Confused about evolution

[ScarletNGry]

OK, I have stayed out of this up to this point but I have to throw this out there. Everyone is crying for proof that theory of evolution is the origin of life as we know it now. The problem I have with this is that there is NO proof that God exists. Yet that is perfectly fine by the religious community because there is Faith involved. Wow, how nice is it to argue that one point cannot be true becuase there is not enough proof to completely validate that theory, yet they defend to the teeth a theory that CANNOT in any way be proved WITHOUT the word Faith. The street goes both ways. Science is still working to get back to the origin. Faith simply stopped and said that God is the beginning and never thought any further than that.

 

[BrutuStrength]

...The problem I have with this is that there is NO proof that God exists... yet they defend to the teeth a theory that CANNOT in any way be proved WITHOUT the word Faith. .

Neither can theories such as the "Big Bang" or even the broad spectrum view of Evolution. The only difference is that one has faith in a divine influence creating a universe, and the other has faith in dirt creating everything. Which possibilty would be greater: a divine being existing eternally and being omnipotent, or dirt existing eternally and being omnipotent?

...The street goes both ways. Science is still working to get back to the origin. Faith simply stopped and said that God is the beginning and never thought any further than that.

That's correct, it does go both ways. So why should one unproven theory be given greater consideration over another one? Again, is it better to believe in dirt and luck or divine intervention? Further, some scientist believe that science and god co-exist. So while science continues to search for proof, you can rest assured that some members of science are also researching the aspects of Creationism as well. It doesn't appear as though either side has simply stopped.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

OK, I have stayed out of this up to this point but I have to throw this out there. Everyone is crying for proof that theory of evolution is the origin of life as we know it now. The problem I have with this is that there is NO proof that God exists.

You're right, unless your a fundamental christian and believe that the world around us IS proof of God's existence. But, my point in asking for proof of evolution goes back to what the crux of evolution supporter's argument is: scientific proof. They rip apart creation because it is "faith-based", and has no "scientific proof" to back it up, while evolution does. So I ask, if it must be scientifically proven or at least scientifically supported, where is that scientific proof and/or support for evolution? If you're going to base your argument on scientific evidence, then present the evidence. If there isn't any evidence either way, or at least convincing evidence, then it is a lot easier for me to believe in an all-powerful being than it is to believe that one day, millions and millions of years ago, a piece of dirt spontaneously combusted, starting a process that created life as we know it.

 

[BrutuStrength]

...I wonder how creationists rationalize the fossil record. In particular, Cro-magnon and Neanderthal. Were these "rough drafts" God created?

Ta-da... I have found your response (information below copied from: http://peaceyouthgroup.com/articles/evolution.htm):

Ape-Men: The Missing Links?<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></O:P>


It is commonly taught as fact that mankind evolved from apes. It is common to see diagrams and displays showing the gradual change from monkey to man. It is claimed that the "missing links" are no longer missing. However it is not told that the evidence for these transitions is slim to none and that many of them have been outright frauds.

• • <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; tab-stops: list 1.0in">Nebraska man was constructed from a single tooth. This tooth was later discovered to have been the tooth of a wild pig. <O:P></O:P><LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; tab-stops: list 1.0in">Java Man, Pithecanthropus erectus, is highly regarded as proof of evolution. What is not well known is that was "reconstructed" from only a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone) and three teeth. The femur was found fifty feet from the skullcap and a full year later. It was also downplayed for almost thirty years that two human skulls were found close to the original finds. <O:P></O:P><LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; tab-stops: list 1.0in">Piltdown Man, used for forty years as proof of evolution, has been formally declared to be a fake. Piltdown man was found to have actually been the jaw of an ape which had been stained, doctored, and attached to a human skull. <O:P></O:P><LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; tab-stops: list 1.0in">Peking Man was originally based on the discovery of a single tooth. Later fourteen skulls, bashed at the base, and a collection of tools and teeth were discovered. However it is likely that while the tools were human, the skulls were actually from the heads of monkeys that were bashed to eat their brains as a delicacy. <O:P></O:P><LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo2; tab-stops: list 1.0in">Neanderthal Man is considered to be within our own species. <O:P></O:P>
  • Cro-Magnon Man is simply modern man.

