t think this is the best way them to leave you alone.

You ARE religious, so how would you know how it feels to be hounded by them?

1) That would by lying (unless, of course, you don’t have a problem with lying)

Not to religious fanatics that try to convert you at every turn and do not respect your beliefs at all.

2) You would almost guarantee that they will return to check up on you.

Actually no, by telling them that you do not believe in their god/follow their faith they actually attempt to get someone else to hound you and then if that doesn’t work even another person. Best thing to get them to stay away is to convince them that you do believe what they do, because they will NEVER EVER accept or tolerate your beliefs.

If you want them to leave you alone as soon as possible, simply (and politely) say, “Thank you, but I am not interested.”

Doesn’t work. Tried it (see explanation above).

yes well even Richard Dawkins, who goes crazy out of his way to tell the whole world that there is no God, and author and best seller of the God Delusion, pro evolutionist (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Pro evolutionist? Is that like being pro-gravity? Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless.

*…believes that there is a possiblility ALIENS came from another universe and could have possibly started the human race…

…does he have any more evidence than us to believe such regarding smell, taste, sight, or any sense? no…then why? *

No, and if he believes that, he is just as delusional as many believers are.

it is not an idiotic analogy. dont look at it the wrong way. he was just trying to show you that thats the way most people think.

Yes it is idiotic, because it defies logic. There is no other way to look at it. How do you know this is the way most people think? Have you done a poll?

jimahl

What an idiotic analogy. The fact that a house is burning is something that is easily seen and felt. The evidence of it is very clear. If someone doesn’t know that their house is burning that means they must be blind and deaf, have no sense smell, nor ability to feel the heat. Belief in an all powerful being, who created the universe and is watching over us, has no such evidence for us to see hear touch or smell.

yes well even Richard Dawkins, who goes crazy out of his way to tell the whole world that there is no God, and author and best seller of the God Delusion, pro evolutionist (not that there is anything wrong with that). …believes that there is a possiblility ALIENS came from another universe and could have possibly started the human race…

…does he have any more evidence than us to believe such regarding smell, taste, sight, or any sense? no…then why?

it is not an idiotic analogy. dont look at it the wrong way. he was just trying to show you that thats the way most people think.

Some religions, in particular Christian religions, teach that their members must try to convert others. In large part, this is why evangelical religions are successful. It’s truly annoying though.

Toadaly really??!!! Come on mate, blame some of the zealots followers not the religion itself please…Granted there are members who are so ‘brain-washed’ or gullible that they take on whatever these so called evangelical or hyper-active preachers tell them to do and yes some would go out of their ways to cramp their teachings and faith down non-believers’ throats…But once again, NOT all members of that particular religion you have been so vocal about on this site, feel the need to do that, so Christianity isn’t the cause.

So, please blame some of the naive fools (followers) who have their blinkers on, not the Christian religions, there are always some extreme lost nut-crackers in every religions. :)

Lets say that I am sitting at home, typing on my computer. You are walking down my street and you notice that the second story of my house is on fire. You run up to my door and yell “Hey, your house is on fire! Get out! Get out now!” I come to the door and I ask, “What? What is wrong with you?” You say, “Your house is on fire! You have to get out!” I reply, “Thanks, but I’m not interested. I’m busy answering a question on FunAdvice.com”. You yell, “If you don’t get out you are going to be killed!” I snicker and say, “I don’t believe that. If you want to believe that my house is fire, fine. But I refuse to believe it.” You say, “Look!” as you point to the flames shooting out of my roof. “Listen to the sound of your house crackling as it burns!” “NO!” I exclaim. “I refuse to listen to you or even look at what you are pointing to! Go away!”

What an idiotic analogy. The fact that a house is burning is something that is easily seen and felt. The evidence of it is very clear. If someone doesn’t know that their house is burning that means they must be blind and deaf, have no sense smell, nor ability to feel the heat. Belief in an all powerful being, who created the universe and is watching over us, has no such evidence for us to see hear touch or smell.

why do you think he would he not know his house is fire?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/12/ap/strange/main5380136.shtml

In my opinion the only ones that realy try to cram it down everyone throat as you put it, are those who a strong believers and are heavley involved in the Church. I personally dont see anything wrong with it. They just believe in it so much that they have a hard time understanding why people dont believe. Its the same with the people who dont believe they have a hard time understanding why people believe. I have actualy had more non believers question my belief than believers. Personally I do believe but think everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think that people expressing there beliefs gives others something to think about and consider instead of being close minded. I accept eveyones opinion and take it in to account of my own opinion. NOt saying that people are going to change because of what people say, but have an open mind in listen,it goes both ways there may be a missing link in both sides that could help find the real answer if people didnt have such one way minds, both believers and non believers

The analogy sucked… which is typical.

