Brainteaserfan

That was exactly my point. That, "And if you knew that the basic building blocks of organic materials naturally assemble by themselves in the most primitive of conditions, then you should see how the formation of life isn't necessarily so farfetched since the world has a lot of square millimeters to work with over the course of billions of years, second by second." Right. If it is possible for humans, trillions of times more complicated, to come from basic cells, why couldn't 900 year living humans come from basic cells too? (only perhaps a few million times more complex.) And if it could evolve, we could devolve as well, and it is much easier for something to devolve than evolve, and devolution can happen much quicker.

I, personally, do not care if Steve Jobs pays many taxes. A, he wouldn't actually pay that much compared to the debt, B, if the government has it, the will waste it, and C, he should be rewarded for providing so many jobs. Anyway, here are some percentages that Herman Cain wants: http://www.hermancain.com/images/economicgrowth.pdf

If you believe in the theory of evolution, then just that a cell exists defies more odds than humans living hundreds of years longer than they do now. I do not see that as much of a stretch.

Depends what you consider factual...

Science has limitations. I can point out observations though that would lead support that conclusion. Something tells me you don't really want that though, and it would take me a long time to type.

I'm not going to discuss whether the bible is literal right now because the moderator wants us to stay on topic (honestly though, if no other discussion is going on, I don't see the problem). If what John posted is true, then it's probably irrelevant what polls say, so I'll drop that. I don't really see anything else to discuss if I'm not going to give evidence for creation. Thanks for discussing this with me, I've definitely learned something!

I recall that was written as a law for humans, not for Himself.

If you do something like this, make sure that you have enough sodium and potassium.

Yes. Yogurt I find to be not very filling but rather heavy too.

I already did months ago. I'm not going to just say it over and over again. Look in the dictionary. Here's what I have: 1. The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. So that there isn't any dispute about retribution, here it is too: n. 1. Something justly deserved; recompense. 2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment. 3. Theology: Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one. Source: googled "define retribution" and "define punishment" There is no reason that punishment is only given for changing behavior. Even if it was, you could still make an argument that God would then be able to point to those in hell and warn any other creations of His, beware! And then He would possibly be influencing someone's behavior.

Depends how you want me to support that...

Then, however, I can define him as: the undefinable.

No. Not always.

True! I might have to try that!

Key word: SUBSTITUTE. There is a difference! As to no evidence and another reason why it would benefit everyone to teach it in the schools: there are tens of thousands of homeschooled kids learning thru such sources as Apologia textbooks (a very common set around me). If schools also taught some level of creationism many of those kids may use better textbooks used in schools that actually have some respect for creation because it will better prepare them for the tests. I have the campbell bio, and the apologia biology, and the former says at the beginning, "core theme, evolution." Then, these kids will instead use the far other side of the spectrum. Somehow, all of the apologia books make a very convincing argument for creation, even when double checking facts online. To answer your question, phi for all, I don't think that God is in any way bounded by time so he could have done it in seconds. However, He could have taken billions of years. However, I believe that after the sun was there, they were probably literal days. But my opinion is easily changed.

Ringer: I asked what was wrong and you gave me an example. Thank you. I think that the seed "gap" is from translation. I will stop pointing out what I see to be gaps in evolution, please stop pointing out gaps in creation, because that is off the topic. We will have to just agree to disagree then on whether it should be taught in the public schools. I fail to see how my second link falsifies my first one. I believe that while events happened in the Bible as recorded, the days may have been long periods of time. Yes, but if 1/3 Americans believe this, then that president has already gained many supporters. I think even less americans would support its being false.

Firstly, Thank you! I think that, "which in turn evolved from inorganic materials" does imply another theory, so for that part of the definition being wrong, I'm not so sure. Ringer: Firstly, thank you too. Wouldn't it be more like asking, do you believe atoms existed 30000000000000000000000000000000000 years ago? Because now both are far back in history. I do see your point though. If most Americans wanted their kids to be taught that beetles live on the moon, don't you think that their kids should be taught both theories, and the evidence for, that either beetles do, or that beetles do not, exist on the moon? Ok, theories is the wrong word. But america is supposed to do what the people want, right, as long as it doesn't hurt those affected? Seeing the support for creationism alongside the support for evolution should encourage the kids to choose which one has more evidence, right?

I never said that was evidence for creation. How is it "ridiculously common" for two animals to evolve together unless you believe evolution?? Have you seen it? I don't know much about where, how to, find peer reviewed papers. I'm not a scientist, and know even less about biology, although I will be taking it this year - I just don't find it as interesting as other sciences. I'm saying that it should be taught in public schools, not because it's true, but because Americans want it to be taught in their schools. I didn't say that it should be taught because it's true. Could you show me a few things wrong with the creationist paper? You can't dismiss a paper, "just because it's not peer reviewed." There is evidence for creation. Maybe not a whole lot, but there is some IMO.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=657083&videofeed=36 Phi for all: not in my country in 2004. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/teaching And this is why I want both taught - IN SCIENCE class. Maybe Americans are stupid, but this is what we want. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx And 1/3 of Americans believe that EVERY word of the Bible is to be taken literally. There actually is some evidence outside of the bible supporting creationism. http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html And I'll give an example of a gap in evolution (or something which seems strange to me). Termites cannot digest cellulose. Cellulose is in wood, which the termites eat. A organism in the termite's gut digests it for him. How can this be easily explained by evolution?

Hmm. I didn't realize that he had that lawsuit. But I looked it up, and you're right. I will have to remember that. I think that creationism should definitly be taught and fairly represented in the public schools, because it is a major belief. Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct. The more differing opinions, IMO, the better it is for science, because we need people who question the validity of theories and try to prove them wrong. I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself. But I'll admit I'm strongly biased. I would say what he said was true, there are some gaps, or at least, very hard to explain things in evolution. How is teaching creationism anti-science? I pointed out to ringer why I believe that it is good for science.

I suppose noone guessed what the author wants you to think? I don't think that either party is particularly gung-Ho about science. NASA has slowed down considerebly under Obama. Anti-science is different than dismissive of climate change and evolution. Why does it matter whether the president believes in either? He didn't say he would cut any funding for EPA or anything. (which, while the EPA does some annoying stuff, it has been a net plus IMO).

That is interesting. If these were the only incidents, perhaps I could settle for your explaination. "Why would He break His own rule" How is healing someone have anything to do with free will??? I do believe that God allows people to suffer for a higher purpose. For instance, if there was no pain, why would we fear hell? I realize that many think God is cruel for that. Yet it is our own sin that caused the suffering in the first place. When He chooses to heal, He is taking away our own earthly punishment!

Which is a better definition for carnivores? 1 Organisms that eat only organisms other than plants Or 2 organisms that eat only flesh/meat Or neither? Thanks.

Evidently though, people are drawn at least to the concept of a God. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#cite_note-27 Okay. To what extent would your follow His commandments?

Maybe we should start a new poll here.