It appears as though Neanderthal and Cro-Magnons are not considered to be a different species nor sub-species. I also read somewhere that the Neandertals likely had malformed skeletons (humped backs) that were later determined to be attributed to severe arthritis. Supposedly, since many of these skeletons were from the same tribe, they shared this arthritic condition, as it was in there genes.

 

[MightbeaBuck]

In order to teach creationism fairly, I’ve come up with a tentative curriculum for a one semester high school class. Still don’t know if it should be philosophy or mythology. This should keep the separation of church and state intact though -
Since there are literally thousands of religious beliefs, I propose that we only use the top 32, by worldwide following. This will allow about two creation myths per week to be discussed.
Each religion will have its version of creation covered, from its first conception, to its upsides, a brief background of its followers, and include its drawbacks. This is a very fast pace, but much must be covered. We would still be leaving out several hundred to several thousand creation myths.
Many religions do not concern themselves with creation of the world as such. But from the point of view of this thread, they would still be pertinent because their philosophies do cover mankind’s origins.
Should the course be arranged with the religions in alphabetical order? Or chronologically by their inception? By the number of followers in the U.S.A.? Or worldwide followers?
We could close the course with a listing of some of the by-gone religions, with their creation myths. After all, as far as the beginning of everything, their faith-based reasons are as valid as the faith-based reasons of a New Age Christian.
Besides the teaching of evolution in a regular science class, this class may be allowed to cover the way Christian Extremists have problems with Darwinian evolution. This is not a slam on Christians in general (I’m one myself)
Feel free to add or subtract as needed. Maybe it should possibly make it a full year course, as there are so many religions out there. Or maybe make it a full year course to cover each myth more fully.

 

[buckiprof]

brutu - The first line of the article you found invalidates the entire article since it is wrong. What is taught is that present day humans and apes had a common ancestor. The claims about Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are also incorrect. While it is strongly believed that present day humans may have been able to reproduce with them, they were distinct. I enjoy most of your posts but I do not think you are playing a devil's advocate role. By reading your posts, it appears that you are a creationist, not pursuing things from a philosophical viewpoint.

Then shouldn't related theories be taught in religion/philosophy classes as well? Especially those theories that are equally fairy-talish, such as "Big Bang." Otherwise, I don't understand why would receive preferential ditinguishment in a scientific environment.

Quite simply, one is science and the other is not. I did not refer to creationism as fairy-talish. But I will say that it is not based on science which is why it shouldn't be taught in the science classroom. Similarly, in a philosophy class (where creationism could be taught) I would advocate keeping evolution out of there.

If I remember correctly, many of the time items listed in the Bible were never intended to be taken literally. I believe those items were intentionally exaggerated to make the stories appear to be less defined so that the people could pass the information to each other without being persecuted.

I agree with this. The Bible is a collection of stories written circa 2000 years ago to help people at that time deal with things they couldn't understand. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is a primary function of religion; to help people deal with that which that don't understand. Even today, when a tradegy happens it is so much easier to say "They are in a better place now" or "It's all part of God's plan". In cases like this, it is easy to see how religion can be considered an opiate.

I can offer a lot of scientific proof that many of the events in the bible DID take place, such as the flood referred to earlier in this thread. I don't believe it is possible to prove or disprove conclusively whether Noah existed or had an ark (and don't really feel it is relevant to this argument), but the world of science does admit that at one time in the not too distant past, there was a massive, world-wide flood.

Please share a reliable source about the world-wide flood. I do recall seeing a show several years ago that tried to scientifically explain some of the stories in the Bible, such as the Red Sea parting. Many did have a scientific explanation. But that does not prove that God exists.

 

[lvbuckeye]

lvbuckeye:

... yada yada.. the Myth of Noah's Ark... yada yada...

call me crazy, but if pretty much the same 'myth' occurs in many vastly different cultures, isn't there a slight chance that it may have some validity? just a question...