Theist all too often try to compare god to something tangible… they fail EVERY TIME. God is NOTHING like a burning building. A burning building can be seen, heard, smelled, touched, and tasted. You cannot perceive god with ANY of your senses.

bro_tony, I appologize if I misunderstood your stances.

Apology accepted

Thanks for the discussion, and I hope you keep an open mind to the possibility that the bible, if not taken too litterally, can co-exist with science.

Thank you for your courtesy. Just so you know, I do take the Bible literally and am open to any further (courteous) discussions about my beliefs.

Thanks again.

bro_tony, I appologize if I misunderstood your stances. Most deniers of evolution think that creationism/intelligent design is a valid science. They think it should be taught as science in the classroom, along side of evolution. While I can’t understand why you don’t think evolution is real, I have absolutely no issues with you believing what you want, as long as it is not being forced into our public schools. But I am for all of the 1st amendment, and have no desire to see the rights of people to practice what ever religion they want.

Thanks for the discussion, and I hope you keep an open mind to the possibility that the bible, if not taken too litterally, can co-exist with science.

Jimahl,

Our current debate is futile. Neither one of us are going to budge. We simply disagree. I respect your right to disagree with me and I hope you will respect my right to disagree with you. I have no idea how you might interpret this, but please understand that I do not feel defeated, I simply have no desire to type and retype the same arguments over and over, knowing that there is to possible conclusion.

Take care.

“Orange Bible? Jehovahs Witnesses never had an orange bible.”

Is a small bible in the New World Translation (Jehovah Witness) That is used to hand out to people. (Ohio)

Why is religion forced on people?

Because some people (as bro_tony points out) actually BELIEVE that they will be saving you by converting you to their religion. Best I find is to say yes to everything they say to get them to leave you alone as soon as possible.

That is an amazing analogy bro_tony . That is what is really happening. I am sure people will have something to say about your analogy. But keep it up. Only a person who is “willfully ignorant” as the scripture says will not understand what you have so clearly put out.

My God bless you.

Ifeelcrazy123,

You ARE religious, so how would you know how it feels to be hounded by them?

1) That would by lying (unless, of course, you don’t have a problem with lying)

Not to religious fanatics that try to convert you at every turn and do not respect your beliefs at all.

I have enjoyed our conversation thus far. However, since you insist that I am “religious”, and (by your own admission) you do not have a problem lying to “religious fanatics”, I can only conclude that you would have no problem lying to me. Therefore, I can no longer give you any credibility.

Have a nice day.

Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact.

Actually, it’s a theory.

be-lief: “something believed; an opinion or conviction”

fact: “a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true”

the-o-ry: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”

You have the choice to believe the theory, but that doesn’t make it a fact.

Well it takes two too tango…

…believers have unbelievers pushing their beliefs unto them also…

I guess the point is people always wanna prove their right…and YOU always gotta be wrong. Just plain selfishness.

Some people have a “religious attitude.” What I mean is they feel they are right and everyone else is wrong, and what it comes down to is ignorance. No one has all the answers, and its foolish to think so. We should be tolerant of others beliefs while staying true to our own. I am a Christian, and I believe that God wants us to love one another reguardless of our differences.

I once had a Jovah Witness throw a small orange bible at me because I refused to take it. I then burned it in front of him and stated it was his fault for throwing it and he would be going to hell.

I agree with you FoxyTails, I hate it when people try to shove religion in your face. I am definitely a non-believer, but believe people are entitled to choice. If you want to believe, believe. If you don’t, you don’t. People shouldn’t try to change that.

AnimalInsanity x

Some religions, in particular Christian religions, teach that their members must try to convert others. In large part, this is why evangelical religions are successful. It’s truly annoying though.

But I’m less bothered by fanatics trying to spread their meme voluntarily than I am by those fanatics manipulating the legal system to spread their ideas by force.

I added this boy onto my Wii so that we could play some games online together. We’d send messages to each other and just chat in general, one day he asked me if I was a Christian, I told him no, he asked if I had any religion and I said no. Then he started preaching to me, telling me how I was going to go to hell if I didn’t become a Christian. I don’t like it when people sort of threaten you like that, just because I don’t have a religion doesn’t make me a bad person.

Well, less than a thousand years ago, if a king in one country converted…they’d kill those people who didn’t also convert to the new way of thinking.

Compared to mass slaughter, I’d say a bit of arguing is a step in the right direction for humanity and should be, well, if not lauded than at least taken into some kind of historical context.

