Does teaching of evolution cause social decay?

Having lurked on this thread for a while, I've finally decided to throw in my 2 cents...

quote:

---

The reason we shouldnt listen to any other institution is because none of them can even compare to the credentials of the Bible . There is no view,opinion,religion,literature which has predicted the future hundreds of times without mistakes . In fact there is not even one clear fullfilled prophecy .Which "Religion" can give similar credentials to this?...

---

What credentials? I have yet to see any prophecy in the bible fulfilled without any doubt whatsoever - mostly they appear to be wishful thinking on the part of the person trying to show that it has happened. What prophecy exists in the bible that does not require the reader to believe in Christianity before they would accept that it has come true? Otherwise, I find the bible to be little more than a mildly interesting collection of mythological stories.

quote:

---

UNITY- Written by 40 or so men, most of which did not know each other, several continents, over a period of 1600yrs, over 40 generations, Authors from all walks of life scholars, peasants, fisherman, written in times of peace and of war , others in joy others in despair, written in 3 languages, hundreds of subjects were written about, And they all came to together to make a perfect book without error or contradiction.This same book went on to be the foundation of law,morality and meaning of life (This gives proof that God was guiding these men to write his words).

---

The bible has more errors and contradictions than your average school textbook. It is NOT the foundation of law, or else it would still be legal to own slaves and stone adulteresses; it is not the foundation of morality for the same reason. As for the meaning of life... Only a Christian would think that.

quote:

---

SCIENCE-Scientific information that people only discovered recently or centuries after..Everything from the earth is round(Isaiah 40:22),earch is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7)etc etc..The list literally goes on and on..(The Bible is only at Conflicts with Evolution,But remember Evolution is the science of Humanist..Not Science in general.Historical science is very different to practical science we see everyday..Historical is based on presuppositions,frameworks etc..A Creationists and Evolutionists are both scientist.

---

What relevence has this to anything? The bible is not a science book. It cannot be used in science PERIOD. I would even say that because of creationism it is a definite hinderance to science.Historical science is based on the same science that is done today: EVIDENCE. Creationists seem to miss this so often... Everthing in science stems from evidence first. From it, we develop frameworks and hypotheses etc. which may, if they prove to be robust, go on to become theories. This is also what distinguishes creationists from actual scientists - creationists do not start with the evidence, they start with the presupposition that the bible is correct and look for evidence to support it - which immediately disqualifies them from calling themselves scientists. And please do not say "oh evolutionists are the same, they start off thinking that evolution happened and interpret all the evidence with that in mind". I've heard that often enough to be tired of refuting it. Scientists examined the evidence and formulated the Theory of Evolution based on that evidence.

quote:

---

ARCHAEOLOGY-Archaelogoy discoveries have confirmed the Bibles historical accuracy.In fact it was quite possible the first and earliest writings of mankind (Showing the source of the earth right to the end).All Jewish, Israeli history is all confirmed in the Bible.This of course gives proof that the things in the Bible did happen . Mr John Warwick Montgomery said " To be skeptical of the texts in the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no document of the anicent period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.

---

No, it has not. The earliest archaeologists investigating Egypt and the Middle East were originally searching for evidence to support the bible stories, but in the absence of such evidence they (like all honest scientists) abandoned the notion in favour of other hypotheses. As for Dr. Montgomery (please use the honorific that a person deserves when you quote them), I doubt that a Professor of Law who holds additional degrees in theology and philosophy can give a true and accurate appraisal of current archaeological findings in the Middle East.Almeyda, all you've done so far is bluster, throw around unsupported assertations and generally preach at everyone here. It's not appreciated - please try to start over with the topic at hand. and remember that reposting earlier points that have already been dicussed is a sure sign of defeat.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

Like youve looked..It is a fact that it has predicted the future hundreds of times over. It is an Historical document. And you cant deny it no matter what crap you come up with.

---

In case you haven't noticed, buzsaw (one of our longtime creationist members) has posted several topics on bible prophecies which incidently contained several examples that were examined and discussed. I read those threads with interest, and I'm sorry to say that I was not convinced. The bible is indeed a historical document in that it is very, very old - but it is not accurate, no matter how much you want it to be.Oh, and if you can't show some Christian manners in your debating, I don't see why I should take you in any way seriously.

quote:

---

The Bible has no contradictions or errors. And to make sure everyone plz bombard the thread with the most damaging contradictions (Not taken out of context of course).

---

There is an entire forum dedicated to bible inerrancy threads. Why should we derail this thread by introducing off-topic posts? Unless you feel you can't defend your original assertation (that the teaching of evolution causes social decay) and your only hope is to have it buried in posts made by provoked evolutionists.

quote:

---

Yes it is the foundation of law. Keep in mind that it spans 2000yrs the book. Its got things from the beginning of civilization. Its just todays world that rejects the authenticity of the Bible.

---

Bald assertation. What does its age have to do it being the foundation of anything? I say again; it is NOT the foundation of law, because then it would still be legal to own slaves and stone adulteresses to death.

quote:

---

The relevance is that it had things before there werent discovered. This is all you people talk about evolution/science,evolution/science well im here telling you that the Bible contained science written before it was founded.

---

Bald assertation again - or wishful thinking. You're pretty much reading science into the bible where there is none, in a desperate ploy to raise its validity. Your wanting science to be there will not make it be there, and if you continue with this assertation I can only assume that you are deluding yourself.

quote:

---

Plz dont try to say Creationists are not scientists. It really is getting pathetic. If that Frogguy i talk to hasnt realised that Creation is science also well then this is all pretty hopeless.

---

No, the way that creationists keep parrotting off the same tired lines is pathetic. Creationists do not follow the scientific method - that is, carefully gathering evidence and making hypotheses based on that evidence, then gathering more evidence and modifying their hypotheses if needed. If you can show that this is the case, I will gladly retract my comments.

quote:

---

lol omg The Bible isnt confirmed by archaeaology. Your really messed up jack.

---

That's "Rock Hound" to you. Or IRH. I've never been called jack.Have you done any study at all? Do you know for certain, based on research, reading, examination of archaeological sites, examination of artifacts, or anything similar, that the bible is supported by archaeology? Or is it just too much for your faith to bear if it's all really just stories and metaphor?You're bordering on rude, as well as childish. This is a serious debating forum - using shortened chat-speak is not a good idea. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually interested in debating in good faith at all. Why should anyone even consider your religion if this is how you act?I eagerly await your response.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

Evolution is not fact yet you call that science?

---

"Evolution's not a fact it's a theory!" The same tired lines trotted out for refutation... Well, gravity's a theory too. If you don't like it, go just off a bridge.

quote:

---

I accept anyones opinion but this must accepted because it is common sense.

---

This is all you have to offer to convince us?!? That you think it's common sense? Common sense and actual science are light years apart.

quote:

---

The ONLY! difference is that one has something to base it on. And Evolutionists do not. That is the only difference between the two.

---

You have that backwards. Evolution has over 100 years of scientific research to back it up. Creationism has a collection of myths and stories that are about as reliable in science as a rubber hammer.

quote:

---

They both involve scientist working in labs doing there experiments. Of course they both involved interpretation to fit your "belief system" right?.

---

No. Yet again, I must point out that creationists start with a presupposition and force the evidence to fit it, while scientists begin with evidence and develop hypotheses. If you cannot prove otherwise then why do you keep repeating it?

quote:

---

And yes Genesis cannot be proven because the flood destroyed it.

---

The flood never happened. If it did, what was the 'it' that it destroyed? The evidence? But there would be evidence of the flood, and there is none.Pleading with us is not going to convince anyone.The Rock Hound