Okay, one last time, and then i will sincerely try to stop posting on this subject:

Evolution's basic premise, is that through some sort of genetic mutations, or gene pools, or allelle anomalies, or whatever the hell is en vogue in the scientific world to call it, life went from simple, single celled organisms, to what we see in the world today, correct? man supposedly 'evolved' from apes, correct? a man is a more complex life form than an ape, correct?

now, this is where it gets tricky, and this is where you proponets of evolution get sidetracked and slam me on some bullshit rather than answering my question...

if, in EVERY SINGLE CASE LISTED IN WHICH A 'SPECIES' ADAPTS, THE SUBSEQUENT GENE POOL BECOMES SMALLER, AND THEREFORE, BY DEFINITION, LESS COMPLEX, WHERE DOES THE 'EXTRA' NEW INFORMATION COME FROM???

or

IF INFORMATION IS ALWAYS SUBTRACTED, AND NEVER ADDED (once again, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics) WHERE DID THAT 'EXTRA' or 'new' or added, if you will, INFORMATION COME FROM???

easy answer: it doesn't come from anywhere. why? because man has ALWAYS been man, since the history of civilization, and will always continue to be man... there are no 'missing links' because there was never any transitionary forms of half-man, half-ape. nor are there any other transitionary forms for that matter. birds have ALWAYS been birds, lizards have ALWAYS been lizards, fish have ALWAYS been fish, and so on... you don't believe me? CHECK THE FOSSIL RECORD! THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE DOCUMENTED CASE OF A TRUE (i.e. undenyable) TRASITIONARY FORM FOUND FOR ANY ANIMAL. NOT ONE FISH. NOT ONE BIRD. NOT ONE 'SUB-HUMAN' NOTHING. NADA. got it? you name one, and i will post evidence to deny it. period. (BTW, this is a challenge.)

you say that i can't count on my 'Faith' as a reason to belive in Creation? well, then, my friends, what else besides 'faith' do you have in order to believe in a supposed process that is flat out, 100% contradictory to the Laws of Nature and Physics?

 

[lvbuckeye]

But that does not prove that God exists.

boy, it would really suck to be you if you're wrong, huh? what, does God have to literally kick you in your ass for you to get it?

do yourself a favor: get in your car. drive far away from any city or any man made lights. (do this at night). stop your car. get out. LOOK UP! if you think what you see is all a random act of who the hell knows what, and we are all here because of that random act, then, well, i don't even know what to say to you...

Psalms 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. 12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

 

[BrutuStrength]

brutu - The first line of the article you found invalidates the entire article since it is wrong. What is taught is that present day humans and apes had a common ancestor. The claims about Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are also incorrect. While it is strongly believed that present day humans may have been able to reproduce with them, they were distinct...

I noticed the first line when I found the article, but I didn't want to intentionally alter or fail to properly disclose the information that I was providing as a response. So once we agree to get past the first statement, and accept it in more proper terms of Evolution being that man and apes descended from a common ancestor, I am still confused regarding the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals. I would appreciate an explanation as to what is implied when you use the term "distinct." Does the fact they were "distinct" rule out the possibility of reproduction with them or not (or is this still unknown)? I am not trying to be a smart-alec, but I would appreciate an explanation as to what is implied when you use the term "distinct" and it's significance. I truely appreciate your non-combative, well-reasoned posts.

I enjoy most of your posts but I do not think you are playing a devil's advocate role. By reading your posts, it appears that you are a creationist, not pursuing things from a philosophical viewpoint....

So now you're calling me out, huh... that's OK. I am actually not absolutely certain where I side in this matter. Like others, I am a Christian, but I'm also a very logical being. My education provided me with a business degree that did not require much in terms of science. I am presently an administrator of computer systems and deal with logical correlations between physical and virtual environments constantly. I'd like to believe what the Bible teaches is accurate, however, I believe that parts of it are overly simplified in their descriptions (such as 7 days and nights.) There is also part of me that would like to believe what science teaches is correct, since it helps to demonstrate things in factual and evidenciary terms that help to satisfy my quest for logical reasoning. In truth, I understand the reasoning and skepticism supplied from parties on both sides of this issue. If I were to try and pinpoint where I'm at now, then I might say that I'm leaning towards "Intelligent Design." I was not even aware of this theory until researching answers related toward's my advocating a well-reasoned opposition to the evolutionists. I haven't read through the entire theory, but it seems to be a fairly well-reasoned medium between Creationism and Evolution. I think this also best describes where I was as at in my own personal evaluation of this subject.

Quite simply, one is science and the other is not. I did not refer to creationism as fairy-talish...

