This senator is smart

I highly disagree. For someone to be able to do a good job in handling complex abstract reasoning as you mentioned, they should be intelligent and well informed. There is a lot of evidence against creationism (no talking snakes, ancient fossils, etc.) and a lot more supporting evolution with the vast majority of the scientific community in favor of that theory and then for someone to say that they don't know about the most likely theory that we know right now and that a talking snake seems more plausible indicates to me that they should not be running my country

Do you agree or disagree? (Yoy say you disagree, only to put forward a host of arguments that contradict this position.)

sorry I misread your post. I read it quickly and thought that you were saying that belief in creationism is not an indicator of their abilities. In this case I completely agree with you

*clears throat* contrary to popular belief believing in creationism or anything for that matter does not make someone an idiot. Also religion and science are not mutually exclusive and should not be debated against each other but rather should be considered as working together to apply to a multitude of situations that are political, ethical, etc.

But thinking that a talking snake is more plausible than the strongest scientific theory at the moment sure doesn't convey to me that they are very smart or should be running a country

Listen I get where you're coming from and why you think it makes someone stupid but realistically I could believe that unicorns are real with no scientific evidence and it wouldn't affect my understanding about any other subject in life, scientific ones included, nor would it drastically affect my decision making. But if your opinion is that absolutely no religious people should be in any position of power then go ahead.

Thats not my opinion at all but all I'm saying is that from this snippet of information it does not seem like he is someone who should be in a position of power. Just using your example, if the only things that I knew about you was that you believed in unicorns for pretty much no reason whatsoever and that you were making extremely important decisions I wouldn't feel too good about that. Maybe what I don't know is that in every other aspect of your life you are a genius and I was wrong, but from the tiny snippet that I do know and from the fact that I don't think that the current Senate is helping the country, I am making an assumption that I would prefer somebody else who looked at things in a more objective way to take his place

Okay that makes sense to me and I can completely understand that perspective. I was under the impression that you were against all cases of religious leader and not just this specific one. I'm not educated enough about this particular situation to be able to debate his specific capability but the situation in general is somewhat familiar.

Obscured angel, please don't take this as disrespectful because I truly am not trying to start anything....
there are 6 different meanings to the word evolution. Cosmic, Chemical, Planetary/Stellar, Organic, Micro, and Macro evolution. To be considered science u must have a theory, and that theory has to be tested and observed. If it can't be tested or observed, then it's just a theory. Out of the six, Macro has been observed and tested. Macro evolution is.. for example, a long haired dog can bring forth a short haired dog, it's just tiny differences. To say evolution has a firm background, I would have to disagree, because if evolution were true all the animals that the evolution theory claims evolved from one another wouldn't be here today. It's circular reasoning, the bird evolved from the reptile, the reptile evolved from the bird.
I just feel the evo theory is a lie. That's just my opinion and it's fine to believe in it if ya want to but I just can't help but feel it's a lie

I just want to say(hopefully w/out offending anyone)evolution does not mean one thing evolved from another (such as Pikachu into raichu) and the first thing disappeared. It means that an organism has evolved into different habitats to better support their life. a better way to put it is to say that a common ancestor of the lizard and the alligator is a fish.The fish still exists today because the population of the fish as a whole didn't change, just a small portion that had been separated from the original group and survived better when it was close to land so it developed legs (keep in mind this happened over a long period of time and Darwin theory of evolution showcased this. Also this is just an example)This population could have then separated again and one half found that the bigger they were the better the chances of mating and producing offspring(the alligator)the other half found that being smaller was easier to catch bugs and prey so as to help feed their offspring(the lizard)

I understand what ur saying and I absolutely respect ur opinion...But the thing is, if it can't be tested or observed then it's just a theory(belief)

but much of it has been tested and even through some hasn't there is still more evidence for it than creationism which should have been disproven years ago by carbon dating and ancient fossils

Finally someone who can talk about this respectfully without feeling like somebody is insulting their beliefs. I'm really curious, could you show me the sources of some of that stuff like the dinosaurs above modern animals?