Some other very similar questions: http://www.funadvice.com/q/why_do_religions_try_to_force_it http://www.funadvice.com/q/why_do_people_try_and_convert_others

…ok, then what was the point of typing that

* Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact.**

Actually, it’s a theory. *

The theory of Evolution describes how it happens. There is no dispute that it does occur. None whatsoever. It is a FACT that it does occur.

fact: “a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true”

And experience and observation has proven that evolution absolutely happens. There is no doubt.

the-o-ry: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”

I see you cherry picked your definition. When you add the word scientific in front of theory, the meaning is much more specific.

Here is the Dictionary.com defintion:

scientific theory noun a theory that explains scientific observations; “scientific theories must be falsifiable”

And here is an encyclopedia definition:

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

A scientific theory is not conjecture, it is something that has been tested, retested, retested again, and has never been disproven, and is widely accepted by experts in the field. Are you an expert? Can you show me an expert who can dispute the overwhelming evidence?

damn thats a good analogy bro tony.

smart thinking

Oh come now my friend. That is like saying that only evolutionists are able to predict an earthquake, track a hurricane, discover a comet, diagnose a disease, bread cows, etc.

Sorry, but I don’t really get your analogy, we are not talking about predictions. We are talking about evidence of actual events.

First off, what is an evolutionist? If you are refering to scientists who accept evolution as a fact, you are not using a correct term. Evolutionist is a term that creationists use to tag anyone who accepts the fact that evolution is real. That would be like calling someone who believes that gravity is real, a gravitist.

Science is about using the scientific method to explain natural phenomena. It has nothing to do with personal beliefs. It does not support, nor oppose anything.

You say that you are willing to accept science as an ‘authority’ on such topics as geology, biology, etc., but you do not. Almost every one of the branches of science you listed has provided evidence that proves evolution does occur. You only accept that which does not interfere with your mythology. That is what I mean by all or nothing. You can accept or deny anything you want, but don’t say you respect it when you cherrypick what you will accept as truth.

Except your wife

Not true. I just let her believe she is infallable. It makes life easier that way. lol.

Not so. I respect science (geology, meteorology, zoology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.), I only lose interest when “science” opposes my final authority.

Sorry bro, that is not true. Cherry-picking what science you believe is not being respectful to the scientific method. It’s all or nothing. As I said earlier, science doesn’t oppose something. Do you think that scientists set out to disprove creationism? They are merely following where the evidence leads them. They do not start out with assumptions, as creationists do.

Let me also add that I regard the idea of a water canopy as a theory.

It does not fit the criteria of a theory. Maybe a hypothesis, but certainly not a theory, as there is no evidence to support it.

Also, if I could ask you a question… What is your final authority? (this is a sincere question. I am not trying to set you up in any way).

My wife, of course. Just kidding. I don’t think I have anything or anyone who I would consider a final authoirty. I was never one to accept any athority just on its face value. I need to understand the reasons for the authority, and to question it when it doesn’t make sense. I certainly never consider any source of authority as infallable.

It’s all or nothing.

Oh come now my friend. That is like saying that only evolutionists are able to predict an earthquake, track a hurricane, discover a comet, diagnose a disease, bread cows, etc.

It does not fit the criteria of a theory. Maybe a hypothesis

Your right. Bad choice of words on my part. I will go with “hypothesis”.

I certainly never consider any source of authority as infallable.

Except your wife :)

Jimahl, The only disagreement we have is the fact that you think you are not wrong. The “facts” are disputable. (purely rhetorical)

Call it rhetorical all you want, but the facts ARE on my side. You have no science to back up your beliefs. You have only an ancient text written and edited but uneducated (by todays standards) susperstitious men.

The honest fact is that I am not at all threatened by the idea that our species evolved from lower life forms because I simply do not believe it to be true.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence?

However, I surmise that scientific data is your final authority.

Not sure what you mean by final authiorty. Facts and truth are all that matters. What has religion done to make out lives better compared to what science has done for us?

I could make the argument that the scientific data that you place your trust in was compiled by fallible men, tampered with, and used to deceive people like you, and that you are a fool to place your trust in it.

You could also make the argument that pigs can fly, but it wouldn’t make it true. The only thing that makes something true is evidence and facts. With out them it is just wishful thinking.

Bottom line, we disagree. The original question of this thread is “Why is religion forced on people?” I don’t believe that I am doing that.

If you think that intelligent design/creationism should be taught along side evolution, then you are trying to force religion on people.

