Is God real post your thoughts!

[Obtaurian]

Eggggsactly. Which is why teaching Creationism or Evolution can lead to big [cabbage].

 

 

 

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find some evidence that we all flew down here in spaceships twelve months ago. Maybe that's what made volcanoes.

 

 

 

RAWHATHORAWWWGH.

 

 

 

I just don't think either should be taught in detail in general biology classes - or people should have the right to take two classes, or something.

 

 

 

What? No, sorry. Just no. If you're in a science class, you will be taught evolution because it is pretty much proven. Sure, it is the "theory of evolution" but retroviral DNA is enough to make it ridiculous to deny it. I mean, I don't even know how it has got this far. There is literally a MASS of evidence for evolution. Evolution should be taught in science class along with gravity.

 

 

 

Creationism.. I mean really? I have never, EVER, heard even one slightly compelling argument for it.

 

 

 

I don't care if it causes conflict between parents and teachers. If you are in a science class you should be taught evolution because it is pretty much proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Creationism should be taught about in religious class. And remember, I'm not talking about cosmology/origin of life here, we're only discussing EVOLUTION.

 

So what, you want it your way on the highway and screw others views? Their views should be respected, even if there is slim to no proof of Creationism, it doesn't mean that we should just not listen to what other's want. I'm not really a huge fan of either of them being taught in schools, not totally against it though. I think that they should teach evolution, as they already do...atleast in my school >_>, but not say that it is right or wrong (Which again is what my school does and it works out fine). I'm atheist's, but I don't think we shouldn't listen to religious people just because we think that they're wrong. They think that atheist's are wrong and they want creationism taught, that's where both sides are alike.

 

 

 

And don't make some long post about how "but yeah creationism is wrong!" because that's not the point.

 

 

 

Yeah, but I really like ice cream sandwiches, and I swear that they're the best food EVER. I feel that they should only serve ice cream sandwiches in schools.

 

 

 

But sadly, I'm not going to get what I want, just because I want it. I'd have to somehow prove that all other food items are inferior to the mighty sandwich. This is impossible.

 

 

 

Creationism is my ice cream sandwich. Evolution is the bean and cheese burrito that you secretly love.

 

 

 

EDIT: But besides the horrible analogy, yes. Screw the other views because there is no evidence to support them.

 

EDIT2: OK, that sounded mean. What I mean to say is, we can't teach our children creationism when there's no scientific proof whatsoever. This is really a moot argument, and has no doubt been discussed and beaten to death within this very thread.

[venomai]

A better analogy may be introducing the "Stork Theory" of human reproduction into science class as to respect other people's views, even though there may be no credible evidence to suggest that human babies arrive via stork delivery.

 

 

 

Evolution has many years of strong scientific evidence in support of it. There is no better place for it to be taught than in science class.

[Shinjula]

Its not a matter of not teaching Creationism,its a question of where in the syllabus it should appear, its not science its part of comparative religion so obviously scientists are gonna object when Christians tell us it should be taught in science.

 

 

 

Obviously Creationism is a belief for a lot of people, so needs to be taught, but in no way is it science.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Why teach Creationism in a science room?

 

 

 

Can someone please explain to me how Creationism fits in with the scientific method?

[Saru Inc]

And this brings meback to my earlier statement, that no science about the world beginnings should be taught. Not Creationism, or Evolution. It cuases too many fights with parents against school boards and such.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't Evolution be taught in a science class? Would you be offended it the church wasn't allowed to teach Creationism? We should be exposed to more points of views and be open minded about it instead of censoring education.

 

 

 

No one is forced to go to church.

 

 

 

And, as I said, Evolution and Creationism is opinion. And also, if they want to eachEvolution, that's fine, but in a special class. And Evolution is not the same as gravity, because no one disputes it.

 

 

 

GW, how does Evolution fit in?

[Ginger_Warrior]

GW, how does Evolution fit in?

 

Well considering the Theory of Evolution was the first example of the scientific method in practice...

 

 

 

Let's look at the conditions for the scientific method, shall we?

 

[hide=]1) Evidence must be:

 

a) Observable

 

B) empirical

 

c) measurable

 

 

 

2) Data must be collected through:

 

a) Observation

 

B) Experimentation

 

 

 

3) Inquiry:

 

a) Follows a clear order: Collect data first -> hypothesis based on data later.

