American Christians, do you feel persecuted?

[Darth Crater]

... Wow, you managed to fill the post entirely with pointless quibbling about semantics this time. Impressive.

I suppose I should have included more information. E. coli changing to eat citric acid is a major change. Here's an evolutionary geneticist calling it "as big an innovation for E. coli as developing eyes or wings would be for multicellular creatures."

[Outrider]

I told you man. You say you don't believe in evolution and you are called ignorant. There is no escape even though we both know how some people are wrong. I am a master when it comes to the subject of the Bible, and if I could make a presentation, I could easily destroy any attempt to call a Christian an ignorant person.

The Holy Bible is the basis of Christianity. Christians draw their beliefs (but not necessarily all of them, due to individual interpretation) from it because they see it as the word of God. So if a person is really Christian, then it is already assumed that they are very knowledgeable about the content of the Holy Bible. Of course, a Christian should not be ignorant of the very thing that defines him or her as Christian. Good on you for being knowledgeable of the Bible, but if you are really a Christian, then there was no need to point that out, as it can be taken for granted. That being said, despite being knowledgeable of the Bible, of Evolution, or of any other subject, a person can still be ignorant outside of subjects they are knowledgeable about. So maybe whoever called you ignorant for not accepting evolution meant to say that you are specifically ignorant of the subject of evolution. But maybe this person didn't really know this for a fact. Maybe he reached that conclusion because people who don't accept evolution generally don't know much or anything about evolution.

I am sure that if someone here went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and MIT... I am sure you will find plenty of Christians there. If the Theory of Evolution was proven, nobody would believe in religion.

Harvard, Yale, and MIT and Oxford are schools in the US and UK, respectively, and Christians make up a large portion of the American and British population, so one is bound to find Christians attending those schools, and in large numbers no doubt. But what's your point? As Crater just mentioned right now, and by others (myself included) a few times in this topic earlier, being Christian does not automatically make one not accept evolution. Also, the theory of evolution has already been proven, yet there are still people who are religious. And again, Christianity is not the only religion in the world.

Adaptation is not evolution. The bacteria is still E Coli.

And evolution is not exactly speciation, but evolution encompasses both adaptation and speciation. They cause evolution to happen.

A test which by the way was conducted in controlled environments that never would have existed at the beginning of time.

Time started long before the Solar System, let alone the Earth, started to form, so, of course, those enviroments wouldn't have existed.

I read about 3 sentences of Yanoda's 'Higher than thou' proclamations and just started laughing! Calling me 'Misinformed'?

He was trying to clarify something for you that you obviously don't understand very well, but you seem to immaturely take offense to it for no good reason. But that's okay; it's not like you developing an understanding will be any of much use anyway, so as you were.

[THEWULFMAN]

If the Theory of Evolution was proven, nobody would believe in religion.

I personally am insulted by this statement. How dare you try and decide for me what I believe?

You are making the exceedingly incorrect statement that Evolution =/= Religion.

You are saying that if one believes in Evolution you are not a true Christian. How dare you?

Also, what is wrong with debating, exactly? How else would anything get worked out in this world if we didn't debate with words rather than with violence?

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

Hey guys...maybe God created evolution...

[Son]

Hey guys...maybe God created evolution...

[WD-40]

He was trying to clarify something for you that you obviously don't understand very well, but you seem to immaturely take offense to it for no good reason. But that's okay; it's not like you developing an understanding will be any of much use anyway, so as you were.

Ohh...wow...Aren't you 'The Professor' of Life! Geee....maybe we should all bow to your perfection and wisdom? As you were OutHouse. But I also took Yan's statement as an insult. I'll agree...upon reflection, I shouldn't have...so sorry Yanoda.

I'm a professional jet Pilot...that's 'Pilot' as in Aviator. I also served in the U.S. Navy for 12 years. That's where my 'expertise' is. I'll go toe-to-toe with you on those subjects any day. But I can grasp almost anything.

I just don't believe as sophisticated as Carbon Dating is, that it can possibly be accurate out beyond a certain point. What that point is, before it becomes more a guess than a fact, I do not know. 2,000 years is alot in the span of time...but Millions?? Maybe it can go out 100 million...The integrity of carbon dating must start breaking down before that. That's just what I 'feel'...but I never claimed to be a science expert. It's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

[CommanderOtto]

If the Theory of Evolution was proven, nobody would believe in religion.

I personally am insulted by this statement. How dare you try and decide for me what I believe?

You are making the exceedingly incorrect statement that Evolution =/= Religion.

You are saying that if one believes in Evolution you are not a true Christian. How dare you?

