Why is religion introduced at such a young age?

[dmp]

If there is no proof that something exists then there is no proof that it doesn't exist.

...but there does exist MUCH scientific evidence pointing towards devine design...and frankly, God requires two things from us. Obedience and Faith. One doesn't use 'faith' where one asks for 'proof'.

You haven't saught God because your heart is hard; don't expect to find God thru your bitterness/hurt/fear. You sit there and think "God, if you are real, make that light bulb explode...right............NOW!" and when it doesn't happen, you conclude 'God does not exist. Anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot'.

Silly.

 

[Powerman]

...but there does exist MUCH scientific evidence pointing towards devine design...and frankly, God requires two things from us. Obedience and Faith. One doesn't use 'faith' where one asks for 'proof'.

You haven't saught God because your heart is hard; don't expect to find God thru your bitterness/hurt/fear. You sit there and think "God, if you are real, make that light bulb explode...right............NOW!" and when it doesn't happen, you conclude 'God does not exist. Anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot'.

Silly.

There is absolutely no evidence pointing towards intelligent design. That is junk science and is dismissed as such in the scientific community. There are many theories about lots of things but there isn't even a close second to evolution in the scientific community. I hate to bust your bubble about that. I don't think that anyone who disagrees is an idiot. There are some religous people who are far my intellectual superior. But most of them don't make up things out of thin air like "there does exist MUCH scientific evidence pointing towards divine design." That is either an ignorant statement on your part or an outright lie. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say it was just ignorance on your part.

 

[dmp]

There is absolutely no evidence pointing towards intelligent design. That is junk science and is dismissed as such in the scientific community. There are many theories about lots of things but there isn't even a close second to evolution in the scientific community. I hate to bust your bubble about that. I don't think that anyone who disagrees is an idiot. There are some religous people who are far my intellectual superior. But most of them don't make up things out of thin air like "there does exist MUCH scientific evidence pointing towards divine design." That is either an ignorant statement on your part or an outright lie. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and say it was just ignorance on your part.

Translation: I don't agree with arguments for divine design, therefore I'll call it a name. That's what I'm good at - insults and defiance when arguing my point of view. I'm too lazy to put REAL effort into the issues - take this issue on Devine Design for example. I haven't studying anything specifically PRO-divine design, but all my pro-evolution sites and teachers tell me it's not true - and they MUST be right.

Power - look - too many people have tried to be accommodating and nice to you. You throw that back in their faith with a youthful arrogance we 'older' people find annoying and a bit pathetic. I wish you well on your journey - if you really DO want truth, you know where to find it. Before you start on that path, however, learn to control your fear and your ego.

I'm not going to 'feed this troll' any longer - he's beyond reason.

 

[manu1959]

I'm not suggesting that we were and I certainly don't believe it but it must be true since you can't prove that it didn't happen.


See how silly that sounds?

That is exactly the type of stupid logic you were trying to use to benefit you argument.

didn't you just type the symetrical argument to mine (actuall it wasn't mine it was missle man's) .... any way it would appear that i have dragged you down to my childish level and beaten you with experience ...

that said...

why do you resort to insults when you can not get someone to agree with your opinions and why are others opinions not given the same level of respect that you expect others to give yours?

 

[Powerman]

Translation: I don't agree with arguments for divine design, therefore I'll call it a name. That's what I'm good at - insults and defiance when arguing my point of view. I'm too lazy to put REAL effort into the issues - take this issue on Devine Design for example. I haven't studying anything specifically PRO-divine design, but all my pro-evolution sites and teachers tell me it's not true - and they MUST be right.

Power - look - too many people have tried to be accommodating and nice to you. You throw that back in their faith with a youthful arrogance we 'older' people find annoying and a bit pathetic. I wish you well on your journey - if you really DO want truth, you know where to find it. Before you start on that path, however, learn to control your fear and your ego.

I'm not going to 'feed this troll' any longer - he's beyond reason.

I've looked into the creation science and intelligent design and it's filled with lies. Intelligent design proponents try to say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is an outright deception because the law is referring to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. I've heard plenty from the other side. It's propaganda. It's not science. It is just that simple. There is no close sedond to evolution in the scientific community. If there is then maybe you would like to tell me what it is because it certainly isn't intelligent design. That isn't science. It's pseudoscience and half truths.

 

[Powerman]

didn't you just type the symetrical argument to mine (actuall it wasn't mine it was missle man's) .... any way it would appear that i have dragged you down to my childish level and beaten you with experience ...

that said...

why do you resort to insults when you can not get someone to agree with your opinions and why are others opinions not given the same level of respect that you expect others to give yours?

