Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

Thanks for the vote of confidence although I don't need it. The promotion of creatinism is the promotion of ignorance. There is no defence for doing that in my opinion.

have you discussed that with the pope?

[pedroh 21]

Thanks for the vote of confidence although I don't need it. The promotion of creatinism is the promotion of ignorance. There is no defence for doing that in my opinion.

have you discussed that with the pope?

Catholic church has stated many times that they agree with evolution and t here's no conflict between the catholic religion and the scientific theory

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pike come on.. You know that majority opinion doesn't make something true or correct. You say observational, but then you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from it, which it looks like you are.

Majority of scientists believed the world was flat at one time. Majority thought larger objects fell faster. If you were ill, you had bad blood and needed it to come out (George Washington).

Why can't we just discuss it?

Joe - one side of this debate is heavily politically motivated. You see that rather quickly if you look for references to back up Creationist theory.

I accept that scientists may be wrong and that there are often turnarounds in scientific thinking that completely alter existing knowledge - but I have no opinion on say, Leonard Susskind's disagreement with Stephen Hawking over the nature of black holes.

As I said I do not believe that there is any inherent political bias in the work biologists or physicists. The same cannot be said for Creationists, because their arguments are centered around a literal intepretation of an ideological text.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

well.. I am not atheist, I'm Catholic, catholics agree with evolution, so is not that a scientific concept as the big bang is godless, and can't get along with the Bible..

it's mainly the american protestantism that has a beef with evolution

Pedro I said "SOME" people.

There goes that pesky grouping and labeling again that everyone has a problem with unless they agree with it.

You made this asserting directly to pedroh 'my friend who keeps referring to black holes blah blah blah'. Who are you trying to kid?

You don't even get the context of the quote - back to the playground.

[HAL 9000 96]

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

Huh?

You expect God- or whatever manifestation of 'creation' there is to prove something to you?

Open a book and read.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

I can't show you Joe - perhaps you missed the part where I said that these discussions are pointless because noone here is in a position to accurately represent or refute the science in question. The fact that noone here has (or can) answer your questions doesn't mean that the work of the scientists is invalid. All it means is that people here don't have the information to make the best case for it.

There's no obligation on me to prove what I believe, just as there is no obligation for you to do likewise. Its my personal belief that the work of evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists is not politically motivated, you seem to believe the opposite and have advanced no more proof of that than I have in its favor.

The real problem I have with this creationism stuff is that so much of it seems to rely on a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible and I think to do so exposes a distinct lack of imagination on the part of its proponents.

Quite simply, if you constrain your concept of God to the literal interpretation of a religious text - it doesn't allow for the possibility that a supreme being might actually be larger in scale and of an entirely different order of intelligence that you might have conceived. To me, all Evolution and Big Bang Theory does is make the scope and detail of creation that much more profound. If you can accept that possibility, then there's no reason why science and religion can't co-exist.

There is plenty room in philosophical thought for God to exist that science doesn't infringe on, but because of this slavish adherence to literal interpretation of the Bible you're essentially shackling yourself to a simplistic and quite flawed idea.

In that sense arguing about the work of scientists is really missing the point.

Pike I like your responses the best. Not that you need my validation, but you are being the most rational and not lashing out.

I don't necessarily think its politically motivated, I think its that some people are so against the alternative that they are willing to accept whatever Godless item they can grasp at. Like my friend here who keeps using items such as dark matter, and black holes - 1 of which is only an idea, and the second, everyone knows squat about it other than a huge gravitational area that even has hold over light itself. If black holes are the best evidence of a big bang, then excuse me if i continue to be skeptical and scoff.

Common sense tells you that all matter could not fit into this "." area. What is the driving force behind the infinitesimal region forming to begin with. If the big bang created time-space-matter what was before it? You can ask the same thing of God, but the answer is God. He is eternal. Like a line, going backward forever, and forward forever.

Can someone please answer this. Are matter and energy eternal or not?

