gorocks99;1016373 wrote:So, fallible in terms of fantastical events, but not (necessarily?) in teachings? I'm asking because I have a hard time reconciling the rape/slave/"women's place" parts of the bible that many Christians choose not to follow with the parts they do.

Seems to me if people believe the teachings are infallible, then they should all be followed, but if they believe certain parts are fallible, how is it to people to know which? I keep coming back to "political and social convenience" as the reason why, which doesn't jive with my concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent deity.

I Wear Pants;1016479 wrote:Show me the poll that says that more people in this country think that violence is more acceptable for children to see than the human body.

gorocks99;1016284 wrote:I believe one can look at evolution without the hypothesis of abiogensis, just as one can look at the gravity without knowing scientifically how gravity began.

And as long as this has turned into an atheist/theist discussion, I am curious to know if most theists (particularly "conservative" Christians) believe the Bible is infallible, or fallible, and why? I'm actually curious to discuss, not to bash or be derogatory/instigatory.

power i;1016806 wrote:Lol. Nothing like starting a post and coming back the next day and thinking, dang, 6 pages, that was a good one. Only to open it and find that the responses have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

power i;1016806 wrote:Lol. Nothing like starting a post and coming back the next day and thinking, dang, 6 pages, that was a good one. Only to open it and find that the responses have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

jmog;1016828 wrote:Fine, without abiogenesis, tell me how the first living thing got there. If you say alien implantation (a pretty well accepted theory by many evolutionists now, whether an accident by meteor or deliberate), then my next question is how did the first alien life start.

It has been mathematically and scientifically shown that the probability of the "primordial soup" idea of amino acids eventually coming together to make the first living cell is impossible. This is especially truer now than ever as we learn more and more about how complicated a living cell really is.

So again, I ask, where did the first life come from...

jmog;1016821 wrote:The difference is so obvious it isn't funny. We can currently observe the effects of gravity, we just don't fully understand it.

One can not observe evolution, which is why it is still more debated than gravitational theory. Also, not all gravitational theory is theory, there are parts of it that are "laws", or facts in science terms.

jmog;1016823 wrote:You are 100% false to say that not ONE kid cares about Christ on Christmas.

power i;1016878 wrote:The receptionist here at work has asked every freaking patient who has walked through the door this morning "are you ready for Christmas?" If she keeps it up, she's dead by lunch.

tcarrier32;1016843 wrote:evolution can be observed, just not in ways that satisfy everyone's needs. there was a recent study done on the variation of bacteria over 50,000 generations.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Sonofanump;1016900 wrote:Gonna off her with novicane?

sleeper;1015976 wrote:Not me personally, that's disgusting. But if people of my religion want to, why not? We'll get away with it just like the Christians and Catholics.

justcompete;1016952 wrote:So now you are saying Catholics are not Christians. Glad to see you are so well informed. Also, why are you capitalizing Catholics & Christians?
Your a joke, a large majority of Religious people do NOT impose their beliefs on others and I am quite sure you do not know the beliefs 95% of the people you meet. Yet you want to deem everyone idiots. You have a lot of class.

rmolin73;1017024 wrote:So now jews and blacks are a religion? I see that OSU degree is paying off.

Enjoy

rmolin73;1017024 wrote:So now jews and blacks are a religion? I see that OSU degree is paying off.

Enjoy

power i;1016950 wrote:No drugs, I work for a Chiropractor. I will break her neck with my bare hands.

rmolin73;1017024 wrote:So now jews and blacks are a religion? I see that OSU degree is paying off.

Enjoy

password;1016866 wrote:Yes I may have overstated my numbers, but I would think it would be about 85% or more are more interested and excited about the gifts and not religion on Christmas. You don't hear about kids getting all excited on the last day of school before the Christmas break because they are going to celebrate Christ birthday, they are excited because they will be getting a break from school and getting to open presents on Christmas morning. Unfortunately this year may be a bad year for a bunch of kids, because of parents being out of work and not having money to buy the kids gifts, but they will be just as excited on Christmas morning as the kids who are getting gifts to open because they are celebrating Christ birthday and that is all they care about.

SnotBubbles;1017166 wrote:THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CHRISTMAS!!!

password;1017184 wrote:I fixed it for you, no thanks are needed.

jmog;1016914 wrote:That study describes micro-evolution, a species mutating/changing traits over many generations. It does not describe macro-evolution, actually changing the type of life form from say bacteria to an ameoba.

Micro-evolution is not only accepted by even the most conservative scientists, but it is observable (obviously by the link). This is why it is so accepted.
Macro-evolution is not fully accepted by all scientists.

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".