Pablo, you have to take it in context. There might be more evidence, but also look at the scope of Gravity vs Evolution. You're talking about 1 constant act vs. thousands to millions of years. You can't compare the two at all.

Gravity is at least evident everyday, evolution isn't. Apples and oranges.

NJ...thanks for the clarification....I dont agree with ya but I can sure as heck repect yer oppinion now..i appreciate ya.

I agree they are somewhat apples and oranges, I'm just quoting my brother here.

That said, he evidence of evolution is evident everyday. One example, when both my children where in the early birth stages they looked much more aquatic (like a tadpole) than human. Why do so many animals have DNA pieces for body parts they don't have (human and their tailbones for example).

More importantly, it exist in the fossil record that we can explore more everyday.

sidestepped

How so? Speaking of sidestepping, still waiting on your proof.

Stein's movie doesn't work for several reasons. Most important is that only .025 of one percent of the world's scientists support Creationism (or "intelligent design," if you prefer). Almost all of those scientists are fundamentalist Christians and this is the population from which Stein found his experts. Because they represent a tiny fringe minority in their field, their legitimacy as experts is highly suspect but more importantly, their fundamentalist Christian belief must be viewed as a conflict of interest in a film that is trying to present fundamentalist Christians as victims of oppression in the public education system.

How is more information and options oppressed? When I went to school I learned both. Neither was described as the truth, both were taught as possibilities. Both sides are wrong for trying to keep the other from being taught. The only ones scared are the ones that believe that educating leads to pure belief. Knowledge leads to understanding.

Pablo, every species on earth has similarities. All vertebrates have a skull, backbone, skeletal structure, but we're not related by similarities. Not once in human record has a species become something completely different. We have had species that adapted to survive, but they didn't completely change what they were.

As to the DNA, the genetic code is still largely not known. But if all life was created from the same earth, wouldn't that make the dna contain the same materials? When you post your mock drafts each season, don't you use a template. Sometimes there's past info in the coding that just isn't relevant to what's posted? All life is related, so of course there's going to be similarities and things that make you think, it doesn't mean that we were literally them thousands of years ago. Your baby and frogs baby both look like tadpoles, both become their adults, yet they've never swapped. The DNA is a hard-coded on/off switch with every possible situation.

Just as you can point out possibilities that the evidence points too, you can come up with possibilities that support the other side as well. Thats why I said I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. I have a problem with people thinking its the only possibility when its obviously not. And logic isn't always right. What was illogical 1000 years ago, man flying in machines, is logical today. Logic is based on what's understood. And for the reason that religion seems illogical to most is exactly why its so misunderstood.

This is an interesting post, thanks. I get what you are saying to some degree, but unfortunately we only have limited time to teach kids so we cannot possibly team them about every possibility for each subject. I'm sure we can both agree on that. Should we also teach them our existence from a Scientology perspective, because we could have sprung from oppressed aliens as well? Creationism can be "taught" in church, that is where it belongs, not in a science class.

I agree about your science behind DNA and agree with that. Totally logical, but why would a God not limited to those materials only choose to use them. Why wouldn't DNA vary greatly from one species to another? Sure I use a template, but I am just human and if I could just snap my fingers and make it happen I doubt I would.

You mentioned about things that 1,000 years that seemed illogical, now are logical. Bingo, that is a big problem with the Bible - it was written based on man's knowledge base 2,000+ years ago and further back for the Old Testament. A "Bible" written by God, who isn't bound by time, wouldn't be written from the perspective of man in that set time period. More logical evidence that the Bible was written by a timebound man instead of a timeless God.

Religion isn't illogical at all, it is very logical when studied from a historical perspective (just see my post about the Jesus story rip off). It is easy to see where the "beliefs" came from, how they evolved over time as religion itself evolved, and how certain religions came into prominence today. Look at who wrote the Bible, who picked what books to include and what to exclude, all the politics involved throughout the process to get to where we are today. What is illogical to me, is how when you take all those factors into account, given what we now know as a species, how faith continues to survive.

That isn't how evolution works. Which gets me to my main point:

99.9% of people that don't believe in the theory of evolution simply don't understand it.

That don't understand what it encompasses, or how it works.

Evolution has just as much evidence supporting it as gravity. It is basically a proven fact at this point.

Do you have we proof that life came from single cell organisms or that humans came from monkeys? No, but that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

There are debatable portions of the theory. For example, at what pace does evolution work? Do we have long periods of status quo, inter-sped with rapid changes, or is very gradual in nature?

But the central ideas behind it like genetic mutation, or natural selection, or species changing over time have been demonstrably proven. At this point its like arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Neither do 99% of those that do believe it...

This is the premise for Stein's film. The film specifically addresses school systems that refuse to teach intelligent design and in this regard, Stein presents intelligent design supporters as victims of oppression. It's a silly premise, which is part of the reason why the film isn't remotely worth watching.

He has always been. He is the source from which everything comes.

I contend that we are falling behind the rest of the world because we have done our best to make GOD illegal in our schools.

We lead the world until we outlawed GOD.

Why then are the countries that lead us far more atheistic?

Two things:

Blue, to your point and I've discussed this in other points or threads. The devil, or satan is the god of this world having been cast out of heaven. So he temporarily resides and affects this world we call earth. The fact that other countries that lead us are now more atheistic shows a couple of factors.

1. Most organized religions came from these countries. Catholicism, Episcopalian, Prebsbyterian, Lutheran and so on. These organized religions, over the course of time, left the 1st century teachings of Christ, and resorted to a heirarchy. In Acts 2 you see the Apostles meeting the needs of the people and doing as they were taught, and their numbers grew, and spread. But when the church centralized power and removed "the Word" from the hands of the common people, it was up to them to teach us what we needed to know. You can see a very similar process in how Muslim Clerics are teaching students in their home countries. The education levels are very low, illiteracy is around 80% or more in some areas. An uneducated group is easier to control than one who is educated and free thinking. In my opinion you are looking at a "dumbing down" of our society, in order to make us more controllable. See Detroit as a prime example: Government expenditures on housing, food, medical care are high, but education is very low. Illiteracy rate in Detroit proper was 47%, and I dare you or anyone else threaten to take away the government teet, and see what kind of firestorm happens.

2. I thought this bit of information was on topic and interesting:
What is some of the scientific evidence supporting creation?

Scientific evidence supporting creation has come from a variety of scientific disciplines, including astronomy, physics, and biology. Here are some examples.

From astronomy we have Galactic Redshifts and “Hubble’s Law,” the phenomenon whereby galaxies appear to be moving away from the Earth at speeds roughly proportional to their distance. This observation suggests that our universe is expanding outward. Scientists have extrapolated this expansion backwards through time and found that our universe appears to have popped into existence suddenly, from nowhere and for reasons unknown. It appears that our universe had a definite beginning. This is scientific evidence supporting creation.

From physics we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law says that our universe is constantly and irreversibly going from a state of order to disorder. It is as if someone wound up a clock that is now slowly unwinding. Not only did the universe begin suddenly, it has been “winding down” ever since. The fact that it was wound up in the first place contrary to the Laws of Thermodynamics is often interpreted as evidence supporting creation.

From biology we have DNA and the genetic code with its inherent language convention. Where did this digital information come from? Our universal experience is that digital codes are the products of intelligence. The fact that the blueprints for every living creature are encoded in their DNA is compelling evidence that they were initially created by an intelligent agent. This is strong scientific evidence supporting creation.