I did it for the purpose of showing how absurd your logic on the matter was.

 

[Annie]

I've looked into the creation science and intelligent design and it's filled with lies. Intelligent design proponents try to say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is an outright deception because the law is referring to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. I've heard plenty from the other side. It's propaganda. It's not science. It is just that simple. There is no close sedond to evolution in the scientific community. If there is then maybe you would like to tell me what it is because it certainly isn't intelligent design. That isn't science. It's pseudoscience and half truths.

I do not believe you should be in education. With that said, intelligent design in place of evolution, I could never agree with. As an addendum to, now we are talking. There is too many 'instances' of evolution having holes. Doesn't mean that ID is the answer, though it may well add to the discussion.

 

[Powerman]

I do not believe you should be in education. With that said, intelligent design in place of evolution, I could never agree with. As an addendum to, now we are talking. There is too many 'instances' of evolution having holes. Doesn't mean that ID is the answer, though it may well add to the discussion.

Evolution does have holes. But there is no close second right now in the scientific community. Intelligent design isn't accepted by mainstream science. It doesn't deserve equal time in the classroom. It doesn't deserve any time. Well for public schools anyway. If you want to teach your kids the creation story from the bible it will take all of 3 minutes at home. It really isn't a long story. Just read it to them. You don't have to spend all this time making up junk science to try to rival evolution. Let the scientists who actually seek scientific truth handle that.

 

[Annie]

Evolution does have holes. But there is no close second right now in the scientific community. Intelligent design isn't accepted by mainstream science. It doesn't deserve equal time in the classroom. It doesn't deserve any time. Well for public schools anyway. If you want to teach your kids the creation story from the bible it will take all of 3 minutes at home. It really isn't a long story. Just read it to them. You don't have to spend all this time making up junk science to try to rival evolution. Let the scientists who actually seek scientific truth handle that.

I never said it belongs in science. It does answer some holes, that ID is as unwilling to accept as evolution. The idea that there is a 'creative hand' in the design is reasonable, but NOT in science.

 

[no1tovote4]

Attempting to disprove God through evolutional theory is ridiculous in its base form. One does not exclude the other. It may have been exactly what The Creator used, we may have found the tool used in the creation of something.

The assumption that there was no intelligence behind evolution is as absurd as attempting to prove something that demands faith even in the book that teaches the views of the very thing you attempt to disprove.

Science will never prove or disprove God, especially when the scientific method was not designed to prove anything, it is simply a means to observe evidence.

 

[Annie]

Attempting to disprove God through evolutional theory is ridiculous in its base form. One does not exclude the other. It may have been exactly what The Creator used, we may have found the tool used in the creation of something.

The assumption that there was no intelligence behind evolution is as absurd as attempting to prove something that demands faith even in the book that teaches the views of the very thing you attempt to disprove.

Science will never prove or disprove God, especially when the scientific method was not designed to prove anything, it is simply a means to observe evidence.

Granted and agreed. Science will never disprove God. Religious will never be able to prove God. Faith plays a part in one of these and cynicism plays a role in the other. Which makes more sense?

 

[Powerman]

Attempting to disprove God through evolutional theory is ridiculous in its base form. One does not exclude the other. It may have been exactly what The Creator used, we may have found the tool used in the creation of something.

The assumption that there was no intelligence behind evolution is as absurd as attempting to prove something that demands faith even in the book that teaches the views of the very thing you attempt to disprove.

Science will never prove or disprove God, especially when the scientific method was not designed to prove anything, it is simply a means to observe evidence.

I couldn't agree more with the first paragraph. Creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. But some fundamentalists don't understand the concept that sometimes you can actually have your cake and eat it too. Most Christians have accepted evolution actually.

 

[Powerman]

Granted and agreed. Science will never disprove God. Religious will never be able to prove God. Faith plays a part in one of these and cynicism plays a role in the other. Which makes more sense?

I agree science will never disprove God. But the thing is they aren't trying to. There are certain things in the bible that we can say are scientifically impossible but that doesn't mean there can't be a God. That just means that you shouldn't take everything literally and try to use the bible as a historical reference. Use it for spirituality. That's the underlying point anyway. If the bible was intended to be used as a history book then people would keep adding to it.