If you want to believe in the Theory of Evolution as a fact, go right ahead. It doesn’t bother or threaten me at all.

I have no more ability to not believe in evolution than I do to not believe in gravity. It is not belief, no matter how many times you say it. It is looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion. But you are obviously threathened by it, or you would not need to defend such pseudo-science and the hacks that created it, Either that, or you are not too smart, which I don’t think is true.

If and when the Bible is proven to be wrong, I will have a lot of apologizing to do, but I don’t believe that it has been, or ever will be, proven wrong. And until it is, I will continue to use it as my final authority.

I could care less as long as you keep your beliefs out of my kids science class. To me the bible need to proven true. Until then it is not known. That is how I look at it. I will believe something when the evidence support is.

I hope you will recognize and respect the fact that this post is not argumentative and that I have attempted to answer your simple question as sincerely as I could.

I respect the way you have conducted yourself in this disussion, and I respect your right to believe what you want. However, I do not respect the actual belief itself. It flies in the face of logic and facts.

Thex13thxchild,

I am not ignoring you. I just don’t have time to respond right now.

Type to you later.

I suggest you go back and read that analogy once again. As from as bro is concerned there is no evidence or poof that his house is on fire. He has not seen any single evidence or proof. Show him one piece of evidence and I guarantee he will run out of his house. There is no proof or evidence as far as he is concerned and why is that so? Because he says “I refuse to listen to you or even look at what you are pointing to! Go away!”

Please stop this nonsense. A person would need to be blind, deaf, and have no sense of smell or touch to not know his house is on fire. Either that, or he is just crazy. Since you are still trying to use this bad analogy, why do you think he would he not know his house is fire?

I have decided to not get into any discussion about evolution because it is a waste of time.

That is because you don’t actually know anytthing about evolution.

But whenever people hold up Fossils I am forced to think when will people see the fact that fossils have indeed been collected but the stories woven around them is questionable?

Just because you, or your questionable sources, say they are questionable means nothing. It is the experts in the field who have determined that they are indeed extremely accurate.

Which archeologists? What about Bible archeologists? Do you mean to say that all fake or foolish people who have spent their lives going around finding stuff that are non-credible and can be easily explained away. Did they find anything at all? Does anything they find come under your definition of facts?

Eternallymisinformed, you are neither a scientist, nor well eductated in the subject matter. Anything that science discovers that doesn’t fit your unwavering belief that the bible is literally true, is immediately labeled as a fake, and those believing such things are just foolish. That is pretty funny coming from you. If evolution was based on fake evidence, then it would need to be a global conspiracy, since there probably tens of thousands of scientists involved in fields related to evolution.

Even Richard Dawkins in an interview agreed that life cannot come from primordial soup by itself.

Care to give us the source for this?

In other words intelligence is necessary for life.

Even if Dawkins said something like that (which I am sure you are misquoting or taking out of context), it doesn’t mean that there was intelligence behind it. What he might have meant was that it needed some catalyst to get it started. If you want to BELIEVE that it was god, fine. But that is pure conjecture not based on any evidence. I am content to accept that we just don’t know right now.

But he just explained it away by saying that the intelligence must an alien from some other planet who should have evolved like us!!

Now I know where you are getting this from. It is from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. That completely ridiculous Ben Stien ‘documentary’. First off, Dawkins never said that life from the primordial soup could not happen on its own. What he said was that we do not know what exactly how it started. Here is a transcipt of what he said.

BEN STEIN: How did it get created? DAWKINS: By a very slow process. BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start? DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. BEN STEIN: And what was that? DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule. BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen? DAWKINS: I told you, we don’t know.

And he did not explain anything away. The alien coment was an answer to aocompletely different question.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution. DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
. . .

And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.

This not something Dawkins believes. Stein asked him if there was inteeligent design, what might that be. He gave ridiculous answer to an even more ridiculous question. If you are looking at movies like this as your source for the truth, you will remain blind to the facts. You do know that they lied to Dawkins in order to get him into that interview, and then they ambushed him. He was told, as were all the other ID critics interviewed, that it was for a film Crossroads about the “intersection of science and religion”. They never told them Crossroads was just a pro-creationist front.

In other words it is not evolution shows that God did not create us but God did not create us and we will make evolution show that.

You like the phrase ‘in other words’. You think it is a nice way for you to close an argument. But in reality, the substance of what you present is sorely lacking any facts or evidence.

Ben Stein is a liar and an idiot, and you are a loon…

That’s what faith is. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

As always… it falls back to: NOT KNOWING

~*~eternallife

You just provoked me to bare my teeth

On the matter of evolution, I’ll get a bit into that later so to prevent repeating myself, and to better fully elaborate.

