I think people who use religion to do bad things would find another reason if they didn't have religion. People do bad things for money all the time, and generally they get a pass.
I know two people who are homophobic and they say the bible is why they believe this. both however do shit that completely disregards everything the bible says. one brags about how he is "always getting in there" in a sexual way, he isn't even 16 yet.
.
(also I am in no way saying that all Christians are like this).
yeah there are dbags like that, but don't blame the kids, that what a lot of our horrible conservative teachers shove down our throats. I know for a fact that no kid in my class is homophobic. Heck a girl came out and everyone treats her the same and she's still "popular". There are two types of teacher at my school. Conservative, and not crazy. All my teachers are Christians, but they are mostly ok. Acting like normal people and not judging and joking around and being normal. It's these few horrid teachers that screw with the minds of all their kids and some of the students that are dumb enough to listen to them.
I am a young earth creationist and I need to have a higher standard and be able to defend what I believe since most folks don't believe this way. I need to think harder to support what I believe.
I respect your right to do this... but it make me a little bit crazy to here someone say they disagree with science. It's not a belief. It's testable explanations.
^^^^ yeah you can disagree with scientists because there are many things we don't understand well enough for us to know anything for sure about them, so we only have theories that aren't necessarily true. Scientists are constantly disagreeing
As a young earth creationist myself, I believe science is a useful tool for explaining the facts we can observe, but science itself cannot explain what happened in history; someone has to have a world view to interpret how the facts could have originated. For the beginning of the universe, one can only speculate and believe in theories. Evolution should not to be confused with science. The old-age-Earth world view is unscientific, and frequently requires explanations that are outside the natural laws.
You're commenting on a year old religious debate but what you said was stupid enough I feel the need to correct you. Actually, in the scientific community and the real world outside your bubble of religious propoganda and willful ignorance, evolution is FACT. you can't deny the evidence. And the notion that "science can't explain the beginning of the universe" is stupid. Not too long ago we barely understand what those lights in the sky are. If science keeps progressing we will learn much about our universe's origin and may be able to fully understand it some day. Ps "World view to interpret facts?" That's called "confirmation bias. Lol. "Explanations outside the natural laws" are just dumb superstitions to make us feel better about what we don't understand.
The only scientifically factual evolution is micro-evolution (offspring is the same kind of animal; e.g. chihuauas and german shepherds are both dogs). The other five types of evolution, including common ancestry, are not observable, testable, or repeatable. These beliefs can be used to make predictions about where we may find certain fossils in different places, just like the Creationary Noah's Flood world view, but I think the Creationary model fits many observable facts much better than evolution. On a side note, doesn't evolution's first life form require abiogenesis, which goes against the natural laws?
If you concede that microevolution is valid, how can you deny evolution as a whole? Say a mutation causes a lizard to be a different color, but that color allows it to blend in with its enviroment better, helping it hide from predators. This makes it more likely the lizard will live long enough to procreate and pass on its genes. There's a chance it's genes will keep spreading, and the entire species may eventually be that color. With enough changes like that over incredibly long time period, an entirely new species can be created. That's how evolution works through natural selection, and there's lots of evidence for it. Please tell me exactly how you don't think it's observable. And on abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob
I don't know anything about abiogenesis but this is a good resource. And even if it's completely wrong, I know many religious people that think the animals were created by God and then they evolved because evolution is undeniable.
Thanks for the link. It was a bit wordy for me, but insightful. Abiogenesis is still not observable science, since self-replicating polymers (and abiogenesis in general) have never been observed arising in nature. It is a belief. The macro-evolution example requires many mutations which add more information than what the previous lizards had, and that these mutations are beneficial. There is not one observed example of a mutation creating more genetic information. All the mutations we have observed involve either losing or corrupting existing genetic information. Macro-evolution is a belief. Talking about "religious people," I can speak for Christianity at least, that the Bible's account in the book of Genesis is completely contrary to the evolutionary myth, so those religious people clearly have not done enough research on the topic. The Bible says 6 literal 24hr days (Hebrew word "yom") ~6000 years ago and that sin caused death, evolution says billions of years and death before sin.
evolution is a constantly ongoing thing. the sum it up extremely simply its just how life adapts to its surroundings. You can believe all life arose 6000 years ago and that evolution has been happening since. And saying Catholics that believe in evolution "haven't done enough research" is incredibly arrogant. I know many such people that are very devout and has careers in science and know a lot about biology and such. Lots of people don't interpret the creation account to be literal 24 hour days. Also, why do you insist on vaguely labeling everything as a "belief" as if that makes those ideas equal? I can believe that there are deers on mars- even though there is no evidence for it and a mountain of evidence against it. I can also "believe" that evolution is real but there's a mountain of evidence in favor of it and it is regarded as fact by any self respecting educated scientist of any related subjects.
I'll try to get back to you and edit this comment to reply to your specific points once ive done more research. like i said, i know little about abiogenesis
I would argue that there is a mountain of evidence for creation and against evolution, so this gets us nowhere.
Evolution is not synonymous with science or biology. Anyone can be a great biologist or physician or chemist without believing in evolution. Such scientists include Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin.
http://creation.mobi/creation-scientists
I'm getting a bit tired of this debate, but thanks for sharing your views on the issue, and listening to mine.
Those scientists didn't know everything we do now about the subject. And we could go on with this and I actually could cite a lot of that evidence I keep mentioning but I can tell I'm not goin to change your mind and vice versa.
.
(also I am in no way saying that all Christians are like this).
I don't know anything about abiogenesis but this is a good resource. And even if it's completely wrong, I know many religious people that think the animals were created by God and then they evolved because evolution is undeniable.
Evolution is not synonymous with science or biology. Anyone can be a great biologist or physician or chemist without believing in evolution. Such scientists include Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin.
http://creation.mobi/creation-scientists
I'm getting a bit tired of this debate, but thanks for sharing your views on the issue, and listening to mine.