# Anyone like science?



## maxpayne_lhp

Hello!
Well, yeah, I probably think that almost all of you guys like life stuff,
I myself love biology and maths!
About you?


----------



## hail_sniper

yeah i find science very interesting, right now im studying ecosystems and such...


----------



## maxpayne_lhp

lol I LOVE ECOLOGY! I can spend days surfing on this stuff! 
About science, I'm gonna do one on the Black ghost Knife soon! That's gonna be interesting!


----------



## aaa

hey, if you hate science, you won't keep fish anyway because there is lots of biology in fish keeping.


----------



## Pareeeee

I like any animal or nature related science! Anything about animals, plants, space, fossils, etc. It's great!


----------



## LittlePuff

Biology major. 


Kim


----------



## maxpayne_lhp

I'm a highschool student, maybe I'll choose biology for my future career, well if they admit me in! I love biology but not always good at it.


----------



## aquariumfishguy

Actually, I didn't like a lot involved in Science. It seems like Science has an answer for everything, and being the semi-religious person that I am, choose to look towards faith for certain things. Heck - even people who aren't religious, but have a spiritual side to them would argue much of what Science offers.

Anyway, biology was always interesting to me, but wasn't a favorite.


----------



## fishgfish

Science is very important for any one who wants to keep fish and do it right. Biology, chemistry, hydro chemistry, phisics, 
I use scientific knowledge i have learned everyday, with my aquariums. Read up on nitrogen cycle and you will never have amonia or cloudy water. you will know what to do.


----------



## Pareeeee

I like Creationism - a very interesting scientific subject which I believe strongly in.


----------



## maxpayne_lhp

Yeah, science is the tool for everything including the development of human kind. Everything we touch today is an archievement of sciene! Though there are two side: a good amd a bad, science will help us to protect and improve nature.


----------



## shev

Im in biology I and going to take honors BIO II but i have the hardest teacher. there is one packet, and one test every week. but the tests are amazingly hard, at the end of the quarter most are failing, but he gives 5% extra credit if you keep all of your packets. but the class average in the second week of the quarter was like a 57%. 2nd semester we are going inot dissection. i have a b-. i like history tho.



> I like Creationism - a very interesting scientific subject which I believe strongly in.



They are now trying to bring that theory into the class, but there are a lot of law suits about it or something.


----------



## (RC)

I skipped my science regents final to go fishing :fish: 


RC


----------



## maxpayne_lhp

Creationism? What is it? Is it something do with creation work like literature, music, drama or something? :-D I'm not native


----------



## malawi4me2

I'm a zoology major and minoring in psychology. I'm also hoping to be able to get graduate degrees in icthyology, ornithology, and herpatology!  I've always _loved_ life sciences!


----------



## Pareeeee

maxpayne_lhp @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> Creationism? What is it? Is it something do with creation work like literature, music, drama or something? :-D I'm not native


It is the #1 opponent against Evolution - the creationism teaches that God created the earth and explains the scientific truths behind it, etc.


----------



## aquariumfishguy

Evolution is proven... things do evolve. What hasn't been proven is whether or not we have evolved from Apes. I am on the side of the fence where I agree that something higher, and more powerful created humans. However, I do not understand why people fight the idea of evolution. 

Why do religious extremists seem to think you either have one or the other, do they honestly believe everything we see today was put on this earth when God first created it? Even in 150 years, things have changed and have "morphed".

Perhaps one day science and religion can come together to reach higher ground.


----------



## shev

I think we evolved from _ape like_ creatures. which means there was a common ancestor. most people actually think the theory is we evolved from monkeys. but why would there still be monkeys is a common question. evolution has been proven. there are a couple different kinds of creationist views, but evolution creationism differs more with theology than science. but creationist views change just like evolution theory changes. in the beginning it was use and disuse, which pretty much means if there was a crab that used its claw until it was large, its inherants would also have a large claw. which now we know isnt true, because arnold schwartsineger's (sp who cares tho) kids arent born super buff. I dont see why you have to choose religion over science either.


