diverborg

This is where I'm just going disagree. I've read thru the bible and I have been taught evolution for the past 10 years thru school and college. I've yet to honestly find any concrete scientific findings other than simple theory that contradict what the bible says. Obviously, you feel differently. Both sides are obviously going to have more faith in what they believe already than open up to another theory. I'm not saying that evolution should be taken out of the schools. All I'm saying is that If one theory can be taught, so can the other, then let the students decide what they will believe.

I agree with you that the bible was not meant to be a science book, I was only trying to make the point that It did not contradict science. Even a mortal person, bound by the laws of nature, can produce a flat two-dimensional map of the world on a letter-size piece of paper. Surely a supernatural being who is trying to tempt the Son of God could also find a way to present the kingdoms of the world. Plus, if this verse was meant to intepreted in a geographical way, I think any person in then and now would realize that even if the world was flat you wouldn't be able to see the whole thing even from a tall mountain. I would have a hard time considering this most of the steps. I guess I can't quite understand this sentence. I know that ID proponents would switch this sentence around the exact opposite. Oh well, what's the use. I'll admit if you firmly believe in the bible, you'll definitely have some preconceptions. But the ID theory is not based on the bible nor refers to any bible teachings. If anyone arguing with me actually took the time to research true "ID SCIENCE" or watch the video I mentioned, they would have a little different conception of what is actually being taught.

Do you honestly think that scientists that firmly believe in evolution don't have their own preconception of how life began, while ignoring any other possibility. I've studied both evolution and intelligent design(separate from church or any religion class) and, the ID theory is based on fewer preconceptions. There is still no scientific evidence that can date or explain the "origin" of the earth or life. I have an interesting video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" I would reccommend it if you would like to get even a slight glimpse of what I'm trying to say. This is not a religious film and it is put together by professors from "STATE" Universities that question Darwinian theory.

Here's what the bible says "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1 Kings 7:23. Do you think that maybe the brim was lillied a little bigger, or maybe the 30 cubits was inside diameter, or maybe because a cubit was a just the measurement from the elbow to the fingertips that they had to round up instead of saying 9.549296586 cubits across. Anyway, the bible does not come out and say pi is 3. Also if you want to start talking about the bible's scientific accuracy. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22(The hebrew's did not have a word for sphere). "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" Job 38:16. Keep in mind scientists have only recently discovered that there are springs in the ocean. If you are interested I can find more. If you think you may know of more scientific contradictions in the bible please let me know.

Do you really think evolutionary "[theory]" sticks to true science rather than basing their all their deductions already on the idea that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and everything evolved from a rock. This is a religion in itself that takes a lot more faith to me than believing in a creator. Just because you believe in creation isn't going to change the way science is collected or necessarily conflict with any fossil records. It will however conflict with the origin of the earth and life on earth which the evolutionary theory has absolutely zero evidence on.

Don't waste your fingers, I've been trying to explain this exact thing you wrote in a very similar thread about intelligent design, and I was eaten alive.

I'm looking at getting my first camera for the sport, and for the most part have decided on an hc from reading other posts. I'm not sure if there is any differences that will create problems with the 2005 hc 21,32,42 cameras compared to the older 20,30,40 series. If anyone has any info please let me know, or if anyone knows of another sony camera that has a higher ccd with no still photo option, that may be less expensive than the higher ccd cameras that also incorporate the still photo option.

where do we get the evidence then? This is a ridiculous analogy, and is not what I'm arguing. Duh, why would an evolutionist try to support ID. There are plenty of sources out there (non-religious) that do though. I could start arguing science, but that would take way to much of my time, and neither of our minds are going to change anyway. I'm leaving for boogie now. Cya

I thought for something to be a fact, it had to be proven. I actually learned that in science class. I don't remember all the stages but once a theory is proven than it is accepted as a fact in the science community. The word law may also be substituted for the word fact. If you're going to call evolution a fact, I'm sure you would have quite a few scientists on both sides of the spectrum arguing that one.

The whole argument that the evolutionary theory is flawed, or that there even is another legitimate theory. I grew up with evolution being taught as the only theory in schools, and it was actually taught more as a fact than theory. I had to do my own research to view any arguments that opposed it because this was forbidden from being taught in the curriculum. All I'm trying to say is that education is all about looking at all possible sides issue and making an educated decision. Here, students are only given one side. Liberals are all about open-mindedness, so now's the time to for them to open their mind.

I'm talking about two different theories here. If you can teach one, you can teach the other. The evolutionary theory does the same thing by filling in it's holes with huge assumptions. Research should be taken for what it is and see where the evidence points. We should not assume evolution is the only correct theory and make our research so it only supports this theory. By reading this statement I'm going to assume that you haven't ever researched the science behind the intelligent design theory. It's not about filling in holes by assumptions that God did everything. However, evolutionary theory is a perfect example of this. Here we have some of the biggest holes any theory ever written has, but somehow scientists won't even question it, but assume it's truth with little or no scientific backing. Evolution at it's core is a theory based on nothing but assumptions.