 

B) Is objective, not subjective

 

c) Aims to reduce any biased interpretation

 

d) (and methodology) Must be documented and archived for other researchers to examine, scrutinise and reproduce the results gained.[/hide]

 

How does the Theory of Evolution not fit in with those conditions?

[venomai]

Shinjula -

 

Why does every belief need to be taught?

 

 

 

It might be useful to, in the context of a World History class, touch on the beliefs of Christianity, Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism and even the Mayan religions in order to illustrate the diversity of human thought, but it would not be practical (for the curriculum or the child's memory) to teach of each specific belief in detail. It would also not be suitable to place emphasis on the validity or importance of particular beliefs over others without adequate reasoning for doing so (e.g. empirical evidence).

 

 

 

And, as I said, Evolution and Creationism is opinion.

 

It can be said that 1 + 1 = 2 is an opinion in the same way that 1 + 1 = 4 is an opinion. The latter opinion, though, is clearly incorrect.

 

 

 

And also, if they want to eachEvolution, that's fine, but in a special class. And Evolution is not the same as gravity, because no one disputes it.

 

It is taught in a special class: that of science.

 

 

 

Both evolution and gravity fall under scientific theories. The specifics of both are disputed by scientists world-wide, even if their premises have been well-established as factual.

 

 

 

GW, how does Evolution fit in?

 

Evolution is a well tested scientific theory that uses the scientific method. It is because of this that it, along with theories of gravity, biology, etc. are taught in science class.

 

 

 

Creationism has not been tested nor is it a scientific theory -- it is quite simply a loose collection of non-scientific beliefs regarding a supernatural explanation for the origin of life.

[Shinjula]

Shinjula -

 

Why does every belief need to be taught?

 

 

 

Not every belief needs to be taught, but Creationism is very interesting precisely because of the way it is being used as a political tool by the religious right in order to influence schools, its part of what's known as the wedge strategy, actually I would think more than Comparative Religion it should be taught in Politics, particularly with emphasis on the methodology of "Teach the Controversy".

 

 

 

But in terms of comparative religion its still a very interesting phenomena as its one of the few beliefs which is trying to combbat rationalism from the inside.

 

 

 

And finally it should be taught because frankly our children should be warned against this sort of thing.

[Shinjula]

And the only reason no one disputes gravity is because we've had four hundred years since the revelations of newton for the church to sort out their problems and get on board with the fact that its true, instead of the hundred and fifty years since darwin - it takes them a while to get on board with these sorts of things.

 

 

 

For some reason a hundred and fifty years worth of evidence showing that in essence the theory is complete correct and tested to be true (I say in essence as there are always tweaks to be made to any theory despite every tiny tweak being taken by those against the theory as proof it is wrong *sigh*) isnt enough evidence.

[user1991]

Its not a matter of not teaching Creationism,its a question of where in the syllabus it should appear, its not science its part of comparative religion so obviously scientists are gonna object when Christians tell us it should be taught in science.

 

 

 

Obviously Creationism is a belief for a lot of people, so needs to be taught, but in no way is it science.

 

 

 

Exactly. I have no problem with creationism being taught in religious classes, where it belongs.

 

 

 

All these extreme Christians - they play the NOMA card all the time. ALL THE TIME. "God doesn't need evidence because it is a metaphysical, not scientific claim" etc etc etc. If they can argue stuff like this, why can they not realise that creationism isn't scientific in any way, shape or form?

 

 

 

It is a science class. Evolution is pretty much proven beyond any reasonable doubt (retroviral DNA, fossil record etc.) There is no way, NO WAY that creationism should be taught in science class. It isn't science.

[Lenticular_J]

Why does every belief need to be taught?

 

Same reason why I'm drowned in a brief few minutes of next to every subject you can think of. Shedding ignorance.

 

 

 

Is it really necessary for me to learn what alliteration is? No, but I am and ... Andy.

[BlueLancer]

 

And, as I said, Evolution and Creationism is opinion.

 

 

 

Evolution can't be, and isn't, in any way classified as an "opinion".

