First how old are you?16.
Have you graduated from college?No.
I'm in my first year of high school, and I'm dyslexic. I go through spell check, and a dictionary on almost every post in the debates tying to make most words that are intended to be spelled right, grammatically correct. I am some times in a hurry and can not fulfill this deed so my posts do seem to be quite wrong, in grammatical terms. This is why I hate it when people, with the complete ability to create a coherent sentence, should do so.You seemed to do a pretty good job in that sentence. Just do that for the rest and you'll be fine
Ummmm, sure. Have you by chance happen to take the time to look at the fossils that have been found.If you mean have I ever looked at fossils from human evolution, the answer is yes.
Ever heard of the Neanderthals?Yes.
Also, who is to say we will not evolve as well?It's quite simple, actually. Look at ourselves. Us humans have broken the system of natural selection. For instance, look at people too stupid to wear seat belts. Naturally, much more of them should die than the smarter people, right? Natural selection. However, humans have made laws forcing stupid people to wear seat belts. Here's another example: humans have killed off a lot of species, but that effect has slowed down in recent years. In fact, even species dying from natural causes have stopped dying. The reason? Humans are keeping them alive. We're protecting them, creating better conditions for them, etc. The world is getting less and less affected by natural selection and more and more affected by artificial selection.
We have been able to control our surroundings for some time now. How do you know that we will not adapt to the environment we are making for ourselves?Uhm, we will... that's why we make it.
O, and what about races, as they begin to intermingle, humans will change? So some apes may form as we do in the future, but by then we will also have changed a great deal. I also did not intend to give the impression that all apes will evolve to be similar to us, some may take other paths such as that of which the Neanderthals did.I doubt that races will intermingle too much. And most experts agree that the Neanderthals died at least partly because of a high childbirth mortality rate due to huge brain size.
So, let me guess, you just "interpret" the bible according to how it best affects you at that particular time?No, I interpret it according to how the Saints interpret it. Orthodox Christianity preaches that instead of interpretting Christianity yourself, leave it to those who know what they are doing.
Maybe thats why when we found overwhelming evidence to support evolution, Christians decided to indoctrinate it into their fairytale as "symbolism" so they did not sound like complete idiots.That passage has been accepted as symbolism for a long time. Please research your facts before blurting them out.
It's quite convenient huh. O, and just out of curiosity how do you know how to interpret things? Please explain the method of incorporating evolution with "let there be light" and l"et there be stuff" to "from Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo sapien, excluding many steps in between as they are to great to list."Let there be light has nothing to do with evolution. Let there be light has to do with the creation of the Sun. I mentioned how stars form earlier in this topic. If you mean let there be man... it should be pretty obvious. God took dust, ie. organic matter, and created living organisms. Is it that hard to grasp?
Yeah it was in my history curriculum. All the Christians were upset when they heard this(denial).That's not a source. Give me a website, book, etc... something that can confirm your thinking. Your interpretation of a source is subject to bias, and therefore cannot be accepted as a credible source, especially when you are at one extreme of a debate.
Once again the state curriculum for history class. At that time period there was a great sense of religion in Europe. People started to place there loyalty in the church rather than the government. The church could sway an election either way(so they charged for this luxuries). It was during this time that corruption was at its peak. It was the church officials that became the biggest political leaders. This brought the corruption to most of the church officials. The officials enjoyed this power and had to make sure that they were continued to be trusted, so they erected the bible. Now I'm not saying that all the officials that created it were greedy, but that the majority were. A good example of the politicians using religion to gain there way is the crusades.Everything you just mentioned was from the Roman Catholic Church. I'm from the Eastern Orthodox Church - I have nothing to do with the Catholics.
As I learned in my church when I was a Christian, many biblical scholars admit that a portion of the authors never existed due to overwhelming evidence. Now do you have any evidence that they were divinely inspired?No, but that's the point. You're trying to argue a belief with science, which is, by design, impossible. I don't need any evidence, because I believe anyways. You are trying to convince us something through science; therefore, you must have credible evidence.
O, so sorry you have to go to church because you choose to. So sorry you to pray/talk to yourself, because you choose to. Sorry if you have to follow "fairy tales" because you choose to. O, and I do believe it is the bible that says "treat thy as thou shalt treat thou neighbor." Well I don't bash the Christians in my town unless they start it. So they poor people that have to follow the bible can break it to bash those who don't "See the light from above(not the sun;) )"Right back at 'ya. You don't have to be an atheist, or at least you don't have to tell everybody you're an atheist. Stop whining about how hard life is for atheists. There's a South Park episode about this - see it.
Yes it is not hard to prove your point when all your answers are based on a interpertation.And yours are not? Are you not interpretting the evidence you are given? Or are you just spewing it out like a garden sprinkler?
Now respond with some evidence to support your beliefs,I don't need evidence. Blind faith does not involve evidence.
along with what your beliefs are.Check Wikipedia for "Orthodox Christian".
Please don't make this whole debate about solely discrediting me. Though please do tell me if you can prove me wrong about any statement I have made as I do wish to be able to full comprehend the differences between science and religion.The differences are extremely simple: science is based on evidence, religion is not. They cannot be compared at a debatable level, and therefore an argument between the two is completely pointless.
P.S. Sorry about the codes in the codes, only so many codes are allowed in a post.Yah, I noticed that... you can use code boxes instead.