No offense was taken, but I wouldn't call intelligent design an illogical theory. Most people do have interest in their origin regardless of what they believe. I just don't understand why the theory of intelligent design has to be classified as religious BS and thrown out immediately. Seems to me that half of the argument is trying to be hidden, perhaps just to try and convince more people into believing the evolutionary theory. Our minds will only comprehend finite things. We can not understand that something came from nothing. That is why this question will never have answer regardless of which side you look at it. This is also why I believe there is an infinite realm (eternity, heaven, hell, or whatever you want) that we'll never comprehend.

I agree with you, it was a poorly written post. I don't feel that we should forsake the geneva convention just because the enemy has. I was just trying to make the point of how minor our "infractions" were compared to those of who were dealing with who give it no regard. I just don't understand what the big fuss was all about.

Yeah, I won't really disagree with you on this if its true, but the occurences I was referring to when I made the post were the "standing naked, barking dogs, koran, mental breakdown." If the CIA is responsible for these other "torture" instances, then why haven't we hung them instead of these poor military grunts. Something isn't adding up, we are pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

The majority of the "prisoners" ,several thousand, including women and teen-agers—were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpointsQuote I can't necessarily argue this because I truly don't know, but I do have a hard time believing this. I've never heard this before, and I can't understand why the US is going to waste their time and resources picking up random civilians, filling the jails, and question them endlessly if there are so many actual enemies out there. I'm sure there are a some detainees that are innocent, but this is war and not everything is going to be perfect if you want to win. I do still believe the geneva convention should be followed, but the majority of what was in the news was a joke and should have never made light. These other instances you speak of about the beatings and torture. I've heard very little about this and question the sources. I would like to research it more before I made any judgements.

I'm sorry, where did I get off on asking such a dumb question. That's a perfect answer that I have no refute for.

I've been assuming this whole thread was a joke from day one to get a bunch of pissed off people. I'm sick of seeing this thread at the top of charts everyday. Let this one die, so we can quit entertaining this sick fucker.

Are you sure it wasn't a grizzly bear. I've mistaken the two before, but grizzly bears are a little tougher. Opossum should drop on the first shot from a 30-06 as long as you hit within 2 feet of it.

It has always been interesting to me that a lot of people seem to need an answer for where WE came from, but are perfectly content not knowing where "God" came from.Quote So where did the dense ball of matter that caused the big bang come from?

This article is too big so I didn't read the whole thing, but if this is a free country, then we should be able to hear all arguments in school and choose what we want to believe. That is what school is about right, hearing all sides of topics. The mention of intelligent design does not have to be associated with any particular religion. I've heard many good "scientific" arguments supporting intelligent design, that aren't allowed in school because they are viewed religious. This is ridiculous. Atheism is nothing more than its own religion of no higher power than oneself and everything is responsible for it's own existence. The ACLU wants to filter out any arguments opposing the evolutionary theory, can we say double standard. If this evolutionary theory is perfect, than allow both sides of the argument and let the students decide what they want to believe. Don't choose for them, that's just pathetic.

I think it's sad that the low ranking soldiers took the crap for this. But why did this prison scandal make such big news anyway. Were talking about people that will saw anybody's head off with a butter knife including aid workers. So what if we humiliated them or scared them. I'm all for the geneva convention, but it has to be applied both ways. If they're not going to follow it, why should we. I do believe we should still follow it, but this scandal is so ridiculous to even compare to the horrendous acts that they've completed.

Condee for president!!! Quote I second that motion

I never said it wasn't different, that's why I'd never do it myself, I just don't feel that it's wrong or that California should have any say in it. It is still governed by a set of rules. Texas just has a different set of rules. Anyway, I've got a head out for the day. Cya

How is buying a steak from a grocery store any different? Do you think those animals were given a fighting chance. Ok, I'll agree with you that this is unsportsmanlike, but If Texas evidently has the abundance of deer that their Game and Parks would approve of this. Then why is this any of California's damn business. If a state has enough deer and chooses to legalize spotlighting as well, then so be it. I am a hunter too, and this isn't anything that I would do, but having one state ban their residents from hunting in Texas online, and following all of Texas's laws is ridiculous. I don't understand how this is any less humane, because I don't think the deer is going to know the difference between being shot by hunter holding a .270 or a machine operated by an online hunter. These deer will still be field dressed and cleaned by this business, and the meat will be mailed to you, pretty lazy, but inhumane, I don't think so. You can continue to hunt how you want which is how I like to hunt too, but I don't think you own these woods and have the right to tell these people to stay out, if Texas allows this.

You're probably right. It doesn't sound that fun to me, but I sure don't see a problem with it. People get all worked up anytime someone ventures into new territory like this, but hey, to each his own. I wouldn't mine giving it a try if I'm hungry for some deer steak and don't have a place to hunt this fall. It's a great opportunity for people who would like to deer hunt but just don't have access to land.