“I refuse to listen to you or even look at what you are pointing to! Go away!” He refuses, but there ARE still hardcore evidence, and it is still fact that the house would be on fire. If he were to look then he would see. It’s a matter of faith and whether one believes in it or not. No matter how much the man believes his house is on fire, it does not make the flames go away. Here’s my analogy. A person drugged out says “look, a burning building”. Those who are also drugged out may see the same thing and may feel compelled to save people from what they think is a “burning building”. Those who aren’t drugged out are of coarse are thinking “wtf?”(not be to be shrude, but the only thing that came to mind, so my apologies if it seems like I’m trying to ridicule, I’m not). With the matter of God it’s a matter of faith. Those who are faithful go “look, God is all around us”, those who do not believe are again thinking “wtf?” There is NO evidence concerning whether there is a God or not, it’s all a matter of faith. Faith in which many people have converted from. Faith in which anyone can say “look”, but there will still be no more, no less evidence.

Yes, in all honesty I question stories wrapped around the fossils at times. However, one cannot just ignore the modern happenings. Again, breads of lizards becoming snake like. Also, if you take a trip to the museum you’ll notice centuries ago, fully grown men were the size of modern middle schoolers. The average height of modern males is roughly 5ft 8-10 inches. The average height of a female is 5 ft 4-6 inches. The armor they wore would fit my cousin of 4ft 6 inches. The different races humans evolved into. Another thing to take into consideration is theGalapagos Islands. That is something in which I cannot just ignore. I’ll get more into this subject later on in my post

Excuse me, the proper term was historian. Archeologist are people who dig up artifacts. Biblical archeologist are those who dig up artifacts that may concern biblical religions, artifacts dealing with biblical times. They do not necessarily have to have any believe in the bible. Their jobs are to find and identify items and what their use or purpose were. However, they can just as easily wrap improper stories around artifacts as anyone can fossils, you needn’t forget that. Besides, things can’t be tampered with too much without it going unknown. Also, biblical or not one is not an archeologist, historian, or anything else without a proper degree in it.

And it would seem you do, for the mere fact you’re the one bringing it up, not me. As jimahl said, he was tricked. If you’re going to get your facts from movies, then try to make sure they’re not so ill informed. I can be a total @ss and quote things from Zietgiest, another ill informed so called “documentary” Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is for hell bent Christians as is Zietgiest is for people hell bent against Christians. T’is a perfect illusion, even had me fooled until I got to thinking “wait a second…the sun god of Egypt is Ra”. Perhaps you should watch Zietgiest sometime to see how infuriating it can be when people are so hell bent to disprove something, they’ll go to the extremes of pulling crap out of their @ss. Here’s a link =>

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&ei=JUsoS7mzJoT0qALV0J3CAw&q=zeitgeist+movie&hl=en&view=3#

it’s completely free they “want people to know”

bro_tony You have that backwards Now getting into an elaborate answer of evolution, so pay attention eternallife. Not to sound shrude, but I hardly grasp how anyone can use the sedimentary layers as an argument for creation.

Lets tackle the Great Flood first. The Great Flood would require approximately 3 1/2x’s the earth’s water. Where would the water of come from, and where would it of gone? The math alone of the great flood debunks it. Since I’m a lousy mathematician(that being the understatement of the century), here’s a link that can fully elaborate, please do watch=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svTzxVa-xQ Before anyone brings up the Hydroplate theory- the extra water coming from under the crust, ect- crust cannot float on water. The crust would sink. Also, the water would of boiled, nearly instantaneity evaporated as soon as it broke through the land. Below the crust is manga. This is NOT a theory and HAS been confirmed. Claims stating the fault lines were made from a violent flood has also been debunked. In fact, the mid Atlantic ridge, along with other fault lines were created from volcanic activity. Claims stating the mountains were carved from a violent flood, also debunked. The catastrophic formation of mountains and their “return to the sea” would release tremendous amount of heat and energy, mechanic energy, in which would boil the water. Another thing to consider, some mountains are older than others, which would not be the case if they created it all at once

If there were a great flood, there would be only one layer -the heaver material(such as rocks) at the bottom, going to lighter, smaller fine grained at the top. But there’s not. You’ve different types of rock in no distinct order.