Joe - I doubt very much that anyone here is in a position to answer those questions in any degree of fundamental detail. I suggest if you are interested you take up a study course in theoretical physics so that you can get into the debate. Arguing with people here isn't going to prove your case, no matter how much you think it might.

If your argument is that there are unanswered questions in theoretical physics - then yes, you would be right; and I doubt that a scientist would disagree with you.

Once again - I know what I believe and while I'm prepared to take a lot on faith, once again I do not see bias in the work of mathematicians, physicists and biologists. I do however see huge bias in a theory that relies fundamentally on a literal interpretation of an ideological text.

You don't need to be Stephen Hawking or Sherlock Holmes to see it either.

[HAL 9000 96]

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

You really should go back to school to learn all this as it is mostly undergraduate level material. However, I do think that even with the facts sitting right in front of you, you'd still believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and that we have not evolved throughout history. Which leads to my next question. Why would someone bother to track down all this information and validation when you clearly wouldn't read it or would discard it out of hand because it doesn't fit in with your set in stone belief system? Do your own homework and read up on it. The information is out there. Here is a link to start out with HERE

well, I can't answer the biologic questions since it's not my topic. but the Universe expansion proves it came from a single point. all the planets and stars follow a path of expansion with a defined inflationary constant, which if reversed, it shows that all the galactic matter originated at a single point in space. Maybe it didn't make a "bang!".. but according to the heat mapping of the satellites, there was a huge explosion in that single point which temperature was so high that allowed for the fusion of certain elements.

Now for the star being born, tough luck on that one, star light traves from quite far, so a star we see today it might have been formed centuries ago, and having a star nearby us to see how it's born, wouldn't be such a good idea for our planet...

btw if u wanna see an example of a singularity with an infinitesimal area and an inifite density and energy, look at a black hole.. that's certainly no magic

Smokin' answer.

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

I can't show you Joe - perhaps you missed the part where I said that these discussions are pointless because noone here is in a position to accurately represent or refute the science in question. The fact that noone here has (or can) answer your questions doesn't mean that the work of the scientists is invalid. All it means is that people here don't have the information to make the best case for it.

There's no obligation on me to prove what I believe, just as there is no obligation for you to do likewise. Its my personal belief that the work of evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists is not politically motivated, you seem to believe the opposite and have advanced no more proof of that than I have in its favor.

The real problem I have with this creationism stuff is that so much of it seems to rely on a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible and I think to do so exposes a distinct lack of imagination on the part of its proponents.

Quite simply, if you constrain your concept of God to the literal interpretation of a religious text - it doesn't allow for the possibility that a supreme being might actually be larger in scale and of an entirely different order of intelligence that you might have conceived. To me, all Evolution and Big Bang Theory does is make the scope and detail of creation that much more profound. If you can accept that possibility, then there's no reason why science and religion can't co-exist.

There is plenty room in philosophical thought for God to exist that science doesn't infringe on, but because of this slavish adherence to literal interpretation of the Bible you're essentially shackling yourself to a simplistic and quite flawed idea.

In that sense arguing about the work of scientists is really missing the point.

Pike I like your responses the best. Not that you need my validation, but you are being the most rational and not lashing out.

I don't necessarily think its politically motivated, I think its that some people are so against the alternative that they are willing to accept whatever Godless item they can grasp at. Like my friend here who keeps using items such as dark matter, and black holes - 1 of which is only an idea, and the second, everyone knows squat about it other than a huge gravitational area that even has hold over light itself. If black holes are the best evidence of a big bang, then excuse me if i continue to be skeptical and scoff.

Common sense tells you that all matter could not fit into this "." area. What is the driving force behind the infinitesimal region forming to begin with. If the big bang created time-space-matter what was before it? You can ask the same thing of God, but the answer is God. He is eternal. Like a line, going backward forever, and forward forever.

Can someone please answer this. Are matter and energy eternal or not?

Once again do some more homework- the presence of a black hole at the center of this galaxy has been confirmed.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Personally I believe that the universe and everything in it IS God.

