Loading...-
raves posted Apr 23, 2008 05:10AM GMT
Answered I believe he is wrong
I believe in speciation, but I don't think we evolved from monkeys. I don't think they will ever find the true transition from one to the next. I believe that an older type of human coexisted at some point. I am Catholic, went 12 years to Catholic schools. We learned about The Big Bang Theory, Evolution, and Creationism. I'm not agreeing with anyone else. This is my own opinion from my own intuition. By the way, I am entitled to it and I'm not hurting anyone else, not even myself, by believing the way I do. -
raves +1 Apr 22, 2008 01:40AM GMTI am more concerned with the age of the earth acording to the bible.
Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a Biblically-based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This of course assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation described in Genesis were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous chronological gaps.
The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters five and eleven provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each begot the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and by adding up the ages provided in Genesis chapters five and eleven, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years. -
raves +1 Apr 22, 2008 01:47AM GMTThe oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. -
raves +4 posted Apr 21, 2008 10:18PM GMT
Answered I believe that too
I have personally come to terms with evolution. We at least see very fast timescale evolution even in our existence, such as mutations in many simpler biological lifeforms such as bacteria, viruses, etc. We note that we have adapted canines and felines into a variety of breeds. It's not really that contraversial anymore in terms of scientific knowledge. Actually, the theory of evolution is quite beautiful, showing just how unusual it is for something is great as human beings to have come about. It is the beauty of this very fragile balance on earth that has given us life that has brought me closer to God. My belief in God has brought me full circle in my Christian upbringing, and I have no problem at all with evolution in Christianity. There are quite a few sections in the bible, if interpreted literally and by a certain angle, might not make sense to anyone and I believe certain interpretations have forced the discovery of evolution to face unfair denial. To see the beauty of God, I find myself in nature in amazement of the world of life that has come about in a very large universe, where a mind boggling number of things had to come together perfectly for our existence. One of my favorite readings in the Bible is Psalm 104, which speaks highly of our place in nature. This is where I find God. Nature and science have led me there. -
raves +7 posted Apr 21, 2008 10:00PM GMT
Answered It doesn't matter
The man could be Buddist, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or athiest. His religious beliefs make me no difference. As long as he doesn't worship satan and money and sacrifice small children to them he and I are just fine spiritually. -
raves +7 posted Apr 21, 2008 05:35PM GMT (edited)
Answered It doesn't matter
I just cannot believe that a topic like this would even be considered grounds for selecting an American president in the year 2008. What has our country become? Are we headed toward an American Taliban government or Middle Eastern religious fantatical government? Religious theories have no place in government policies, nor should they have any bearing on selecting presidential candidates, unless their religious affiliation would deny freedom of worship to others who do not share their views. Religion is simply used as a wedge issue to mask the more critical and really important issues like the economy, ecology and unjustifiable wars. What a candidate believes in is their own business and should have no bearing on their candicacy. I wish these religious fanatics would keep their religion in their churches, stop forcing their views on people who don't share them and stay the hell out of other people's lives and out of our state and federal governments.. -
raves +4 posted Apr 21, 2008 05:21PM GMT (edited)
Answered It doesn't matter
Why does it matter?
I mean, Rudy Giuliani's a Catholic, along with millions of Americans. McCain backer John Hagee calls the Catholic Church "The Great Whore", which McCain apparently believes, as he sought Hagee's support knowing of such a statement.
For that matter, Mitt Romney believes Jesus ministered to the American Indians, which certainly isn't congruent with Christian doctrine.
And ol' Dubya believes he's on a mission from God.
I'll take believers in science over the superstitious any day....
-
raves +4 posted Apr 20, 2008 02:41PM GMT
Answered I believe that too
Science is taught in the science classroom. It is not up to our President to change science or to teach religion in our homes. He is correct and I would stretch it out to think that the other candidates think the same way, but either have not been asked the question or have chosen not to give an answer to this controversial thought.
http://www.faithfullyliberal.... -
raves posted Apr 20, 2008 01:44PM GMT
Answered I believe he is wrong
I'm a little sick of these polls because they inevitably turn into a forum for "smart" "savvy" "brilliant" "enlightened" evolutionists to mercilessly bash those of us who don't believe in evolution.
Can't we disagree without you calling us stupid? -
raves +3 Apr 20, 2008 04:44PM GMT (edited)
Answered I believe that too
Glad to know he has a brain.