 

 

 

As a scientific theory, evolution in human beings, plants, animals is proven beyond doubt. You will literally fail your science or biology classes in school if you refuse to acknowledge basic tenants of advanced science.

 

 

 

In no way does scientific evidence about the world conflict with most religious views. I hate to quote the pope Benedict again, but that kind of thinking is "absurd" and absolutely irrational. There is nothing opinionated or unproven about evolution, you are misunderstanding the term scientific 'theory' (in which 'theory' does not mean a hunch or guess like already explained multiple pages back)

 

 

 

Gravity is not an opinion. The Earth being round is not an opinion. Evolution in living organisms is not an opinion. Preferring to eat apples over oranges, or liking the color blue over the color red is an opinion. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what 'opinion' refers to.

 

 

 

Here is the definition of fact if you were wondering, which is the polar opposite of an opinion or belief:

 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 87&page=56

 

 

 

A fact means something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples.

[tryto]

 

 

 

So, you are saying to me, that you have very little faith. You can't move a mountain.

 

 

 

Who says a mustard seed has little faith? :P Sorry, had to say it.

 

Hate to start another war over semantics here, but faith as small as a mustard seed can mean faith the size of a mustard seed or faith which is equal to the faith that a mustard seed has. Which goes into interpretation. I know you keep saying we're choosing which parts of the Bible to interpret literally and which to interpret figuratively, so I'll admit it. We are. But that's the way it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure your not going to understand what I am trying to say, but some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken figuratively. Numerous parables show this. When Jesus says mustard seed, he's refering to the whole context that comes with it. It'd be like me using an idiom now. No one who doesn't know the context/reference would know what I was talking about. I don't have time to explain it now, but I could if I did and you cared to hear it (not that you'd listen). Oh, and I believe I can move mountains. (not figuratively) On my own time, not yours.

 

 

 

Jesus is not going round about. He straight out says that nearly everyone with faith can do it. It's not like it's Revelations here, he's straight out saying it in very plain language. A mustard seed is very very small physically, and I would think it not a hard wager to state that inanimate objects don't have very much faith, so either way the point is the same.

 

Either you say that Jesus is LYING, or that you, nor anyone, has that much faith.

 

 

 

 

 

How can you justify worshiping a book that is supposed to guide your life, that says that you must obey ALL of it, and yet pick and choose what to believe in? Why can't I say that the 10 commandments are figurative and I can make as many graven images as I want, but you can dance around this with the same argument?

 

I am not saying Jesus is LYING.

 

I do not pick and choose what to believe in. Those are your words and your words alone. Why can't you say that the 10 commandments are figurative? Because the context the 10 commandments were given in had nothing to indicate that that they should be taken figuratively. This, on the other hand, does. Can faith be measured and quantified in any way that would indicate size? No. Therefore, you must look for deeper meaning in the figurative possibilities. Besides, Jesus was directly addressing the disciples at this point. They had repeatedly shown that they were of little faith. They had seen Jesus perform miracles over and over yet still doubted him whenever he was about to perform one or said something they didn't understand. Then there is the idea that we are making a comparison to the mustard seed's own faith, which can be looked at in a different metaphorical light. The mustard seed, as you said a very very small object, must have a large faith that it will receive all the water and nutrients it needs to grow. If we assume it does in the metaphorical sight, we need only look to the spreading nature of the mustard plant. In those days, mustard plants were looked upon as weeds because they spread so quickly and could so quickly take over a plot of land. Seen in this light, the spreading of the plant is a result/representation of the seed's (very large) faith.

 

 

 

Or, you could just go with the fact that the disciples did, indeed, have very little faith. As for myself, I already said that I believe I can move mountains (again, not figuratively).

 

 

 

On the subject of gay rights, sure the Bible says it is wrong, and I believe that. But that does not mean that we should punish those people or take away any human rights because they are homosexual.

 

 

 

Once again to you Tryto, I believe in the entire Bible, I DO NOT pick and choose what to believe in. Whether or not you think that is what I am doing, that's your opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible says in very very plain NOT figurative that the only thing to do with homosexuals is to stone them to death in several places. Are you disobeying your holy text? Are you seriously going to argue that it is figurative? It says to punish people. Literally. And so it was done.