Well there's something you can build on at least. My problem is with people who claim to know that there is no God and try to explain that using science. Also calling their fantasy beginning to the universe the "big bang" which has no evidence what-so-ever.

Well you seem to have problems with people that know far more about these things than you do. I'd take their science over your ignorance of their science any day.

If they're atheists, that's their problem, and I disagree with their God-less universe. Making ridiculous claims about how the universe began is really silly when time and time again you prove that you can't even engage a simple scientific argument.

Aww the pesky - I'm smart, you're dumb argument again.

So you see the same "lines" in lots of organic matter and organisms and that proves we all came from a rock?

It proves nothing other than the fact that we all share some of the same information. And why would it be any other way? There are tons of similarities genetically between humans and tobacco - i've read on it.. Doesn't mean my grandpa was tobacco.

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

You really should go back to school to learn all this as it is mostly undergraduate level material. However, I do think that even with the facts sitting right in front of you, you'd still believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and that we have not evolved throughout history. Which leads to my next question. Why would someone bother to track down all this information and validation when you clearly wouldn't read it or would discard it out of hand because it doesn't fit in with your set in stone belief system? Do your own homework and read up on it. The information is out there. Here is a link to start out with HERE

well, I can't answer the biologic questions since it's not my topic. but the Universe expansion proves it came from a single point. all the planets and stars follow a path of expansion with a defined inflationary constant, which if reversed, it shows that all the galactic matter originated at a single point in space. Maybe it didn't make a "bang!".. but according to the heat mapping of the satellites, there was a huge explosion in that single point which temperature was so high that allowed for the fusion of certain elements.

Now for the star being born, tough luck on that one, star light traves from quite far, so a star we see today it might have been formed centuries ago, and having a star nearby us to see how it's born, wouldn't be such a good idea for our planet...

btw if u wanna see an example of a singularity with an infinitesimal area and an inifite density and energy, look at a black hole.. that's certainly no magic

Smokin' answer.

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

I can't show you Joe - perhaps you missed the part where I said that these discussions are pointless because noone here is in a position to accurately represent or refute the science in question. The fact that noone here has (or can) answer your questions doesn't mean that the work of the scientists is invalid. All it means is that people here don't have the information to make the best case for it.

There's no obligation on me to prove what I believe, just as there is no obligation for you to do likewise. Its my personal belief that the work of evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists is not politically motivated, you seem to believe the opposite and have advanced no more proof of that than I have in its favor.

The real problem I have with this creationism stuff is that so much of it seems to rely on a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible and I think to do so exposes a distinct lack of imagination on the part of its proponents.

Quite simply, if you constrain your concept of God to the literal interpretation of a religious text - it doesn't allow for the possibility that a supreme being might actually be larger in scale and of an entirely different order of intelligence that you might have conceived. To me, all Evolution and Big Bang Theory does is make the scope and detail of creation that much more profound. If you can accept that possibility, then there's no reason why science and religion can't co-exist.

There is plenty room in philosophical thought for God to exist that science doesn't infringe on, but because of this slavish adherence to literal interpretation of the Bible you're essentially shackling yourself to a simplistic and quite flawed idea.

In that sense arguing about the work of scientists is really missing the point.

Pike I like your responses the best. Not that you need my validation, but you are being the most rational and not lashing out.

I don't necessarily think its politically motivated, I think its that some people are so against the alternative that they are willing to accept whatever Godless item they can grasp at. Like my friend here who keeps using items such as dark matter, and black holes - 1 of which is only an idea, and the second, everyone knows squat about it other than a huge gravitational area that even has hold over light itself. If black holes are the best evidence of a big bang, then excuse me if i continue to be skeptical and scoff.

Common sense tells you that all matter could not fit into this "." area. What is the driving force behind the infinitesimal region forming to begin with. If the big bang created time-space-matter what was before it? You can ask the same thing of God, but the answer is God. He is eternal. Like a line, going backward forever, and forward forever.

Can someone please answer this. Are matter and energy eternal or not?