The flood story was a story(more than likely derived from the Greek myth when Zeus flooded the Earth after witnessing humans partake in taboo activities in which there were only 2 survivors-a male and female) in which people took literally. People now seek to prove in the story is true, no evidence has been found. However, there were massive floods in which flooded entire cities. Those people, back in their days, that WAS the entire world. They didn’t know about the continents, many people didn’t journey far enough to know that wasn’t the entire world, just one region. Incase I haven’t elaborated it enough, I found something on youtube while looking up one of my favorite shows that might prove to aid my argument. And before you ask eternallife, yes, they talk to REAL BIBLICAL SCHOLARS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0dBFqJZc0&feature=PlayList&p=6B3FDE528BFB94A1&index=0&playnext=1

Moving on. If everything lived at the same time we’ ld see evidence within the sedimentary layers. There would be no distinctive order of layers, all fossils WOULD be evenly distributive. But they’re not. There ARE distinct layers. Within those layers are distinct species. Cenozoic -Pleistocene -Pliocene -Miocene -Oligocene -Eocene -Paleocene Mesozoic -Cretaceous -Jurassic -Triassic *Paleozoic -Carboniferous -Devonian -Silurian -Ordovician -Cambrian

Dinosaurs are found in the Jurassic and Cretaceous layers, large mammals are mostly found within the Cenozoic, triploids within the Paleozoic-Cambrian, ect. It is BECAUSE these creatures and organisms have been living millions of years that we find these layers.

Now about “ignoring the facts”, I beg to differ that I be the one.

Pneumatic bones have air pockets, making it easier for flight. All birds have pneumatic bones. All mammals do not have these bones. This is rather curious bringing up the case of the Ostrich. Ostriches do not fly, yet have pneumatic bones which could be considered bad because their legs are weaker than mammalian bones which are solid bones. Why would an ostrich have pneumatic bones if it was created in it’s present form and never flew? This contraindicates to life on land. At the same time bats have solid bones. Mammals have solid bones. But bats can fly. Why do bats have solid bones, which is bad for flight, rather than pneumatic bones? Why is it a mammal that can fly having solid bones, and a bird which cannot having pneumatic bones if evolution is false?

Now about the distribution of animals: Why is it we find certain animals within certain parts of the world? Example, we only find marsupials in Australia, New Zealand colonized only by birds. If animals were just created, wouldn’t we expect to see an even distribution of animals across the globe? Evolution predicts that certain animals evolve in one place and(not stay isolated to ONE place but) stay centered around that one place, that is exactly what we find.

Another thing Whales have genes for making legs Humans have genes for making tails Chickens have genes for making teeth If they created in present form they should NOT have these things.

If everything was created in present form then why do we find fossil records loaded with transitional species?(Most common being Archaeopteryxsp?- a transitional form between reptile and bird) the Why do they exist? We’ve plenty of transitions between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles. No transitional forms between mammals and birds, which is what evolution predicts that we shouldn’t.

The fossil records strictly adhere to what evolution predicts. We don’t find elephants with dinosaurs, sabertooths with trilobites, ect. Neal Strewben and his colleagues were able to go to the exact place where amphibians evolved, to the time, dig down to the exact level, stadia, and find an organism that they were looking for, in which they had never seen before. How could they do that with such precision if evolution were false.

Why hasn’t the “problems” involving evolution are never brought up in the scientific community? The scientist that disproves evolution would win a Nobel Prize, notoriety, fortune. Why is it these so called problems lay only amongst the uneducated layman? Why don’t these “scientist”go to a cell biologist meetings(in which ANYONE can attend) and bring up these issues? Why do they rely and only speak their “information” amongst the uneducated?

Why hasn’t a single scientific experiment discredited evolution? within the past 2 centuries?

Please do elaborate. Lay out on the table what piece of evidence goes against evaluation? What piece of evidence has not fully been evaluated?

Evolution is not a theory someone just pulled out of their @ss and said “Here’s the fact, now what can we find to support it”. Science does not work that way. The evidence was found first. Originally archeologist went about their work and believed in what the bible said. They did not find evidence to support in the bible. It took a long time before evolution was even realized. The theories “wrapped around these fossils” were CONCLUSIONS drawn from the fossils and matter that were attained; AFTER these fossils were attained, after these fossils were examined examination. That’s how science works. Rather than creationism, it was a theory formed BEFORE evidence was found. So far, there has been no evidence supporting creationism. Furthermore, every theory “supporting” creationism has utterly been debunked. I’ld much rather follow a “theory” that was formed after supporting evidence was found and examined rather than a theory in which STILL seeks supporting evidence.

Yes, I am a chick. You both misconstrued what I meant about personal truth. Scientist have attained evidence and facts from decades and centuries of work. People will interpret these facts differently, or may not even acknowledge them to be fact at all. How people preserves things filters what they interpret things. What one believes is their truth. Everyone believes in something different, everyone perceives things differently Even if there were an absolute truth, everyone will perceive it differently, thus everyone has their own personal truth.