No you didn't refer to it in that manner, I believe that it was stated that way by BuckeyeSoldier in an earlier thread.

But I will say that it is not based on science which is why it shouldn't be taught in the science classroom. Similarly, in a philosophy class (where creationism could be taught) I would advocate keeping evolution out of there..

This is the point of discussion that I believe provides more of the "philosophical" point that I had alluded to earlier. By default, "Big Bang" has no more factual basis directly associated with it than does Creationism or "Intelligent Design." In particular, Intelligent Design parallels portions of Big Bang, the primary difference is that some form of divine influence structures the shaping of creation into a logical and workable manner. The inclusion of divine influence (even though it is never stated to be God, Allah, or any other defined form of divinity) automatically excludes it from being deemed scientifically viable. In reality, however, it is just as plausible as Big Bang, if not more so. To put things in an equal perspective Big Bang and Intelligent Design should be taught in the same subject grouping, be it science or philosophy, but neither should have more perceived correctness associated with them from a scientific rationale.

I agree with this. The Bible is a collection of stories written circa 2000 years ago to help people at that time deal with things they couldn't understand. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is a primary function of religion; to help people deal with that which that don't understand. Even today, when a tradegy happens it is so much easier to say "They are in a better place now" or "It's all part of God's plan". In cases like this, it is easy to see how religion can be considered an opiate...

I've seen some of the shows that demonstrate how people under duress or extreme hardship have a more activity in the area of the brain that thinks about God. I can see where it could be considered to have "opiate" qualities, but there's also a possibility that such a mechanism was engineered into the human body to provide comfort and reassurance from God in times of need. To state that the thought of God and heaven are best used for providing comfort to people while grieving seems to trivialize religion as a whole.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

i know i couldnt help myself... its an addiction...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.nature.ca/notebooks/images/archaeop.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/archaeo.htm&h=300&w=263&sz=27&tbnid=eMhnke2bnJgJ:&tbnh=110&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbird%2Bdinosaur%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8

there ya go, this is your missing link between dinasaurs and birds.

and the fact that the flood took place in so many cultures PRIOR to the bible lies shows that they are just stealing folk tales... not the othe way around...

yes, the stars are beautiful, the flowers are beautiful, nature is beautiful.... but if it looked any different and we still grew up expecting it to look the way it did instead of how it does now would we still not PERCIEVE it to be beautiful?


i already told you that MUTATION is often the cause for genetic material being added.. ie a freak.. a miscreant.. and the THEORY goes that if that creature is better suited for surival it will breed and pass this new information onward...

neandertals are NOT HUMANS, and we are not even considered to be decendants from them, rather a seperate branch of evolution... obviously they were your gods mistake..

we do not KNOW that man evolved from apes, that is just the most plausible theory we have at the moment.. science will change with our information..

religion never changes, even if it is PROVED wrong it takes years to get anyone to admit it, often times with severe consequences... and its that thought process of being stubborn and refusing to accept reality that has cost our race centuries of developement...

did you know blood transfusions were outlawed for nearly 800 years because the church said it was evil?

 

[BrutuStrength]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.nature.ca/notebooks/images/archaeop.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/archaeo.htm&h=300&w=263&sz=27&tbnid=eMhnke2bnJgJ:&tbnh=110&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbird%2Bdinosaur%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8

there ya go, this is your missing link between dinasaurs and birds...

...Or maybe this is another hoax like Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC351.html
Claim CC351:

The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx specimen were forged. Evidence for this is that

• The feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.
• The surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas.
• Slightly elevated "blobs" appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab.
• The feathers show "double strike" impressions.
• Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.
• Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen.
• Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.
• An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.

These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil.

This next link is an article about another animal found in China that was proven to be fake as well, after it had been shown in National Geographic. Apparently, it was part bird fossil and part reptile fossile.
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/arap.html

 

[Woody1968]

Brutu: Why don't you post the whole page! It says that the claim is false. Jeez, can't people read?

Index to Creationist Claims, <small>edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2004</small>​

Previous Claim: CC341 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CC352​

<hr size="1"> Claim CC351:

The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx specimen were forged. Evidence for this is that

• The feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.
• The surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas.
• Slightly elevated "blobs" appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab.
• The feathers show "double strike" impressions.
• Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.
• Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen.
• Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.
• An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.

