As for evolution (and science for that matter) it has not even explained how life actually started. It cannot even explain why thing could have evolved as quickly as they appeared. Also living things need fuel, structure, and to be set in motion. You cannot get this from random events. The explanation that "it must of happened because it did" falls flat in the face of reason.
*Nzzzt* Wrong, but thanks for playing.
Apples & Oranges
Evolution is about the process of biological change over time, not the beginning of life.
Religious
creationism is a non-scientific postulation on the origins of life
Abiogenesis is the scientific study into the origins of life.
Abiogenesis and evolution = apples and oranges.
Abiogenisis and Creationism = apples and wannabe-apples.
Evolution and Creationism = oranges and wannabe-apples.
The explanation that "it must of happened because it did" falls flat in the face of reason.
No, the explanation that
"it must of happened because God made it so" falls flat in the face of reason.
First evolution has not been proven and it never will be because its false. Second the fossil evidence can and has been interpreted in many ways and scientist who believe in this crack pot theory can not even agree on the fossil evidence.
Create another thread if you want to tangentialize on the topic of evolution
(typical fare for you, never willing to stay on topic).
A reminder that a scientific theory is not a guess, nor a belief. It is a conclusion based on heavily researched analysis of available data. In many respects, a scientific theory is as close to fact as evidence permits.
Willy, what you don't seem to understand is religions are the filler for ignorance. What we do not have answers to, that is ignorance. It's okay to be ignorant, it's okay not to have all the answers, and it's okay not to be satisfied with not knowing all the answers. The problem comes about when people are not okay with their ignorance, are not okay with not knowing, but are unwilling to work, to research, to study, to investigate, to obtain answers. It is this that helps to propagate beliefs, as a means to fill those gaps in knowledge, they take the lazy route. We do not know, so *poof*, some ultrapowerful entity made it all and we don't have to know.
In the case of evolution, it is both fact and theory, this we *know* and no *poof* is required to take us to fantasy land.
Fact
We have watched, measured, even influenced factors to capture evolution in action. This is fact, it is indisputable. Bacteria, fruit flies, even dogs and horses. In fact, breeding is the man-made exploitation of the natural evolutionary processes.
Theory
We have plenty of data on prehistoric creatures. From examination of DNA, bone structures, and other collections of data from different time periods, we are able to extrapolate, resulting in a theory that is very heavy in supporting data. I.e., human evolution, horse evolution, etc.
Third, the bible does not actually say how long the "days" are. The word translated to "day" meant a period of time. The days could not have been 24 hour literal days as we are still in the seventh "day." There are many examples of this in the scriptures of the word "day" being used to describe a long period of time.
Genesis 2:2
New International Version (©1984)
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
Hebrews 4:10
New International Version (©1984)
for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
Oooo, look at that, you quoted the Old Testament.
*smirk*
Anyway, you seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between past and present tense. "Just as God
did ..." Not
does, not
is --- but
did, as in done. As in got up and said,
"okay, rested for my day, time to go take a shower."
The presentation of "did" is in the NIV, NASB, NRSV, RSV, NKJV and other Bible transliterations. It is rendered as is written in the original Hebrew version. Reinterpretation on your part is incorrect, as asserted in the essay posed at the "Answers in Genesis" website ---
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/rest
It is also affirmed in the Bible --
In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” ~ John 5:17 (NIV)
there are hormones that attract even hetrosexuals to the same sex but that doesn't mean you need to sleep with them.
This is incorrect. Please review the information I provided in the original post.
How many times have we seen big obese people blame their weight on genetics, then say they eat what a family of 5 would eat in a whole day, they have for breakfast. It is partly a choice, not that it is a sin or anything like that, just there is always a choice weather we give into desires, I'm not saying it is right or wrong.
Irrelevant and demonstrative ignorance. First, just because someone blames it on genetics doesn't make it true. Second, each and every obesity issue has a different causation and your sweeping comment fails to address this. Be it a physiological abnormality or a psychological malady, these do not make it "genetic," but instead put it into the category of disease. As is presented in a multitude of detailed peer-reviewed reports and studies, homosexuality is
'not' a disease.
In other words, horrible comparison.
It goes deeper though, then these gay people want children, if we accept they are gay then why can't they accept gay couples can't have children of their own (2 males especially), it is all messing with genetics, pumping testosterone into women that want to be men, then they decide they want to give birth as a man years down the line, now that is playing with nature.
Did you know that halting diseases, treating illnesses, is
"playing with nature?" If you wish to argue against the notion of "playing with nature," we would all be dead by the age of 24.
Anyway, women who want children need only become pregnant; there are gay women. Men who want to have children can adopt; being they are straight or gay is irrelevant.
End of the day male-male female-female is not wrong nor is it right, the human race like any other species on this planet is engineered to breed and continue our existence, everyone turning gay isn't going to help an awful lot......
Considering we're dealing with a population issue on this planet, with 20,000 children dying every day, over 15 million every year, it is not unreasonable to think focusing on
"procreation," as an argument against homosexuality, is a disconnect. In the other direction, there are millions of men and women who are simply incapable of procreating, and they're heterosexuals. To argue against homosexuality on the basis of procreation is looking at this from a very narrow, and selective, perspective.
I am married have 3 kids, have gay civil married aunt (which I accept on the grounds possessions are secure if her or her partner die), no religious beliefs and always try to give an honest account of myself.
Give people an inch, they will want a mile.
How does the former sentence in any way relate to the conclusion you presented? That's a fallacy of presentation right there homey, not to mention the slippery slope fallacy you presented in your closing sentence
(give women the right to vote and the next thing you know, they want equal pay, equal rights, equal opportunity, omg!!!!).
Where did that come from??????