"The earth is flat" is a non-scientific explanation for the nature of the earth. No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it.

"Demons make you sick" is a non-scientific explanation for the nature of the sickness. No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it.

"Human beings were created in their current form" is a non-scientific explanation for the nature of the living creatures. No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it.

Edited 1/16/2015 04:35:06

Where in our religion do we say the earth is flat?

Where in our religion do we say that demons are the cause of every sickness?

Theirs no evidence at all that we came from apes.

And how can their be evidence that demons don't cause sickness?

You aren't going to win an argument with someone who staunchly believes that there is no god and has no acceptance for those that do have faith, its not worth it. I agree with you.

"And how can their be evidence that demons don't cause sickness?"

wow

Ok, serious answers, just because.

"Where in our religion do we say the earth is flat?

Where in our religion do we say that demons are the cause of every sickness?

Theirs no evidence at all that we came from apes."

You don't, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, only scientifically validated subjects should be taught as science.

There is TONS of evidence that we came from apes, you just haven't looked. And won't look.

Those are extinct ape body's you know.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Here. Just one piece of evidence among millions. Not only a bit of evidence discovered that fits with evolution, it was actually predicted to exist before it was found. You know, one of the requirements of an established scientific theory, that it makes successful predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Julius, are you referring to me? AFAIK, I've never said anything about my beliefs, or my acceptance for those who believe in god...

Us coming from apes is like a lizard coming from a snake. It doesn't make sense because there are too many differences. Not to mention, when things evolve, doesn't their old form become irrelevant and die out? The theory we came from apes is flawed in enough ways to make it invalid for the time being.

your actions tell me all I need to know.

The differences are all gradual and transitional Genghis. If you look at the fossil record(and keep in mind, the fossil record is only one line of evidence for evolution), you can see the gradual changes between species.

Interestingly enough, they ALL line up. We've never found a single fossil that was anachronistic. If we find ape X at year X, and ape Z at year Z, then we find an ape fossil at year Y between the two, it always fits as a transition between the two.

You don't seem to grasp evolution at it's basic form. The 'old form' isn't forced to die out. It's a branching process, and the old branch can survive, or not. Currently, right now, we have living species called 'ring species'. They are several related species that evolved out of the same common ancestor. Species A is most closely related to species B, which is most closely related to species A and C, and so on and so forth. Species A and B are still genetically compatible enough to mate. So are B&C, C&D, and D&E. But A can't mate with C/D/E, etc etc. Living 'cousins' so to speak.

There aren't too many differences when you look at the process as taking hundreds of millions of years. A snake never gave birth to a lizard. If we ever observed something like that, it would invalidate the entire theory.

"your actions tell me all I need to think."

FIFY

If you view science and religion as so utterly incompatible that acceptance of the theory of evolution is an attack on all religion and all religious people, that's messed up.

Theory of evolution does attack all religions.

Even the religions that say it's valid science?

You don't seem to grasp Darwinism, the basis of Evolution. The old form typically and regularly dies out due to its irrelevance and its inability to sustain itself in the changing environment. The new form is more adapted for this new environment, so it thrives. Why should primates still exist? If a few primates gave birth to humans, then how come all haven't? Is it because we didn't come from primates but had a common ancestor? In that case, what is the common ancestor? This Missing Link nullifies us being of primate origin until evidence is found. Now, I'm done debating this because I am tired of arguing with somebody who belittles me because I have a different opinion.

No, Genghis, you're the one with the misunderstanding.

1 - Evolution doesn't require species X to die out when a new species branches out from it. Species only die out when something causes them to. Having one species split off from another doesn't necessarily mean the first can't survive any longer. Something in the environment has to change to kill off the original species.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html

2 - Humans are primates. Every human ever born was born to primates.

3 - There is no 'missing link'. The missing link myth is perpetrated via ignorance, similar to the controversy over the 'gay gene'. If you get your science from the media or other non-scientific sources, you'll hear alllllllll about these 'controversial' topics. If you look at scientific literature, these terms and controversies don't even exist.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Each discovery simply increases the 'resolution' we have of the fossil record. We actually have a very good picture of the fossil record at this point, but you have to understand the fossil record is like a very large puzzle. We're constantly finding new pieces, and we've never found a piece that doesn't fit.

We have narrowed down the possibilities for the CHLCA(Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor) to a relatively small timeframe. Within that timeframe, there are several candidates, we just haven't found all the pieces yet.

Imagine a partially finished puzzle. You might not be done with it yet, but you can tell that over here is a tree, over here is a house, this is a lake, these are clouds. That's the point we're at with the fossil record. We haven't found every piece, but we have a very good overall picture.

4 - Again, the fossil record is only one line of evidence for evolution. Check this out for a very basic overview:

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

Edited 1/16/2015 05:37:48

Well, I'm sleepy. Julius, just for the record, I'm perfectly fine with people being religious. The only problem I have is when people try to force their religious teachings into scientific education, or ban science from the classroom.

I don't currently believe in any diety, but I'm open to the possibility. When I was a Christian, I also accepted evolution, and got upset when people tried to force creationism into the classroom and get rid of evolution. So my views on this particular subject were exactly the same before and after.

So now you don't have to assume about my tolerance or intolerance of religious people.

If you want to 'win' an argument, or better yet, convince me of some truth, just use evidence. That's all I ask for. If you want to teach something to children as fact, back it up with evidence. It's pretty simple, IMO.

Edited 1/16/2015 05:33:28

Goodnight weird evolutionist/religious peeps.

Edited 1/16/2015 05:48:38