These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil. Source:

Watkins, R. S., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L. M. Spetner, 1985a. Archaeopteryx - a photographic study. British Journal of Photography 132: 264-266.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985b. Archaeopteryx - a further comment. British Journal of Photography 132: 358-359,367.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985c. Archaeopteryx - more evidence. British Journal of Photography 132: 468-470.
Hoyle, Fred, N. C. Wickramasinghe and R. S. Watkins, 1985. Archaeopteryx: Problems arise -- and a motive. British Journal of Photography 132(6516): 693-695,703.
Hoyle, Fred and C. Wickramasinghe, 1987. Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.
Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz, 1988. Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.
Response:

1. There are six other Archaeopteryx fossils discovered at different times and places under well documented conditions. Five of these also have unequivocal feathers [Charig 1986; Wellnhofer 1993]. On the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue under the bones and are overlain with dendrites that sometimes form within bedding planes, precluding the possibility of forgery [Charig 1986]. In addition, several other feathered dinosaurs have been discovered.
2. Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together [Charig 1986]. These fractures are invisible to normal vision; a nineteenth-century forger would not even know they existed, much less be able to replicate them.
3. Lack of detailed impressions on the counterslab is due to the fossilization method. The Archaeopteryx body came to rest on a flat surface without sinking into it much; then sediments settled around and over it, containing the bulk of the fossil which projected above the sea floor. When the shale split along the original seafloor surface, the upper part contained the bulk of the fossil, while the lower part showed only the impression which the body made on the sea floor. This pattern is typical of Solnhofen fossils. [Swinburne 1988]
4. The difference in surface texture in the area of the fossils is due to the impression of the animal body [Charig 1986].
5. The elevated "blobs" are natural irregularities. There are none which don't have corresponding depressions on the counterslab. The two halves fit together well except where one surface has been destroyed by subsequent preparation. [Charig 1986]
6. The double-strike impressions are not imprints; they are underlying feathers. A double-strike impression would be harder to forge than a single impression.
7. The hairline cracks are infilled with calcite both in the original slab and in the area Spetner claims was cement. Plus, the cracks match between the slab and counterslab [Charig et al. 1986]. None of this would be possible if the cracks formed after a cement layer were applied.
8. Differences in appearance are due to different resolutions used in the SEM photography [Nedin 1997].
9. The unknown materials are clearly not within the limestone matrix [Spetner et al. 1988, Figs. 4b-f]. The carbonate grains on top of them are simply dust.
10. The chemical differences between the fossil and non-fossil areas are likely due to residues of preservatives applied to the fossil areas. [Nedin 1997]

Links:

Nedin, Chris, 1997. On Archaeopteryx, astronomers, and forgery. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html References:

1. Charig, Alan et al., 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science 232: 622-625.
2. Nedin, Chris, 1997. (see above)
3. Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz, 1988. Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.
4. Swinburne, N. H. M., 1988. The Solnhofen Limestone and the preservation of Archaeopteryx. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3(10): 274-277.
5. Wellnhofer, P., 1993. The seventh specimen of Archaeopteryx from the Solnhofen Limestone. Archaeopteryx 11: 1-47.

Further Reading:

Majka, Christopher, 1992. Archaeopteryx - is this bird a fraud? New Brunswick Naturalist http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html

 

[BrutuStrength]

Brutu: Why don't you post the whole page! It says that the claim is false. Jeez, can't people read?

My bad... Although I am able to read, I didn't read all the way through or I would have posted it in it's entirety. I haven't tried to conceal anything, that's why I provide links. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Woody1968]

No problem. I just didn't wan't people to be misled. Not everyone will follow a link.

 

[BuckeyeInTheBoro]

did you know blood transfusions were outlawed for nearly 800 years because the church said it was evil?

Whereas science is always quick to accept the facts as proven and move in the logical direction as dictated by the evidence?

Read up on Dr. Ignac Semmelweis

We are all human and therfore flawed. Any Christian can tell you that. It is God that we believe to be infallible, not man and therfore not religion.

Yes, people have used religion to argue incorrectly in the past and they will do so in the future. People will use science in the same manner. The problem isn't with God or science... it's with people.