Sad what Bible Inerrancy can do to a mind!

quote:

---

Am I not aloud to ask questions like these?

---

Sure, you're allowed. The reason we react the way we do is because we've heard these questions before. We've explained to others how they aren't relevant questions because evolution doesn't claim what these questions presuppose. And we know that these questions were devised by persons with a specific agenda, not for the purpose of seeking truth but for indoctrinating Christians and making them servants of their agenda. (I think that agenda could be, in part, greater influence of conservative christianity in government.)

quote:

---

You know why these questions come up is because evolution is impossible because there is no evidence.

---

You're quite mistaken. Agenda-driven creationists have told you that there is no evidence, and you believe them. Again, they do this to you to make you a pawn in their agenda, willing or no. They've taken advantage of your christianity to use you to help spread untruth. The evidence is out there and on this board, and it is legion.

quote:

---

it tells them that there are no absolutes.

---

Again, this is not found in the ToE. A creationist probably told you that to demonize the theory because it stands in the way of their narrow, literalist interpretation of the bible. Somebody out there is generating these untruths and feeding them to people. I can only think they do this to drive an agenda.

quote:

---

How can they lead to the same God? They cannot because its nonsense. There can only be one way.

---

Alternatively, there could be no way. That is to say, all religions are wrong because there are no gods. I'm not saying that's the way it is, but it's certainly a logical alternative.

quote:

---

The problem with school is that they taught me I evolved from a lower animal and everything came together by chance. This is what comes to my mind when I think of scientists who believe in evolution and wil not even consider the absolutes of the Bible.

---

If you think scientists refuse to even consider the bible, you're wrong. The bible has been studied for many, many years as a literary account, as a historical document, and in a number of other capacities. As a historical record, it has been found quite wanting. It's no more or less accurate than the mythological stories of any other culture. This isn't anti-bible bias, it's an honest conclusion form the data. The bible just isn't literally true - not because we refuse to accept that it could be, but because there's a lot of evidence that it's not.Honestly, if I were a creationist (particularly a YEC), and I came to this board and discovered I was in profound error, I would wonder why other creationists had told me the things that they had. As I discovered they were aware of their falsehoods I could only conclude they had tried to use me to spread their untruths. That wouldn't make me feel good, and I could see how one could desire to avoid feeling that way. But that's no excuse for a persistence to believe something I know to be false...------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

I disagree. Humans instinctively fear darkness. Humans who force themselves into nocturnal lifestyles suffer ill health. By any measure we're built for daytime activity. I "believe" life came from non-life because the evidence points that way. How you can extrapolate a position of immorality is beyond my understanding. If your morals depend on a fairy tale being true, you might wish to base them on something a little stronger. For instance, I base my morals on that which can reasonably be demonsrated to ensure the best quality of life for the most people. I don't need a sky-man to tell me what that is. America, the most prosperous nation on Earth? America, where we live longer than anyone else (or would if we would cut back on the cheeseburgers)? America, the first nation to have truly participatory government on a grand scale? The only way your statement makes sense is if you interpret "destruction" to mean "adoption of moral codes different from your own." I for one think we continue to improve as a nation, in part because of the widespread rejection of literalist interpretations of the bible.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

I'd say you're right about America being the most literalist. I think this is a reason why the creationist movement is a specifically American thing. (Interestingly enough, the movement started in California, according to one of my professors...)I don't believe Catholicism leads to biblical literalism. Surprisingly they hold to the bible to a minimum. They do think the Pope is divinely infallible, after all. Who needs the bible if you have a pope?

"Sin" meaing those activites you don't agree with. I fail to see your point. In the absence of your initial assumptions - a god exists who sets moral codes - what does sin mean?the answer is, it's meaningless. Does that mean I advocate no morals? to the contrary. By considering what does the most good for the most people, I can establish moral imperatives without recourse to supernatural entities. Well, of course you can't have design without a designer. That would be a contradiction in terms. But there's plenty of evidence for function without design, for instance genetic programming techniques. Function and design aren't the same. It is possible to have function without design, just as you can have designs with no function. If they're in the womb, they're not, by definition, babies. Prior to exposure to language, I'm not even sure they're human. (of course, what constitutes "human" is a very open-ended question.) Nobody says they're not alive. But killing living things isn't always wrong (I assume you use soap and disinfectants?) Humans have a right to mess with their bodies because bodies are property. (Your own property, of course.) Pornography isn't wrong. It serves a very human purpose. Murders happen, which sucks. Some gay people are proud of the advances their community has made in securing basic human rights for themselves, so they're entitled to celebrate their victory. Strip bars have a First Amendment right to exist. If they're thankful for that right, why shouldn't they say so?All these things sound bad to you, but that's your own opinion, not a universal truth. Otherwise why would so many people disagree with you? I guarantee you, this has never appeared in any scientific textbook at any school or university. No one has ever been taught this. if they reached this conclusion, they did so on their own, not as part of some brainwashing. If it's a rational conclusion to reach from the evidence, however, maybe that says something about your god?