----------



## Pareeeee

heh - just knew this would bring up a debate - it allways does. I could give many facts againts evolution...it is as much a faith as creationism is. Even Darwin - after it was too late and he had written his book on evolution - saw his errors and admitted it; but everyone had allready accepted his ideas and believed them true.

Take one example - scientists found a human skeleton in the same rock layer as dinosaur bones - that skeleton has been carefully tucked away in the basement of a museum because it does not agree with evolution. Humans shouldn't be found with dinosaurs.
yes they should.


----------



## hail_sniper

lets not let this get into an arguement now :wink: , as a moderator ive seen it happen this way many times, i will not express my opinion to further worsen the dilema, as i was hoping it wouldnt cause anyone to think of it, but lets please leave this subject and our opinions on it to ourselves, as we all dont have the same views and can be easily offended by them, so again for future reference, keep your opinions to your selves so everyone is a happy camper :king:


----------



## shev

How do you explain eskimos? every race evolved differently depending on their environment. Down in africa there is sickle cell anemia. this is becuase of natural selection, who can perform best int heir given environment. malaria is a problem there, and so whent he mutation sickle cell appeared, it allowed to let them live longer, because it makes them immune malaria, long enough to reproduce and pass on those traits. well longer than those without the mutation. nowadays, when maybe they dont live in africa, and malaria isnt a problem, sickle cell isnt a good thing and limits length of life, and so the traits for non-sickle cells is passed on before the other. but now there are medications, not sure if there is one for sickle cell, kinda disturds the whole "fitness" thing. Up in other parts of the world where it is harder to get water, a mutation that allows people to use less water, tay sachs? i dont remember the name of it, but it allowed for that trait to be passed on, because they could live longer and pass on those traits better. creationism isnt really a theory more of a hypothesis.



> Even Darwin - after it was too late and he had written his book on evolution - saw his errors and admitted it; but everyone had allready accepted his ideas and believed them true.


Darwin was rushed into publishing his work, after some guy in asia (cant remmeber his name either) was publishing his on evolution.

Why would evolution occur on everything but us? do you think we appeared on earth exactly like we are today? what about the vestigial organs in humans. like the appendix, long ago there was a use for the appendix, but now not so much, and so it has become much smaller and pretty much worthless, and is evolving away. and if you take the evolution theory all the way back, all organisms were derived from one.or maybe not all, but homologous body structures and common similarities in early development. kind of like how birds fish mammals and other animals have the same general structure in their arms, suiting them to their environment.

I'm all for having a session on creationism, good to know all sides of things. I dont know why people are so against it.


----------



## shev

sorry sniper didnt see or was typing mine before you submitted your comment. youre right. but im not gonna delete mine  im all for a little debate, maybe there should be a debate part of the forum, or subsection of general chit chat, uuuh maybe not. i hope no one is offended.


----------



## hail_sniper

all i asked for


----------



## VWs and Fish

back on topic...I love science.

I'm really interested in chemesty on the college level. Material Sciences are my major. Material science takes a lot of chemistry into play. It's not exactly biology, but it's a great science.


----------



## Pareeeee

shev @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> sorry sniper didnt see or was typing mine before you submitted your comment. youre right. but im not gonna delete mine   im all for a little debate, maybe there should be a debate part of the forum, or subsection of general chit chat, uuuh maybe not. i hope no one is offended.


I'm not offended. I can get into a debate verrry easily. I'm a 'debater' kind of person lol.


----------



## maxpayne_lhp

*Re*

Oh sorry, guys! I've been busy around.
Yea, shouldn't lead this to an arguement! I've just experienced one at a computer forum. Oh, men! They like donkeys! Using posts as weapons. Just start off from some silly misunderstanding between some guys and the mod. Hmmm Sam, do you find difficult to be a mod?
Anyway, back to the topic, I probably belive in the fact that science has acurracies and inaccuracies, too! Nothing is perfect at all! And, yeah, we're so small in tihs universe of posibilities, who knows what's true! 
Anyway, Science is great! I do good at it at school. Nahh... except physics, I just can't go with it :-D Is anyone here good at that?
Be back!