 

 

 

Naturally, I think that your moving mountains story is a load of crock. Do it, and I'll believe you. Until then, I can do the same with power from Vishnu, but I won't show you. Prove me wrong, please.

 

 

 

I know you are picking and choosing what you believe is figurative and what is literal(and therefore what to believe in and follow and not), from the sheer fact that you are not Jewish, you eat pork and shellfish, you wear polyester, and you don't stone adulterers and homosexuals.

 

 

 

 

 

~Mustard seed argument:

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha. You just put up 1) and argument that Jesus says that you must have a large amount of faith to do something, because he was talking about a seed which grows a lot. That breaks his parable. The point of his parable, that is obviously very plain to see, is that you only need a small amount of faith to do a large miracle. If he says you need a lot of faith to do so, his parable does not make any sense and doesn't teach anything.

[warri0r45]

Saruman, you have to appreciate the reality of the situation here. Evolution isn't just another opinion among the crowd of people saying "I reckon this is how it happened...". It's now a centuries old scientific theory that has been tried and tested against the evidence to be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. It's currently at the stage such that the overwhelming majority of biologists and earth scientists (paleontologists, geologists, etc) accept it as the best explanation for the diversity and similarity of life. As such, it's now in all the biology text books and that's where it will stay until there's any significant challenge to the theory, which there is yet to be.

 

 

 

Not to teach evolution in a science class because people in your country may believe differently is a ridiculous retrograde step to science and simply shouldn't happen. If you were to appease the beliefs of everyone who thought different to science, then advancement would be much slower. Science is about challenging prevailing ideas by testing them against empirical reality and it so happens that the idea of creationism has been scientifically superseded by the theory of evolution. If you or any other people don't like that, then don't compromise the education of other kids. If it bothers people so much, then you always have the option of homeschooling.

[Flyingjj]

 

The Bible says in very very plain NOT figurative that the only thing to do with homosexuals is to stone them to death in several places. Are you disobeying your holy text? Are you seriously going to argue that it is figurative? It says to punish people. Literally. And so it was done.

 

 

 

Naturally, I think that your moving mountains story is a load of crock. Do it, and I'll believe you. Until then, I can do the same with power from Vishnu, but I won't show you. Prove me wrong, please.

 

 

 

I know you are picking and choosing what you believe is figurative and what is literal(and therefore what to believe in and follow and not), from the sheer fact that you are not Jewish, you eat pork and shellfish, you wear polyester, and you don't stone adulterers and homosexuals.

 

 

 

 

 

~Mustard seed argument:

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha. You just put up 1) and argument that Jesus says that you must have a large amount of faith to do something, because he was talking about a seed which grows a lot. That breaks his parable. The point of his parable, that is obviously very plain to see, is that you only need a small amount of faith to do a large miracle. If he says you need a lot of faith to do so, his parable does not make any sense and doesn't teach anything.

 

The New Testament supercedes portions of the Old Testament. Jesus preaches a gospel of non-violent love, not of stoning people. Does some of what Jesus says contradict the Old Testament? Yes, because by Jesus's coming the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled and we are placed under the gospel of the New Testament rather than under the Law of the Old Testament. Why do I not stone Adulterers and Homosexuals? Because Jesus preached a gospel of love and says "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone." I know I have sinned, so I'm not going to stone someone.

 

 

 

I can't even counter your counter to my mustard seed argument, because your writing is unclear. I'm not sure what you are trying to say exactly. This is not trying to be insulting, but I don't get what you were trying to say. As an honest question, could you restate it in more clear words? Thank you. For now, I was simply giving a couple possibilities as to what could have been meant. As I said, the most likely one was that Jesus was referring to the faith of the disciples.

 

 

 

As for moving mountains, give me enough explosives, and I'll move your mountains. :P

[Lenticular_J]

True. Perhaps if you have enough faith, you can join the Swiss Guard. And if you have even more, you can get some explosives and move some mother [bleep]ing mountains.

 

 

 

And then the mustard seeds will have their day of glory, I guess.

[Saru Inc]

 

And, as I said, Evolution and Creationism is opinion.

 

 

 

Evolution can't be, and isn't, in any way classified as an "opinion".