I'm all about being respectful, I mean what good is it to argue, that doesn't accomplish anything. This is where people might think it's made up, Dr.Dino (Kent hovind) he's a creationist. I know God's not a very popular topic for some people, but I watch his stuff, it's one of the seminar videos I found on him talking about the dinosaurs he's got links in the vids although they're kinda long. Its titled "Age of the Earth" I've found some more of those but it's been awhile since I looked em up, I'll have to keep searching. I go back and forth between creationist and evolutionist although I'm a believer in Christ. I just like to see what everyone is saying

I find everyones opinion pretty interesting. Most of the "weird" stuff you mentioned (jnorm) I found to have been false and disproved. I mean, no offense but what you said sounded more like a conspiracy theory than an actual argument with basis. Evolution would be completely disproved if only 1 fossil appeared to be magically out of place. We've found thousands. That hasn't happened yet. As for Creationism. Oh well, the Vatican has a scientist. A hardcore Christian scientist who completely disproves Creationism... So I mean... Yeah.

That's ok :) I get into those as well too. But I did find something very cool in that first video last night that you should give thought to,
The big bang. The textbooks say all the matter started out as a dot and began spinning, and then exploded. Well the question here was why do some of the planets, planets moons, and some galaxies go in different directions, If it all were spinning the same direction?..Centripetal force? The bigger question was if the universe is based off evolution why don't the laws evolve as well? I didn't know the Vatican had scientist

The Vatican does have a scientist yeah... As for the Big Bang thing, textbooks for children say the Big Bang happened like that. Some sort of explosion and stuff like that. What really happened (or scientists believe happened at least) was that a the start, all matter and space was crumbled up and then space time started expanding and physical las we're created. I won't give you a biography of the universe, but my point is that the same way textbooks tell you electrons are tiny particles circling an atom, the way they explain the Big Bang is so simplified and oh well... Wrong, that you really can't use it to base a theory on it. I suggest you look at this video: https://youtu.be/7KYTJ8tBoZ8

But yet the vid failed to explain why laws don't evolve... Ok, If the big bang happened like that. How on earth would u figure that out? Why is it that if the "universe" expanded as the video stated, are there lumpy places in space and voids? Wouldnt matter be evenly distributed...Why does ur video say expanded, the first source says "gigantic explosion", the second source I stated says "literally nothing"
- "from this state of nothingness began in a gigantic explosion" (big Bang) source HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362
- "the entire universe evolved from literally nothing" source Alan Guth & P. Steinhardt Scientific American, 1984 p.128
If matter/energy can't be created nor destroyed(1st law of thermodynamics) how did we "evolve" from literally nothing?
Oh and if the 2ND law of thermodynamics states everything turns toward disorder how can things evolve and be ok? Just curious, I know it seems like I keep it going but I just want to learn lol

Your sources are from the 1980s, not the best thing for theoretical physics. We don't know why the Big Bang happened, we will never know (probably). We wont know if some sort of God created it or where did that God come from or if it has a scientific explanation at all.
You say laws should evolve, but that makes no sense. Why should they, they are the container of the universo, whats inside them is what changed, following those rules.
Most of those voids you can find explanations to (very complex ones usually) most of them having to do with the current expansion of the universe
As for the evolution thing, it's completely unrelated to the second las of thermodynamics, why should they be opposite and contradicting? Matter will eventually spread out evenly due to randomness and space vs. In a planet called Earth species evolve due to survival of the fittest during many millenia...? Kind of a weird comparison isnt it

Regardless whether the sources are from the 80's or not doesn't mean anything because those things are still being said today. I don't understand how "we", human beings, can sit here and say things evolve over many millennia when we ourselves get less than 100yrs to live, especially when we have records going who knows how far back of Kings, explorers, more human beings that are not any different than than the people we know today? As for the second law of thermodynamics it has everything to do with what were talking about because we live, get old, die. Everything turns toward disorder. So seeing how the laws are the container of the universe, you're saying the laws wouldn't allow for change then because they themselves will not change? There's no control if it were true

- I suggest you look at the currently definitions and explanations of the Big Bang.
- Human recorded history has been here for like 5000 years, noticable evolutionary changed happen over millions and millions of years. Of course the romans we're the same as we are, it's a relatively short time for anything to happen. As for the "humana only live 100 years" thing, you seem to not understand how the theory of evolution works.
-I don't think you understand how thermodynamics work. Matter "evolves" (when no outside energy is provided), towards a balanced, spread out state (such as when ink dissolves in water and eventually spreads out through all of it). Physical laws ARE NOT MATTER. THEY DONT EVOLVE OR CHANGE. THEY ARE THE THINGS, THE SET OF RULES, THAT WE USE TO DEFINE AND UNDERSTAND WHY THINGS WORK THE WAY THEY DO.

