Celtic Heroes

In any event, only interpretations have changed due to a changes in the moral of society. The bible still very much supports such actions of discrimination. And yes, the contradictions are present especially you take the meaning literally.

Moving on, I have recently been considering creation ideas vs what we can observe and call evolution. Now, we can obviously see species adapt and change. Most creationists would however say that it is still the same species and to some point, I would agree. However, did the bible not say that god made every individual organism and every species is perfect? What reason is there for a species to change if it is supposed to be perfect?

In any event, only interpretations have changed due to a changes in the moral of society. The bible still very much supports such actions of discrimination. And yes, the contradictions are present especially you take the meaning literally.

Moving on, I have recently been considering creation ideas vs what we can observe and call evolution. Now, we can obviously see species adapt and change. Most creationists would however say that it is still the same species and to some point, I would agree. However, did the bible not say that god made every individual organism and every species is perfect? What reason is there for a species to change if it is supposed to be perfect?

Yes, every species WAS perfect, MAN was perfect.
Read genesis

Magixal, pls provide some evidence of your evolution theory.

Magixal, pls provide some evidence of your evolution theory.

I know I am not Magixal but I will still answer with some basic proof. The two most convincing evidence, in my opinion, are embryonic comparisons and vestigial structures.

Embryonic comparisons:

Human embryos also have gills, which disappear later on.

Vestigial structures:
Human tailbone. Useless yet we still have it. It neither harms nor benefits us but indicates an ancestor with a tail (apes).

Pelvis and femur in whales. Aka leg bones. That would indicate they may have descended from a land animal.

The pictures are meant to give you an idea. You can look up the actual real pictures and find the vestigial structures and compare embryos.

It is also important to remember we still use fossils, dating, genetics, and behaviour.

Magixal, pls provide some evidence of your evolution theory.

Magixal, pls provide some evidence of your evolution theory.

I know I am not Magixal but I will still answer with some basic proof. The two most convincing evidence, in my opinion, are embryonic comparisons and vestigial structures.

Embryonic comparisons:

Human embryos also have gills, which disappear later on.

Vestigial structures:
Human tailbone. Useless yet we still have it. It neither harms nor benefits us but indicates an ancestor with a tail (apes).

Pelvis and femur in whales. Aka leg bones. That would indicate they may have descended from a land animal.

The pictures are meant to give you an idea. You can look up the actual real pictures and find the vestigial structures and compare embryos.

It is also important to remember we still use fossils, dating, genetics, and behaviour.

The tailbone is very important actually. It acts as a support when we sit. It also helps us defecate. I think that it is also important because it is an attachment for muscles? Anyhow, that is an important part of our bodies. I'll edit this in the morning to add more.

The following link clears up some misconceptions regarding evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ns_faq.php

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.

CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE website. To learn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.

Correction:
When religion accepts facts first and inserts thier supernatural belief into the gaps of knowledge then that is marginally acceptable. When those gaps are reduced by mounting evidence and facts the supernatural that previously occupied them must be thrown away. Failure to do so results in harm to the disbeliever in reality and those whom thier actions affect. This harm is proportional to the extent of thier disbelief because without understanding reality they cannot influence it in a rational way that is to thier actual intent and benefit.

I know I am not Magixal but I will still answer with some basic proof. The two most convincing evidence, in my opinion, are embryonic comparisons and vestigial structures.

Embryonic comparisons:

Human embryos also have gills, which disappear later on.

Vestigial structures:
Human tailbone. Useless yet we still have it. It neither harms nor benefits us but indicates an ancestor with a tail (apes).

Pelvis and femur in whales. Aka leg bones. That would indicate they may have descended from a land animal.

The pictures are meant to give you an idea. You can look up the actual real pictures and find the vestigial structures and compare embryos.

It is also important to remember we still use fossils, dating, genetics, and behaviour.

The tailbone is very important actually. It acts as a support when we sit. It also helps us defecate. I think that it is also important because it is an attachment for muscles? Anyhow, that is an important part of our bodies. I'll edit this in the morning to add more.

The following link clears up some misconceptions regarding evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ns_faq.php

Serious flaw here:

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.

CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE website. To learn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.

They need to man up and more explicitly say that when your fairy tale mythology flies in the face of facts and evidence the myth is proven out to be what it really is - just a figment of a misguided mind with no basis in reality.

It should read:

Correction:
When religion accepts facts first and inserts thier supernatural belief into the gaps of knowledge then that is marginally acceptable. When those gaps are reduced by mounting evidence and facts the supernatural that previously occupied them must be thrown away. Failure to do so results in harm to the disbeliever in reality and those whom thier actions affect. This harm is proportional to the extent of thier disbelief because without understanding reality they cannot influence it in a rational way that is to thier actual intent and benefit.

People take the whole PC thing way to far on this. You can't simply let it go as there are pretty harmful reprocussions from reality denial that include copious amounts of needless suffering and deaths.