 

 

 

As a scientific theory, evolution in human beings, plants, animals is proven beyond doubt. You will literally fail your science or biology classes in school if you refuse to acknowledge basic tenants of advanced science.

 

 

 

In no way does scientific evidence about the world conflict with most religious views. I hate to quote the pope Benedict again, but that kind of thinking is "absurd" and absolutely irrational. There is nothing opinionated or unproven about evolution, you are misunderstanding the term scientific 'theory' (in which 'theory' does not mean a hunch or guess like already explained multiple pages back)

 

 

 

Gravity is not an opinion. The Earth being round is not an opinion. Evolution in living organisms is not an opinion. Preferring to eat apples over oranges, or liking the color blue over the color red is an opinion. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what 'opinion' refers to.

 

 

 

Here is the definition of fact if you were wondering, which is the polar opposite of an opinion or belief:

 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 87&page=56

 

 

 

A fact means something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples.

 

 

 

 

 

*sigh* I've already been over this; you're obviously not reading any of my posts. But I'll say it anyways. What I mean by opinion is, we have the same exact facts, we have the same earth, the same fossils, the same people. But based on our pressumptions, we choose to believe one way over the other. And niether side can see how the other one could be (not necesaarilly though) correct. I mean, I couldn't give a damn who didn't think God exists. For me, he does, and you know what, if I die, and I dissapear, and there really was no God, oh well.

 

 

 

And Warri0r, I understand that, I didn't mean opinions like 'peanut butter cookies are the best.'

[Range_This11]

 

And Warri0r, I understand that, I didn't mean opinions like 'peanut butter cookies are the best.'

 

Well be a little more careful when tossing around the word "opinion", then. Evolution is a proven, scientifically tested theory. Creationism is not. I think that's where this really ends. Although I'm still pulling for my favorite make-believe deity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to prove everyone on Earth wrong.

[Saru Inc]

Well, I guess you're right, but I can't seem to find a better word than opinion. :-#

[fastortoise]

Since we're on the subject of evolution...

 

in NO way evolution proves that there is no God. Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs, and whoever actually thinks Creationism is part of science is a chowderhead.

 

 

 

However, evolution does not prove the inexistant of a higher lifeform, because we still do not know how life actually began. Some ideas are being thrown around in the scientific community nowadays, but we still do not know how prokaryotic cells evolved into eucaryotic cells. It's a huge jump in this microscopic world, and until we find answers (we will), people can still argue that there is a God, and evolution would be an invalid argument to refute that claim.

[warri0r45]

Since we're on the subject of evolution...

 

in NO way evolution proves that there is no God. Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs, and whoever actually thinks Creationism is part of science is a chowderhead.

 

 

 

However, evolution does not prove the inexistant of a higher lifeform, because we still do not know how life actually began. Some ideas are being thrown around in the scientific community nowadays, but we still do not know how prokaryotic cells evolved into eucaryotic cells. It's a huge jump in this microscopic world, and until we find answers (we will), people can still argue that there is a God, and evolution would be an invalid argument to refute that claim.

 

 

 

In my experience, people rarely use evolution as an argument against the existence of a god, nor do I remember anyone using that argument here. It really just makes no sense at all; of course god and evolution can coexist.

 

 

 

As for how eukaryotic cells arose from prokaryotic cells, there is one prominent theory that goes some way to explaining that step: Endosymbiotic theory. To sum it up, it basically posits that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated as bacteria and were engulfed by another cell to form a symbiotic relationship, both such organelles gradually loosing their biological independence. I suppose it's somewhat similar how bacteria like Chlamydia or Rickettsia coexist with humans (both live within the cells of their host), but in a positive sense.

[fastortoise]

Since we're on the subject of evolution...

 

in NO way evolution proves that there is no God. Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs, and whoever actually thinks Creationism is part of science is a chowderhead.

 

 

 

However, evolution does not prove the inexistant of a higher lifeform, because we still do not know how life actually began. Some ideas are being thrown around in the scientific community nowadays, but we still do not know how prokaryotic cells evolved into eucaryotic cells. It's a huge jump in this microscopic world, and until we find answers (we will), people can still argue that there is a God, and evolution would be an invalid argument to refute that claim.