Ok gees no need to get cappy. I'm just confused lol how has there been evolutionary change over millions and millions of years? When this is being said - " there are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how homo sapient emerged." Takahata, molecular anthropology, annual Review of ecology & systematics 1995 p. 335
And this is being said - "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether." - return of the planet of the apes, Henry Gee, nature vol. 412, July 12th, 2001 p. 131
If physical laws don't change, how could evolution even be a thing then? Because nothing would be getting better as the evo theory suggests...The only evolution we can observe is micro evolution(I said macro earlier which was my bad I got it confused), which is variations within a kind of animal, example short hair dog brings forth a long haired dog.. still a dog

Look for a YouTube channel called StatedClearly, watch the vídeos they have in English, and then come back with the actual and correct knowledge required for this debate we are having. Also, please refrain from attacking me with individual out of context quotes from the obvious minority of people against evolution? Quoting things you found on the Internet isn't always the best idea.

I wasn't attacking anyone, I was just curious about it. And you tell me to go watch YouTube videos (internet) and say quoting things you found on the internet isn't always the best idea.. great logic there. But ok that's fine if you believe in it. I was just confused about some stuff and like I said in earlier comments no need to argue, sorry if I offended you.

The videos are an intoduction to how evolution works, which, I'm really sorry to tell you, but you have no idea. I'm not quoting them to make a point, I'm giving them to you so that you have more information and you learn. Plus those videos would at least have context, unlike your quotes. (I swear while I was typing the previous comment I was thinking you would accuse my "logic" xD). You did not offend me, besides, I'm no genius, but I'm pretty sure you are just still pretty young. And if you aren't, well, it's sad to see you havent recieved the most scientific of studies, but thats okay. I highly recommend you watch those videos. I also recommend you try to think outside the box a little, and be more open minded (although you did handle it pretty well). Evolution is an extremely well based and founded theory.

I'm not telling you to go with the flow, but if you were about to cross a bridge and 97 out of the 100 who studied it told you it would collapse and kill you, you probably should listen to those 97 more than those other 3 who tell you it won't, even if you were raised to believe the bridge wouldnt collapse. I hope you understood the allegory, peace.

Ok I watched them and I got some questions

Go ahead

First off. I wanna say again, I respect your opinions. I watched all of them. I watched "what is evolution" first. 3mins into the video and all that was stated was evidence for micro evolution.....badger example father has wide paws/short claws...mother has skinny paws/long claws...offspring has wide paws/long claws. Not a problem because micro evolution out the 6 different meanings of evolution is the one we can observe and test....my question is though why was that the only example of evolution to a video on evolution? It doesn't make any sense, because people special breed dogs all the time and they keep getting the same "kind" of animal, a dog. I've got more questions for each video.

Because they dont want to make 40 minute vídeos. Watch What is Natural Selection and What is The Evidente for Evolution

Micro evolution would be a more appropriate title then wouldn't it? I watched them all and we'll get to those, I'm just going in order I watched them..next I watched chemical evolution....7mins into the video they're talking about fatty acids that grow together in hot water chambers, "similar to a living cell, but can't reproduce." So it's a non living organism(sounds like organic evolution coming into play in the video), After that the guy goes on to say the "bridge between chemical & biological evolution is non-existant" ...Then said "Scientist working hard to "test" their hypothesis"... So they haven't gotten results yet? So it's still just a theory?

You do understand, we could get a trillion fossils and it would still be a theory? General relativity is also a theory. Because it cant be tested, you cant go back in time to check. The thing is its an extremely well supported theory with a lot of evidence. Most science is theory, since getting funds or technology to actually be able to test it is either impossible or difficult.

I know we can't go back but I still don't understand why we can't observe it now, The topic of Fossils are a completely interesting conversation on there own, because people date rock layers by the fossils they find in them, and some people date fossils by which rock they're found in...how are petrified trees found in multiple layers of the earth standing up right?...when different layers of the earth are supposedly thousands to hundred thousands of years apart(nova Scotia - fossil forest, cook ville, Tennessee coal mines as some examples), back to chemical evolution..a non living organism that's similar to a living organism that can't reproduce I don't understand. How does non living matter evolve to living matter if there's no bridge for reproduction?