Which I’m actually more in favor of.

I hate to burst any bubbles (no I’m not creationist NOR am I Christian), but Wicca is less than 100 years old. It was invented by Gerald Gardner. He was taking advantage of a popular social trend. With respect to Halloween, Easter, etc, yes they are from non-Christian religions mostly in Europe, but there is not, nor has there been, any kind of historical evidence to indicate that there was a religion called Wicca. You MAY claim (as many Wiccans do) that the Christians tried to wipe it out, but that doesn’t account for the historical records of the Celtic Druids, the Nordic beliefs, the Roman and Greek pagan beliefs, etc. I’m not hating on Wicca. I just want Wiccans to get the history of their religion right.

The faith you refer to in statistical chance doesn’t really exist. What most scientists who hold to the darwinian view of evolution believe is that darwin’s theory of evolution is the current best method of describing the events of the past with the current available data. Hence the word theory. If new data show’s darwin’s theory to be wrong, then it will be investigated and a new theory formed.

Pretty much all of science is saying, here’s what we know and here is a theory that best explains what we know and can observe. This also applies to most scientists views of Intelligent Design. Evolution and Intelligent design aren’t completely incompatible either, both could be present, who knows? (Intelligent design may imply a god or creator, but doesn’t imply an omnipotent creator).

Think of it this way. Imagine our world was a computer program, and the programmer was god. the programmer could create the program and run it, but that doesn’t mean that unexpected things wont happen. It may be designed to be self sufficient. (The creator could have made our world and built in evolution to make it self sufficient).

I personally dont think this theory is the case, but its still a valid theory at the moment.

It takes just as much faith to believe in the statistical chance that the human brain could have evolved from a single celled organism. To say that Creationism is stupid because of the belief system is hypocritical in my opinion.

Believe what you want but don’t tell other people they’re foolish for their beliefs.

oh, and tsunamis. they kill people too.

I wonder, how stupid a conservative can be? You just set a new record in stupidity. Please name at least ten differences between ID and creationism (aka cretinotianism)?

Oh, sweetie-pie, concerning abstinence, THERE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM, LIBERALS ARE RIGHT. AND YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HELP AND ONLY WASTES MONEY AND EFFORT. THIS IS A FACT: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=2&DR_ID=44263

(Pardon for writing in caps, but i did it in order to help our alternatively gifted Jason process all the data)

@IsoHrs

In fact, they did. Go read a book. Or listen to an audiobook if your reading skills are poor.

Teach intelligent design in RE, not science. As Richard Dawkins would remind us, incredulity (at the unintentional nature of the complexity) is not evidence.

And also: Whether they are christians or not is irrelevant. The important thing is whether they can separate their religious beliefs from their objective study of science. The creationists positively can NOT do that.
A bit of a deedeedee are we? The fact that they WERE Christians pretty much implies that they were in fact Creationists. Remember that whole “Genesis” thing? Yeah, they believed that. So, good jarb.

Science has made some excellent strides, but don’t forget it also gave us Thalidomide, CFCs, Three Mile Island etc, and who knows where genetic engineering might take us. I wasn’t defending ID or Creationism, simply pointing out that scientists, despite their self-belief, often make mistakes. (In fact that is part of the process of proving what is right and what is wrong). Throughout the millenia our Earth and Universe have conducted their own “science experiment” that has resulted in the environment we live in today.

Evolution (if you accept it as a scientific fact) has resulted in humans as we are today, via a process of natural selection over a very long period of time. Scientists come up with theories about our history (and about evolutions part in it) but have often had to eat their words and change their theories as more has become known about our prehistory. The jury is definitely still out.

Scientists have many many times got things completely wrong (as have religions of all types) and been proven to be wrong in the long run. There is nothing magic about science. It is often a flawed method of wieghing up the facts, because it necessarily weighs up data over only a short time frame (relative to the geological timeframes that have contributed to shaping humans and our planet)

If genetic engineering accidentally results in a new virus or organism that culls the human race (or for that matter cows or sheep) will you still be so supportive of scientific arrogance? Time alone will reveal whether science and it’s theories and developments are true and good, or not. Often what seems true in the short term, proves to have been misunderstood when the bigger picture is known.

Nature has developed over a different time scale to human scientific endeavour. We cannot always measure the past adequately. Science has to make many assumptions and leaps of faith in evaluating our history and we cannot have absolute confidence in it. Science has much to offer, but we must always remember how immeasurably tiny human history and activity are, when compared to the vastness of space and history. One thing we can guarantee is that science will have many huge failures and lessons in the future.

Maybe one day they will come up with a logical explanation for how the first unicellular organism assembled itself, but I have yet to see a plausible answer.

Scientists looking at a primitive single-celled organism today, still state that such a cell could not assemble itself via the processes of evolution. Regardless of how much time you give it. Simple scientific tests prove that the components of such a cell decay long before they assemble and function in the way that must surely do if they are to reproduce, as they surely must.

And as for the “scientific “big bang” theory…what a joke. In a split second “everything was made out of nothing”. Matter didn’t exist, then suddenly it did. Oh yeah that is scientific. Doesn’t sound much different to a creation theory to me.

As I said, time alone reveals truth. I’m still waiting.

Good = god’s doing
Bad = devil’s doing

I’m a christian lol

OK, i love throwing this one out. SO God created Lucifer, and as an angel he was created to carry out God’s will. Now, sense Lucifer defied god’s will that would mean that either God did not create Lucifer perfectly (sense he was created only to serve God and he did not) or that God allowed/intended for Lucifer to defy him and made him accordingly. Sense God is supposedly infallible that means the later must be true, and so evil is God’s creation.

And as For “Time alone proves who is closer to the truth.” Take a good look at the track record so far, science holds one hell of a lead.

Good = god’s doing
Bad = devil’s doing

I’m a christian lol