 

 

 

In my experience, people rarely use evolution as an argument against the existence of a god, nor do I remember anyone using that argument here. It really just makes no sense at all; of course god and evolution can coexist.

 

 

 

As for how eukaryotic cells arose from prokaryotic cells, there is one prominent theory that goes some way to explaining that step: Endosymbiotic theory. To sum it up, it basically posits that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated as bacteria and were engulfed by another cell to form a symbiotic relationship, both such organelles gradually loosing their biological independence. I suppose it's somewhat similar how bacteria like Chlamydia or Rickettsia coexist with humans (both live within the cells of their host), but in a positive sense.

 

 

 

Wow that's an extremely interesting theory, I wonder why I haven't heard of it before. I'll read up on it when I get up in the morning (my brain is currently on the fritz), I wonder if this theory explains why there is some DNA in the mitochondria and plastids.

[warri0r45]

Since we're on the subject of evolution...

 

in NO way evolution proves that there is no God. Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs, and whoever actually thinks Creationism is part of science is a chowderhead.

 

 

 

However, evolution does not prove the inexistant of a higher lifeform, because we still do not know how life actually began. Some ideas are being thrown around in the scientific community nowadays, but we still do not know how prokaryotic cells evolved into eucaryotic cells. It's a huge jump in this microscopic world, and until we find answers (we will), people can still argue that there is a God, and evolution would be an invalid argument to refute that claim.

 

 

 

In my experience, people rarely use evolution as an argument against the existence of a god, nor do I remember anyone using that argument here. It really just makes no sense at all; of course god and evolution can coexist.

 

 

 

As for how eukaryotic cells arose from prokaryotic cells, there is one prominent theory that goes some way to explaining that step: Endosymbiotic theory. To sum it up, it basically posits that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated as bacteria and were engulfed by another cell to form a symbiotic relationship, both such organelles gradually loosing their biological independence. I suppose it's somewhat similar how bacteria like Chlamydia or Rickettsia coexist with humans (both live within the cells of their host), but in a positive sense.

 

 

 

Wow that's an extremely interesting theory, I wonder why I haven't heard of it before. I'll read up on it when I get up in the morning (my brain is currently on the fritz), I wonder if this theory explains why there is some DNA in the mitochondria and plastids.

 

 

 

Yep, it does. Obviously mitochondria and chloroplasts have small genomes, most often circular, as is the case with bacteria. These organellular genomes also have genes encoding various products, the most conserved of which being rRNA and tRNA (I'm assuming you know a bit of molecular bio here). What's most interesting is that the ribosomal genes encode a 70S ribosome - the kind found exclusively in prokaryotes. Obviously there is no real reason for them to have such ribosomes, nor is there any real reason that I can think of as to why the mitochondria or chloroplast needs a genome in the first place.

 

 

 

There are also some other peculiar features of mitochondria, such as division by a process not unlike binary fission seen in bacteria.

[Lenticular_J]

Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs,

 

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years.

[BlueLancer]

Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs,

 

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years.

 

 

 

Not in a written form, although it comes somewhat close to the timeframe you mentioned. Earliest egyptian hieroglyphs that far outdate biblical, islamic or buddhist scripture were written 3200 BC which is over 5,000 years ago, and they often concern their local gods and descriptions on how the world was made/how gods should be worshipped.

 

 

 

In an oral form amongst primitive tribes the idea has probably been around for as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other (cave paintings and archaeologic evidence of rituals, sacrifices etc. support this)

 

 

 

Albert Einstein explained the phenomena pretty thoroughly

 

'During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods

 

 

 

*sigh* I've already been over this; you're obviously not reading any of my posts. But I'll say it anyways. What I mean by opinion is, we have the same exact facts, we have the same earth, the same fossils, the same people. But based on our pressumptions, we choose to believe one way over the other. And niether side can see how the other one could be (not necesaarilly though) correct.

 

 

 

The problem is, only proven and useful things matter in reality and the world. When you get an education at school, you can't write your personal opinion to answer a question demanding a logical and objective answer. If you refuse to believe easily proven scientific theories and facts and select religious mythology, you can't really graduate from most colleges or universities (bar religious schools or Koran colleges)

 

 

 

Not sure how many times it has to be repeated, but accepting scientific facts doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are countless religious scientists both in the present and history.