Noahs Ark Debate

They HAVE to teach that as it is the best model we have for explaining our existence. I've learned it since 3rd Grade" That is good to know.. I would like to know how long your school has been teaching evolution. Mine didn't and I hear a lot of people saying that we need to "teach the controversy" It made me very happy to hear that you were not being denied a proper education because people have their undies in a bunch and I don't really understand why.. except I find it hard to believe you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to believing in evolution while maintaining Christian status.. Richard Dawkins put it "You can't have it both ways". The Christians that do not believe in evolution do so because they think that Genesis is our origin, they know the two concepts do not co exist. It is the Christians that believe in Evolution that are deluded. Evolution tears out the very foundation of the Christian house of cards. It leaves zero room for the Adam and Eve/original sin myth and pummels the Noah's Ark exodus myth! Without original sin Jesus sacrificed himself in vein and we end up with: "single celled amoeba evolved into simpletons that started singing Jingle Bells for Jesus.. Not to Knock the teachings Jesus brings but the Bibles a good read like Steven Kings Needful things"- Sage Francis I will say that you surprised me with your rant.. reminds me of a younger me *tear* anyways, that was not meant to be demeaning in any way.. you have got a good hold on things from what I can tell, except for the whole Christianity thing, but I don't blame you... you grew up in a culture that embraces the Christian church.. just be glad you didn't grow up in Saudi Arabia (especially if you were female) "What principles do I believe in?". The answer: the ones in the Bible. Should others live like me? I think so You made an interesting case about the communication breakdown among different cultures. I would like to use that example to illustrate the complexity of this system. When you say that the bible is the answer and a Muslim says the Koran is the answer you arrive at a conflict of misunderstanding. This conflict has been nurtured by the extreme cultural differences of the two "tribes"! To the outside observer (non believer) we see a web of patterns between every religion that has existed each one borrowing and modifying different fables and myths. Today we have a few stragglers including some rather odd variations of judeo christianity (latter day saints, Mormons) the different denominations of Christianity alone shows the web of myths that people choose whether or not to believe. So when you say "Should others live like me" you are simply stating that your piece of the web should satisfy everyone in their search for truth.. the problem is they are going to say the exact same thing about their "web"! No I'm not saying that we are like spider men :) So I think we both agree that absolute truth is trumped by relative truth when people are involved, thanks to the myth web misunderstanding! "but those same people can consciously choose what to do after they're created, and can choose to go beyond their original purpose, which was to survive." when you say created you mean born.. I don't know this for sure but you didn't make a whole lot of cognitive choices. Those choices were afforded to you by the nurturing of your mother and community, you are at a point where your choices are appearing to have consequences and you adapt your choices accordingly. Even your choice of religion was a process not unlike natural selection. It was a cultural and environmental necessity that you may have adapted accordingly (Not saying I really know why your Christian, just making an example) but I do not argue that we do not have a "choice" I'm saying that it might not really be "you" that made that choice! "Though environment has some effect and most everything we do is a means of survival, we can override this by starving ourselves to death, or to otherwise mold our actions as to provide a result that isn't specifically to survive." I am by no means an expert on this subject, I invite you to listen to Richard Dawkins to explain this better, Everything can be explained by natural selection, even if only by a "misfiring" of that specific gene, not unlike a mutation. Something like suicide can be explained as a "step" in the wrong direction. Now using the word "wrong" I feel is relative, anyways moving on.. in many cases suicide is caused an illness that (obviously) bypasses the primal instinct to survive! There are many examples that each deserve a proper discussion , but due to the limited space I will summarize, Natural selection and evolution have been known to produce some anomalies, but as far as I have researched these things are usually explained as the equivalent of a tumor... a mutation caused by an interruption of a natural process! Keep in mind I have pieced this together myself and do not claim to be any kind of prophet or genius.. but I do have some insight and am very observant of the human condition! So take my word for it.. just kidding! "I do not believe humans can be altruistic; anything we do for others is motivated by religion, survival, or pursuit of happiness. However, we can perform complex action to help others that both aid our pursuit of happiness and help others." I will expand on my previous argument about "misfiring" of natural selection! This is not to demean it in any way. I do say that positive results are positive results, gift horse/mouth! The religious and secular morality coexist in this process though innately linked to survival. At one point in time almost everyone you saw was someone who could reciprocate those good deeds, now that we are in a time when good deeds are less likely to be reciprocated by strangers we still have a "desire" to help that person because of our genetic coding that lay deep in your blood lineage! My argument stands that even though we are an evolved animal species we have been known to have some devastating and remarkable "side effects" (Suicides, pseudo-altruism) About your "Plan": Idealology (is that a word?) is my specialty, although often times I find myself wondering; Does my idealology have a place in reality? Then I think about the billions of people that have their own idealology. They don't exactly line up.. that's a lot of resistance! I don't think that anyone has the power to evangelize a universal system that will not be opposed (with serious bloodshed)I gave you a little taste of my idealology with my rant about not calling myself Christian, American, democrat,etc.. I believe that the essence of conflict comes from the illusion of individuality (ego). The God that I "Evangelize" is connected to everything, it is universal, no need to complicate it. My core objection to any religion is that it is "exclusive" Every side is "THE SIDE"! I propose that it doesn't matter.. it is not only futile but insane! The only truth involves everyone, and until I hear people progress towards unity, I will have no part in any "side"! I did really enjoy your metaphor. (sincerely) but I do not see how your theory contradicts mine. Both analogies rely on a black and white system to even be communicated (we need a better language) Your analogy may have used dice instead of a coin but the essence is the same. You can see the coin as two opposing sides of the dice. so technically a dice would just be 3 coins. Your conclusion also paralleled my own. So when I said "God is the coin" I was saying that #5 is "God"! The difference is that where you see a group of individual people I just see "God". So I am simply defining what the word "God" means to me (everything) I hope you were not talking about #5 being Christianity.. that would be absurd! :) You came back stronger from your opening arguments which inspired my rant.. looking forward to further discussion!