Once again do some more homework- the presence of a black hole at the center of this galaxy has been confirmed.

Its too bad that your answer to everything is "look it up". That sort of defeats the purpose of a discussion, and sort of proves you have nothing better to say other than when you're copying and pasting something you yourself just looked up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You expect God- or whatever manifestation of 'creation' there is to prove something to you?

That's the ultimate irony - and Douglas Adams had it right.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God...

"...for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist...therefore, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

Huh?

You expect God- or whatever manifestation of 'creation' there is to prove something to you?

Open a book and read.

No sir, but I don't expect tax-payers to fund my operation. You do.

Telling me to read again.. I will as soon as you post something of substance that comes from you.

You expect God- or whatever manifestation of 'creation' there is to prove something to you?

That's the ultimate irony - and Douglas Adams had it right.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God...

"...for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist...therefore, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

So you admit that you're trying to disprove God with logic.

The problem is that truth remains truth whether one believes in it or not.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think purely from an observational point of view - it pays to look at how many scientists and scientific institutions there are out there in countries around the world doing this kind of work.

Then you look at the institutions promoting Creationism - and find that not only can you count them on the fingers of one hand, but that they are all (every one of them) attached in some ways to organized religion.

Pike come on.. You know that majority opinion doesn't make something true or correct. You say observational, but then you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from it, which it looks like you are.

Majority of scientists believed the world was flat at one time. Majority thought larger objects fell faster. If you were ill, you had bad blood and needed it to come out (George Washington).

Why can't we just discuss it?

That was an issue in the church, that defined what science basically thought. Any other opinion, like what Copernicus and Galileo kick started, would have labeled them as heretics (sort of how you pose libruls left and right here). Did you just realize you are justifying an irrational notion of science via an ignorance of history as well?

[pedroh 21]

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

Huh?

You expect God- or whatever manifestation of 'creation' there is to prove something to you?

Open a book and read.

No sir, but I don't expect tax-payers to fund my operation. You do.

Telling me to read again.. I will as soon as you post something of substance that comes from you.

well, the rest of the world agrees with evolution, most scientists agree with evolution, what is so wrong with telling children to learn universal scientific theories? seriously, there's something wrong that USA has such a low percentage of 'believers' of evolution compared to other advanced countries.. it definitely questions the scientific learning that kids are getting, or not, at school

[Joseph & Ana 0]

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

You really should go back to school to learn all this as it is mostly undergraduate level material. However, I do think that even with the facts sitting right in front of you, you'd still believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and that we have not evolved throughout history. Which leads to my next question. Why would someone bother to track down all this information and validation when you clearly wouldn't read it or would discard it out of hand because it doesn't fit in with your set in stone belief system? Do your own homework and read up on it. The information is out there. Here is a link to start out with HERE

well, I can't answer the biologic questions since it's not my topic. but the Universe expansion proves it came from a single point. all the planets and stars follow a path of expansion with a defined inflationary constant, which if reversed, it shows that all the galactic matter originated at a single point in space. Maybe it didn't make a "bang!".. but according to the heat mapping of the satellites, there was a huge explosion in that single point which temperature was so high that allowed for the fusion of certain elements.

Now for the star being born, tough luck on that one, star light traves from quite far, so a star we see today it might have been formed centuries ago, and having a star nearby us to see how it's born, wouldn't be such a good idea for our planet...

btw if u wanna see an example of a singularity with an infinitesimal area and an inifite density and energy, look at a black hole.. that's certainly no magic

Smokin' answer.

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

I can't show you Joe - perhaps you missed the part where I said that these discussions are pointless because noone here is in a position to accurately represent or refute the science in question. The fact that noone here has (or can) answer your questions doesn't mean that the work of the scientists is invalid. All it means is that people here don't have the information to make the best case for it.

There's no obligation on me to prove what I believe, just as there is no obligation for you to do likewise. Its my personal belief that the work of evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists is not politically motivated, you seem to believe the opposite and have advanced no more proof of that than I have in its favor.

