Regardless of faith: do you believe the bible is the word of god?

I'm sure a lot was accomplished.

 

FIFY

...er, one side prayed hard.

 

Lmao 100 attended? Sounds like they are really into something!

 

Sort of off-topic and I didn't want to start a whole new thread on this, but I found this video hilarious and true:

[video=youtube;zxZX2RL_Y98]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxZX2RL_Y98&feature=context&context=G2745813FUAAAAAAAAAA[/video]

 

symbiosis is considered one the primary evidences FOR evolution, not against. if you cared about truth you'd research what working scientists say about this rather than base scientific belief on youtube videos made by preachers that misrepresent facts.

 

I've never before heard someone say symbiosis is positive evidence for evolution (and yes I've asked around plenty). I'm curious to hear what your arguments are on how symbiosis actually proves evolution.

 

Wow this is awesome! Thanks for sharing it.

 

I don't know buddy. It seems this "preacher" actually explained it very scientifically. I would like for you to meet the challenge of the preacher to explain this without using "theoretically", "Most likely", or other words that is based only on theory.

 

Then you are not interested in speaking scientifically. Only religion deals in absolutes.

[video=youtube;wgpytjlW5wU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU[/video]

 

Science, different from Christianity, must deal with facts. Without facts; it is just a educated guess. There is a big difference between the two. In the case, or argument that was presented; the Christian preacher is asking "Science" to explain "symbiosis" and it's connection or "contradiction" to evolution.

 

I don't understand what is contradictory about the idea that two organisms evolve in such a way that they become mutually beneficial to (or even dependent upon) each other. Where is the contradiction?

ID believers like to take complexity within systems as evidence for a brilliant planner, but this is simply not valid. There are many, many examples in the natural world of complicated intricacy evolving from very simple initial rules. (Snowflakes are one of my personal faves.)

And again, science is PERFECTLY HAPPY to have unanswered questions in the hows and whys around us. You say "educated guess" as if that's a bad thing, when the vast majority of what we have developed in terms of scientific understanding stems from "educated guesses". By contrast, religion fills in all of the unknown blanks with Magic Marker, regardless of whether it jives with reality, and insists that it is somehow the responsibility of everyone else to prove them wrong. Science specializes in educated guesses -- religion just provides uneducated answers.

 

Educated Guess isn't a bad thing. I promote it. It's when that guess is taught to young children as fact. The theory of evolution is "A theory" yet, in schools they explain it as fact. No theory... I knew of a child in school that refused to learn the "Science of evolution", and the school threatened to fail her. She asked the science teacher; are we in English class learning non-fiction and was given a demerit.

When the parents went to school and spoke with the principle; he explained that she must do her homework to the school's curriculum or she will fail.

This girl wasn't even a Christian but doubted "evolution" and didn't want to learn something she felt was just theory. I am going to try and search for the article. It was like 7 years ago when I wrote it.

 

"Just a theory" is one of the most misused, misunderstood phrases in the modern world. You know what else is "just a theory"? Gravity.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

 

The difference is "Gravity" is called "Theory" in school. Evolution is called "Fact". Look up biology books that are circulated in school. They do not use the word "Theory"; but explaining "Gravity" is explained based on theory.

 

I don't have any bio texts handy -- can you show me an example?

 

Just read this article and it will explain what the books actually say

 

Scientists are required to question evolution. The theory has holes. Scientists don't understand it completely. I take exception with the preacher calling it a "ruse", like scientists are out to pull one over on the public.

BTW, I just checked one of the undergrads textbooks (Reese, Taylor, Simon, and Dickey, Campbell Biology: Concepts & Connections with MasteringBiology®, 7th edition (2011)) and it is referred to as a "theory" in the chapter introduction.

 

For those maybe not interested in the "Supernatural Bible"; but want or need proof of certain mentions of characters in the Bible; try this link. Skim through the verse and just read it like a history book. The archeological evidence is pretty cool to prove just how "historically correct" the Bible is.

http://www.bible-history.com/


And for those wanting more "Scientific opinions or definitions"; click this link. There maybe things you disagree on; but it seems the amount of energy used to question the Bible can be used to study from biblical scientists.

http://www.godandscience.org/

What I find extremely intriguing is the Bible has been argued, even here in this forum that it was written or made after Christ's death. And if that's actually true; they had one hell of a support team to chronologically reference actual history for over thousands of years. I wonder what computer they used?