Origins of life

[alextemplet]

A cat fight? Chunk would smack all of you to pieces.

[Linn]

forgot bout chunks!

[AstusAleator]

"SMACK"
JUST KIDDEN

We must be a cult eh?

OK Dear,
what is your belief in life origen?
why should we have to defend our beliefs lets see
what you can come up with to explian your religion
of non-god belief.
hmmm?
Where to start?
What quest to ask of you, to explain to me?
BTW
(I am not being angry, or upset, my face has a smile
and I was laughing at your reply)

Linn thank you for being so good natured. I was somewhat afraid that I would offend you. No I don't believe you or anyone else here is a cult. The fact of the matter is that many different doctrines of established religions rely on these assumptions I'm referring to. Anyhow, as I've said before, I'm not entirely sure what I believe but I definitely haven't gotten to the point of non-god belief .
Like I've saide before though, as far as science is concerned, I try not to allow "beliefs" to get in the way of the scientific method. But that's a whole other debate we'd be better off not getting into again .f

PS: I'm by no means calling you to defend your beliefs. I'm merely reminding you that you are stating those BELIEFS, which are only vaguely (or not at all) supported by scripture as FACT. Even in a religious forum that kind of discussion would be discouraged. A simple qualifier "I believe" is all that is needed to rectify the situation.

[David George]

Hey Alex help me I did not come to the forum for a week or so I donot understand anything nor am I patient to read all those messages But I spent my time reading a book on different animals[really cool book] and also wrote two hypothesis.

[Linn]

I have been wondering where you were?
missed you
and....

Hey Alex help me I did not come to the forum for a week

thats ok, forget about us

[margaret]

Lynn, sometime back you stated that
"Once a cookie is baked, it is baked" I believe
there are such things as half-baked cookies.

You have asked why there is such a sudden
existing element to subvert the Bible. Well I
guess that would be because so many of us
just suddenly realized our children's science
teachers were starting to introduce the concept
of Intelligence Design into the classrooms.

I have every respect for your religious beliefs
but when you speak of science as you see it
in the Bible, it is obvious that you do not even
understand the basic concept of scientific principles.
Science is based on a set of rules that have to do
with evaluating ever-changing information according
to tangible evidence. All known scientific knowledge
is open for new discoveries.

I would like to know how old that you believe the
earth is. I would like to know if you think that the
Grand Canyon was created exactly as we see it
today, and that you think the Colorado River had
nothing to do with it's formation.

Can you give us your definition of science.

[kiekyon]

I have every respect for your religious beliefs
but when you speak of science as you see it
in the Bible, it is obvious that you do not even
understand the basic concept of scientific principles.
Science is based on a set of rules that have to do
with evaluating ever-changing information according
to tangible evidence. All known scientific knowledge
is open for new discoveries.

I would like to know how old that you believe the
earth is. I would like to know if you think that the
Grand Canyon was created exactly as we see it
today, and that you think the Colorado River had
nothing to do with it's formation.

Can you give us your definition of science.

well, u r not asking me, but i'll answer that anyway

Now, science and religious belief are not necessarily incompatible with one another. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself, who thought up the theory of evolution, was a religious man for much of his life and the worry about how his theory would affect religion made him very sick. But the overwhelming majority of working biological scientists will tell you that creation theory and evolutionary theory are absolutely opposed to one another and share no common ground at all. So you have to ask yourself why the people in each group think the way that they do, and decide whose explanation you prefer.

Religious belief is a very different process from scientific belief. If you ask a creationist why they believe what they do, they will say that it comes from a very deep feeling inside of themselves. They will say that the evidence for their belief is very strong and is all around them, and is so obvious to them in everything they do. But if you ask a scientist why they believe in evolution, they will give you a different answer. They will also say that the evidence is all around them and is obvious, but they will offer you the results of experiments which have led them to that belief.

For instance, you ask how old is the earth. I believe that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, I'll tell you that we have a good understanding of how radioactive elements decay, we know that they decay at certain rates and we can measure their ratios in rocks and use that process as a clock to date the age of the rock. So scientists have beliefs too, but it's a different belief, based on data from experiments. And I would like to think that if someone came up with good evidence that radioactive dating was wrong, then I would change my belief about the age of rocks. This is why most scientists believe in evolution.

I dont know about the Grand Canyon

[margaret]

I wasn't speaking out against religion. I believe that both science and religion have their place. I am, however, speaking out against the deliberate attempt which has become so invasive in the last few years to blur the line between science and religion in the classrooms across this country. An attempt is being made to teach just enough extremist fundamentalist ideas in the classrooms to cause students to be confused about the true underlying discipline of science. Lynn's posts suggested to me that she was making an extreme effort to align every word of the Bible right along side science. I guess I am a bit sensitive about this subject because I live in the heart of the Bible-belt that produced our esteemed Attorney General John Ashcroft. Sorry to offend anyone.

[Khaiy]

There's nothing wrong with applying scientific principles to something that you'd like to verify. If you think that the Bible is an accurate record of what happened, then by all means test away at it. What I have a problem with is when the tests are done improperly, or when the tester has a strong bias that affects the results. This creates a lot of disinformation and confusion.

If the Bible were an accurate record (which I personally don't believe, although that doesn't mean that I'm right), then it will align very well to whatever scientific standards and principles you'd care to compare it with. However, simply assuming that it is right and then trying to force scientific evidence to fit that assumption is something that bothers me too.

[Linn]

I wasn't speaking out against religion. I believe that both science and religion have their place. I am, however, speaking out against the deliberate attempt which has become so invasive in the last few years to blur the line between science and religion in the classrooms across this country. An attempt is being made to teach just enough extremist fundamentalist ideas in the classrooms to cause students to be confused about the true underlying discipline of science. Lynn's posts suggested to me that she was making an extreme effort to align every word of the Bible right along side science. I guess I am a bit sensitive about this subject because I live in the heart of the Bible-belt that produced our esteemed Attorney General John Ashcroft. Sorry to offend anyone.

sorry Margaret, I think you have it backwards
religion is not allowed and creationism is not allowed, nor is evolution
presented as a theory.

those are the facts.

Can you give us your definition of science.

and what scientific dicipline shall we go by?

I think this topic has been covered enough.
(no offense Margaret)

PS: we are king of polar extremes:
I am in the middle of the "science belt"

[margaret]

Now let me get this straight, Lynn, you think think your preacher is teaching science in your church. Or, you have been home schooled and you think religion is a legitamate part of a science. How do I have anything backward.

And, could you please give me your defination of science. And how old do you belive the world is?

[margaret]

Lynn, if you are in the middle of the science belt then perhaps you need to tighten your belt up a notch or two. Your version of science is too loose.