The real problem I have with this creationism stuff is that so much of it seems to rely on a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible and I think to do so exposes a distinct lack of imagination on the part of its proponents.

Quite simply, if you constrain your concept of God to the literal interpretation of a religious text - it doesn't allow for the possibility that a supreme being might actually be larger in scale and of an entirely different order of intelligence that you might have conceived. To me, all Evolution and Big Bang Theory does is make the scope and detail of creation that much more profound. If you can accept that possibility, then there's no reason why science and religion can't co-exist.

There is plenty room in philosophical thought for God to exist that science doesn't infringe on, but because of this slavish adherence to literal interpretation of the Bible you're essentially shackling yourself to a simplistic and quite flawed idea.

In that sense arguing about the work of scientists is really missing the point.

Pike I like your responses the best. Not that you need my validation, but you are being the most rational and not lashing out.

I don't necessarily think its politically motivated, I think its that some people are so against the alternative that they are willing to accept whatever Godless item they can grasp at. Like my friend here who keeps using items such as dark matter, and black holes - 1 of which is only an idea, and the second, everyone knows squat about it other than a huge gravitational area that even has hold over light itself. If black holes are the best evidence of a big bang, then excuse me if i continue to be skeptical and scoff.

Common sense tells you that all matter could not fit into this "." area. What is the driving force behind the infinitesimal region forming to begin with. If the big bang created time-space-matter what was before it? You can ask the same thing of God, but the answer is God. He is eternal. Like a line, going backward forever, and forward forever.

Can someone please answer this. Are matter and energy eternal or not?

Once again do some more homework- the presence of a black hole at the center of this galaxy has been confirmed.

How does the presence of a black hole at the center of just one galaxy prove that nothing exploded 20 billion years ago? I don't need a scientist to control my own common sense.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I think purely from an observational point of view - it pays to look at how many scientists and scientific institutions there are out there in countries around the world doing this kind of work.

Then you look at the institutions promoting Creationism - and find that not only can you count them on the fingers of one hand, but that they are all (every one of them) attached in some ways to organized religion.

Pike come on.. You know that majority opinion doesn't make something true or correct. You say observational, but then you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from it, which it looks like you are.

Majority of scientists believed the world was flat at one time. Majority thought larger objects fell faster. If you were ill, you had bad blood and needed it to come out (George Washington).

Why can't we just discuss it?

That was an issue in the church, that defined what science basically thought. Any other opinion, like what Copernicus and Galileo kick started, would have labeled them as heretics (sort of how you pose libruls left and right here). Did you just realize you are justifying an irrational notion of science via an ignorance of history as well?

You calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant of history, science, etc. Proves who the real ignoramus is.

If you didn't know, there were "people" before Galileo and Copernicus. And they had beliefs and science as well. Majority opinion doesn't prove something just because you want it to.

The catholic church was definitely wrong. If they'd only read their Bible they'd have known that the world was round. The bible talks of the "circle of the earth" as an example.

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.

Huh?

You expect God- or whatever manifestation of 'creation' there is to prove something to you?

Open a book and read.

No sir, but I don't expect tax-payers to fund my operation. You do.

Telling me to read again.. I will as soon as you post something of substance that comes from you.

well, the rest of the world agrees with evolution, most scientists agree with evolution, what is so wrong with telling children to learn universal scientific theories? seriously, there's something wrong that USA has such a low percentage of 'believers' of evolution compared to other advanced countries.. it definitely questions the scientific learning that kids are getting, or not, at school

Again, majority opinion has never been a basis to truth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You expect God- or whatever manifestation of 'creation' there is to prove something to you?

That's the ultimate irony - and Douglas Adams had it right.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God...

"...for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist...therefore, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

So you admit that you're trying to disprove God with logic.

The problem is that truth remains truth whether one believes in it or not.

The problem, Joe is that you continue to miss the point - no matter how crystal clear I try to make it.

It should be painfully obvious what I'm saying: namely that if you have faith that God exists, there's no reason whatsoever to find proof to validate it.