 

[Annie]

I agree science will never disprove God. But the thing is they aren't trying to. There are certain things in the bible that we can say are scientifically impossible but that doesn't mean there can't be a God. That just means that you shouldn't take everything literally and try to use the bible as a historical reference. Use it for spirituality. That's the underlying point anyway. If the bible was intended to be used as a history book then people would keep adding to it.

Well yes, those that consider themselves 'scientific' are trying to make those of faith 'prove it' though they can't themselves-from the oppositional pov. I have it easier than some of my fellow Chrisitians, as I don't subscribe to literal biblical interpretation. In either case, faith is a major component, since we are not 'knowing' of the divine.

 

[Powerman]

Well yes, those that consider themselves 'scientific' are trying to make those of faith 'prove it' though they can't themselves-from the oppositional pov. I have it easier than some of my fellow Chrisitians, as I don't subscribe to literal biblical interpretation. In either case, faith is a major component, since we are not 'knowing' of the divine.

OK I see what you are saying. People that act scientific trying to disprove God...gotcha.

My point is that pathologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, biologists, genetic engineers and such don't do what they do because they are trying to disprove God. They are doing it because they have a quest for scientific knowledge or their work serves some other purpose. For instance my anthropology teacher in college is Dr. Mary Manheim from LSU. She is awesome. You should do a google search on her and see how much stuff comes up. She is one of the top forensic anthropologists in the country and works with CSI task forces to help solve crimes. Believe me if something happened to someone you loved and she could help find them or bring justice to them in the worse case scenario you would want this person on the case. What I find to be odd though is that (if the shoe fits) some Christians will assume that her views on evolution aren't worth any merit even though they know little of science themselves. It's kinda of like bible apologetics. Funny how you can say that one thing means this or that when it suits your purpose. There are some things in the bible that are so ridiculously absurd only a moron or a lunatic would defend them. I see you aren't one of these people but there seem to be a few out there.

 

[Annie]

OK I see what you are saying. People that act scientific trying to disprove God...gotcha.

My point is that pathologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, biologists, genetic engineers and such don't do what they do because they are trying to disprove God. They are doing it because they have a quest for scientific knowledge or their work serves some other purpose. For instance my anthropology teacher in college is Dr. Mary Manheim from LSU. She is awesome. You should do a google search on her and see how much stuff comes up. She is one of the top forensic anthropologists in the country and works with CSI task forces to help solve crimes. Believe me if something happened to someone you loved and she could help find them or bring justice to them in the worse case scenario you would want this person on the case. What I find to be odd though is that (if the shoe fits) some Christians will assume that her views on evolution aren't worth any merit even though they know little of science themselves. It's kinda of like bible apologetics. Funny how you can say that one thing means this or that when it suits your purpose. There are some things in the bible that are so ridiculously absurd only a moron or a lunatic would defend them. I see you aren't one of these people but there seem to be a few out there.

That's disingenuous. They are propagandizing exactly because they are against the religious pov. Which is certainly within their rights.

 

[Powerman]

That's disingenuous. They are propagandizing exactly because they are against the religious pov. Which is certainly within their rights.

No they aren't. There are plenty of evolutionists who believe in God. So how are they doing what they do to disprove God? That makes no sense. The search for scientific truth should be unlimited to dogmatic beliefs. If science contradicts dogma that isn't the fault of science. Science seeks answers to questions. Whether those answers support a belief in God is irrelevant.

 

[Annie]

No they aren't. There are plenty of evolutionists who believe in God. So how are they doing what they do to disprove God? That makes no sense. The search for scientific truth should be unlimited to dogmatic beliefs. If science contradicts dogma that isn't the fault of science. Science seeks answers to questions. Whether those answers support a belief in God is irrelevant.

I'll concede that there are some as you describe, I guess I'd put myself in this camp. However, those that are right now ATTACKING ID, just like those pushing it, have an agenda.

 

[Powerman]

I'll concede that there are some as you describe, I guess I'd put myself in this camp. However, those that are right now ATTACKING ID, just like those pushing it, have an agenda.

Yes those attacking ID don't want garbage taught in their schools. Sounds like a positive agenda. Our education system doesn't need anything else slowing it down. You can teach your kids religion at home or send them to a Christian school.

 

[Annie]

Yes those attacking ID don't want garbage taught in their schools. Sounds like a positive agenda. Our education system doesn't need anything else slowing it down. You can teach your kids religion at home or send them to a Christian school.

Personally I think ID does belong in private schools. At the same time, how are the public schools to deal with the holes in evolution/big bang or what have you? Just ignore?