Also, what is wrong with debating, exactly? How else would anything get worked out in this world if we didn't debate with words rather than with violence?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well then you are an imbecile... a real DOLT. I never said anything about you. I just said that if evolution was a fact, why would someone believe in creation? So stop imagining things. It was my personal opinion, that if it was possible to really prove evolution, I would drop religion because i'm not a blind man. "oh how dare you, how dare you"... read before you speak. And for your information, your dumb comment is not "debating". You are simply taking my comment as a personal attack when I never said anything about you in the first place. This proves my point... I could make a flawless essay and then a STUPID person like you makes a comment without even thinking. A civilized conversation was the one Crater and I had before.... but now this thread got out of control, so don't expect me to respond to your DUMB comments.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

now back to the subject......read this comment that I will make (that does have some thinking behind it) and that I think will be of use to everyone here (evolutionists and creationists alike). That said, read the following definitions CAREFULLY.

Let me quote the Geological Society of America in an article about the scientific method. I think Crater and WD will like it too:

"Scientific Theory (or Law): An integrated, comprehensive explanation of many “facts,” especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. A theory can often generate additional hypotheses and testable predictions. Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"

"Scientific theories are falsifiable and can be reevaluated or expanded based on new evidence. This is particularly important in concepts that involve past events, which cannot be tested. Take, for example, the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Biological Evolution as it pertains to the past; both are theories that explain all of the facts so far gathered from the past, but cannot be verified as absolute truth, since we cannot go back to test them. More and more data will be gathered on each to either support or disprove them. The key force for change in a theory is, of course, the scientific method"

Source: http://www.geosociety.org/educate/NatureScience.pdf

Let me quote a website from the University of California, Berkeley (University of California's Museum of Paleontology):

"Law: In everyday language, a law is a rule that must be abided or something that can be relied upon to occur in a particular situation. Scientific laws, on the other hand, are less rigid. They may have exceptions, and, like other scientific knowledge, may be modified or rejected based on new evidence and perspectives. In science, the term law usually refers to a generalization about data and is a compact way of describing what we'd expect to happen in a particular situation..... The term law may be used to describe many different forms of scientific knowledge, and whether or not a particular idea is called a law has much to do with its discipline and the time period in which it was first developed"

Source: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#a2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

For the evolutionists: you are right it is a law.
For the creationists: you are right, theory/law is not absolute truth.

and my opinion... i'm still Christian because Scientific Method allows me to question Scientific Law and disprove it. I feel there are many reasons that could, not saying it will.. but that could, disprove evolution. A good Biblical scholar is good in History and Science.

That said, we can all have a better conversation (or debate...) about the subject.

[Yanoda]

But I also took Yan's statement as an insult. I'll agree...upon reflection, I shouldn't have...so sorry Yanoda.

No worries, I could have worded it more pleasantly.

I'm a professional jet Pilot...that's 'Pilot' as in Aviator. I also served in the U.S. Navy for 12 years. That's where my 'expertise' is. I'll go toe-to-toe with you on those subjects any day. But I can grasp almost anything.

I wanted to be a jet pilot when I was young. I learned early that I won't be able to pursue this, so I moved on to the scientific field. I'm quite glad I did though.

I just don't believe as sophisticated as Carbon Dating is, that it can possibly be accurate out beyond a certain point. What that point is, before it becomes more a guess than a fact, I do not know. 2,000 years is alot in the span of time...but Millions?? Maybe it can go out 100 million...The integrity of carbon dating must start breaking down before that. That's just what I 'feel'...but I never claimed to be a science expert. It's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

Unfortunately, it seems you have not read my comment on this...

Radiometric dating is quite accurate WD-40. Many scientists implement multiple forms of radiometric dating, this revolves on the half life of many isotopes like Carbon-14. The use of carbon-14 (aka carbon dating is accurate up to 50,000 years). Examples of isotopes used for radiometric dating on dinosaurs are: uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40.

The actual process in determining the age of the dinosaurs are used to date the surrounding sedimentary rocks. They implement several different isotopes and compare them on what they indicate the age of the sediment layer. That way, they can have a focused range on the age of the rock and can accurately estimate the age of the dinosaur bone. Error bars range only around 1%. So it is safe to say, we do know the age of dinosaur bones with great confidence.

This is also the reason of my previous comment

You're quite misinformed WD-40.

In essence, Carbon-Dating is NOT used after 50,000 years.
Other isotopes (some listed above) are used to calculate the age past 100,000 years.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Darth Crater]

Otto - you're still connecting evolution directly to atheism, as well as creationism directly to Christianity. Wulf and I don't think that they are inherently connected, save perhaps that all creationists must believe in a creator.

Could you answer this question for me? Why are there Christians (for example: the Pope) who believe evolution occurred based on current scientific knowledge? If they are able to reconcile it without losing their faith, how is the debate between evolution and other explanations dependent on religion, or vice versa?

Please, don't go down Homestar's route of filling your post with arguments about semantics. Unless you have conducted experiments or gathered evidence indicating that evolution did not happen, the Scientific Method and all the rest of that is unrelated.

[WD-40]

My bad Yan...I read way too fast.