And I, also as a tax payer, do not like seeing money spent on things I don’t even use, or believe is right. For instance, I don’t have a child, why am I paying the education system? I guess I don’t mind too much on that matter sense I went to school however, the school screwed me over and I wound up getting a GED, so I basically paid for getting screwed over my moronic idiots. Another thing, why am I paying for illegal immigrants? I don’t mind if they were to become legal, but half will not. Why should they? They get free benefits, don’t half to pay tax, and can get an under counter job. Why am I paying for their health when my own uncle can’t even get welfare in as bad as condition as he is right now? Why should I be paying for the white house to blow my hard earned money I put out for tax when I didn’t even vote for Obama? Why should I pay the senate when I don’t agree with some of the laws they’ve recently tried to pass? A lot of things aren’t fair.

thex13thxchild,

Wow! Thank for taking the time to post such an elaborate response.

I will admit (fully expecting to be raked over the coals for doing so) that I am not an expert on the Theory of evolution (I.e.- My question about a “fossil layer” was sincere). However, out of respect for your willingness to reply in such a gracious manner, I will attempt to reply in like fashion.

While I do not speak for all Creationists, here is a very limited summary of my own thoughts on the subjects that you have addressed. They are all based on scripture. So I don’t expect them to be accepted, and I imagine that they will sound insane to anyone who rejects the Bible as anything other than truth.

The Great Flood…

Where would the water of come from,

I believe that originally there was a “water canopy” (Genesis 1:7) that surrounded the Earth (where the ozone layer is now), causing a green-house environment on the earth’s surface. This would cause the earth to be extremely different than we know it today. Plants and would grow larger and faster than they do now. People and animals would live longer and heal faster due to barometric pressure. There would be no change in seasons. Basically, the entire Earth would be a tropical paradise, being watered by mist (Genesis 2:6) rather than by rain. I also believe that the dry land ended at the continental shelf as opposed to ending at what we now call the coast.

While I am not very familiar with the Hydroplate theory that you mention, and I do not subscribe to the idea that the crust of the earth was floating on water, but I do believe that there were large pockets of water trapped (not below, but) within the Earth’s crust, what the Bible refers to as “fountains of the great deep”. I also believe that the Earth was flatter, with “hills” rather than the high “mountains” that we have now.

I believe that at the time of the Great flood, the “fountains of the great deep” burst and the water canopy collapsed (Genesis 7:11), causing it to rain for the first time and providing the additional water needed to cause the Great Flood.

Also, I believe the additional weight of the water (from the collapsed water canopy) triggered massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Therefore, rather than a simple rainstorm, I believe that the Earth went through violent and unequivocal transformation, which included the formation of what we now know to be huge mountains and valleys. The boiling of water that you mentioned may very well have been part of that process. I believe that it is possible for the plates to continue to shift over thousands of years casing an uneven distribution of material as newer mountains formed.

and where would it of gone?

I believe that is here. The oceans now extend to what we know to be the coast, rather than ending at the continental shelf. Any cities built near the continental shelf prior to the flood would be submerged (giving birth to legends such as the sunken city of Atlantis).

I believe the opposite of what you said. I think that the Greek myth (which, from a Creationists point of view, would have been told centuries after Creation) was derived from accounts of the Great Flood.

sedimentary layers.

Pneumatic bones

distribution of animals

Why it is these so called problems lay only amongst the uneducated layman? Why don’t these scientists go to a cell biologist meetings (in which ANYONE can attend) and bring up these issues? Why do they rely and only speak their information amongst the uneducated?

I am not going to pretend to be able to answer these questions or address these issues. Creation experts have/do dispute these points but are rejected and ridiculed.

I am “uneducated”. I am a (layman) Creationist. As I have told others on here, (and I say this without apologetics) the Bible is my final authority. I don’t expect you to understand this and I am not trying to convince you to think as I do.

I’d much rather follow a theory that was formed after supporting evidence was found and examined rather than a theory in which STILL seeks supporting evidence.

I admit (without reservation) that my stance is based exclusively on faith in the Bible as the literal Word of God. I choose to believe this and choose to not believe anything that attempts to oppose it. Again, I don’t expect you to understand this and I am not trying to convince you to think as I do. You seem to be more tolerant than others on here and, for that reason, you have my respect.

And I, also as a tax payer…

I agree completely with everything you said.

“nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I BELIEVE IN whom I have believed”

…corrected…

bro_tony, a water canoopy? And what held this water canopy in the sky? You do realize there is not one shred of physical evidence to support anything you have said here.

I choose to believe this and choose to not believe anything that attempts to oppose it.

At least you are honest about it. Most creationists claim it is an anti-god conspiracy among scientists, and that the science is wrong.

Science does not attempt to oppose creationism, just as it does nothing to support evolution. It merely follows the truth based on evidence and facts. Nothing more. And it always leaves open the possibility it might be wrong. Creationism starts off with the premise that it cannot be wrong?

Let me ask you a simple question, how do you know the bible is right? I understand you accept it as truth, but how do you KNOW it is the truth. Do you just take the word of those who came before us? Is there any real science to it? What is it that makes so sure you are not wrong? Because your view of science really seems like (and I mean no direspect with this) you are just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling ‘na-na-na-na-na, I can’t here you’.

Jimahl,

Let me also add that I regard the idea of a water canopy as a theory. I would not be dogmatic about it. I simply believe it to be the best, scripturally based, answer as to where the water that caused the Great Flood came from.

Also, if I could ask you a question… What is your final authority? (this is a sincere question. I am not trying to set you up in any way).

I meant boil as in boil the seas.

I had a feeling I should of included the canopy theory.

The canopy theory would cause server global warming and wipe out everything If it had fallen, the energy from the fall would boil everything with the amount of heat created, earth would be a desert.

Not to mention, earthquakes as devastating as such, to slip the earth into what we know as the seven continents, it’s likely only small animals would have survived.

It’s not that scientist goes out of their way to ridicule creationist. Science isn’t about apposing faith. It’s just about what is there. Science is neutral, it does not pick sides. Scientist study science and draw conclusions from the facts. Creationist are free to prove in creationist. But it takes more than a theory, there has to be hard supporting evidence that proves in the theory. When, if that day comes, then scientist will accept it.

I’m sure you heard of the String Theory. There was a theory that was exactly like String, the only difference was that it had one more dimension. These people lacked evidence to show, but stuck to their beliefs of the extra dimension. Years later evidence was attained through experiments and it was proven there was in fact an 11th dimension( I think it was 11th of 12th, I forget, though I’m pretty sure it was the 11th). People excepting the String theory were utterly shocked, no doubt. However, with this new evidence that had been provided, there was no doubt that this theory was right. I forget what happened to the theory, I think it merged with the string since they were now one in the same do to the new evidence. But this just goes to show, if you can prove it without reasonable doubt, then it’s sure to be accepted. Science is not final, it never is. It’s always changing, molding, growing. Those who accept science, they’re growing as well. Just because it opposes your beliefs isn’t a reason to block it out. It stunts your growth as a human. But I’m just speaking out from my perspective.

I’m not trying to change anyone views. I just like to test people. Push them beyond their limitations, in hopes that they’ll push back, perhaps so I can test myself as well. It’s just how I am.

You may be amongst the “uneducated”, but there is no mistake, you do seem to be wise. No, I’m not flattering, I’m just being blunt. It has been rather fun debating with you. You seem more open in your views, and less rude. You seem to stand down from “attack mode” and actually converse rather than argue. You also thoroughly read and respond. It’s been awhile since I’ve debated on the matter with someone whose met those qualities.

I also may lay mongst the “uneducated”. I may be a lot younger than what people think. However, I’ve an impending need to know more, a never ending strive for knowledge and wisdom so I’m constantly studying. Perhaps the only reason being why I know what I do. I try to keep an open mind and try to be “multidimensional” in my views.

My final authority, I cannot say. I’ve times when I can relate to a full fledged atheist, I’ve brief(I do mean brief-hours, down to minuets, or even seconds) timed when I believe in the goddess,Luna(though in what way, I’m still unsure), I’ve briefer instances, and less frequent when I believe in the bible. I’m torn between logic, rationality, and my stance as a mystic. Though I know not everything can be explained through logic and rationality(speaking through personal experiences), not even science can be counted as rational or even logical at all point and times. Perhaps I’m just demented and crazed, filling my days, lost in a dreamful haze of long begotten fancy. As a writer and artiest, it would not surprise me if I were somewhat mentally deranged. All your great poets and artiest have been accused of being mad. Perhaps my final authority is my instinct, what I feel is and is not. but even in saying that, I cannot guarantee it be completely truthful. But I have shared what I realize so far.

Thx13thxchild,

It was a pleasure conversing with you. Again, I appreciate your courtesy and kind words. Obviously I do not have all the answers, but at least you know where I stand. If you ever get the urge to bounce something off of me, please feel free.