----------



## VWs and Fish

physics? That's one of my favorite sciences. You can explain most anything in the physical world with physics. I love it. And chemistry. Chemistry is fun.


----------



## mrmoby

If you want a good example of fish evolution, look no further than the blind cave tetra. As for creationism, I certainly won't deny the possibility of some higher power behind life as we know it........I just think that the idea God pointed his finger, and poof, seven days later we had the earth and everything in it is a little far fetched. The bible, while containing many good morals about the way we should treat each other, is written by primitive people, who didn't understand lots of what would be everyday occurances, hence everything is attributed to God and his fury. That being said, the same could also be applied to Darwin's book, though I think that the science in his book is a little more up to date. Sorry I carried on, subject just gets me a bit fired up, especiallly when there are those in this country still trying to forcefeed the bible in the classroom. Thank god I grew up in the north, and went to public school!


----------



## shev

I think creationism just thinks humans didnt evolve, not everything else. i could be wrong.

Or maybe creationism is apposed to the theory of us coming from ape like creatures. i dont know, because mutations are passed down in humans too, which _is_ evolution.



> Sorry I carried on, subject just gets me a bit fired up, especiallly when there are those in this country still trying to forcefeed the bible in the classroom. Thank god I grew up in the north, and went to public school!


I agree but it isnt so bad to mention another view. even if it doesnt have much science behind it in the science class. I think Montana is the most southern northern state, it happens alot where religion is brought ipast school walls, my school was handing out bibles. but i bet if they handed out the quran people would be offended. i'm not offended, i think the US is a little too sue happy, and in many other states someone may have.


----------



## maxpayne_lhp

Well, religion contains alot of good lessions for life; it helps the people to act right and help people to have something to believe in.OK? The possibility of religion's inaccuracies MAY exist, we can't prove it or say that it's wrong. But people should see if their own religion is going along the right way.
About science, it helps people to develop, but it also causes lots of troubles.Well, yeah as the rule is that everything exists two sides: 1 good, 1 bad. So we'll also need to see if the developements of science lead us on the right way.
We'd not talk about they are good or bad, right or wrong, proved or unproved, as it is a very touchy issue, you see, many stuff like this lead to wars.
So, we should end the conflicts here!
PS: Great! VWs and Fish, I suck at theses subjects! I can only get along with bio and maths! What grade are you in?


----------



## Lexus

I'm not very good at math (algebra, tri, calc) and dont like science.... although I am going to be an Accountant (easy math!!) I think I've had too much science in my short lifetime, same with math. For me I will never use some of the stuff I learned. Although I did enjoy Earth and Space class


----------



## aquariumfishguy

I do not like anything routine, as I get bored of it (which is probably why I have changed career path's several times). I am a financial advisor, and believe it or not, it involves very little math, and a lot of new ideas. The possibilities and ideas constantly change into something new so it is an exciting career to get into.


----------



## maxpayne_lhp

I think I'll try to gain an entrance to a unuversity in Ecology major. But I must be good at Chem and a little bit Physics! :-( I'll need to try much!


----------



## Pareeeee

mrmoby @ Wed Jan 26 said:


> ...is written by primitive people, who didn't understand lots of what would be everyday occurances...


These "primitive people", did understand. 
I know, everyone thinks that these 'primitive' people were writing down nonsense. Except, this nonsense is true...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scientific accuracy of the Bible:
-----------------------------
Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
--
Meaning that things are made of things you can't see - such as molecules/atoms. a discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to the Bible.
-----------------------------
Psalms 135:7 "He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries."
--
Meaning that water evaporates from the earth, and comes down as rain. Another discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to this 'primitive' Bible.
-----------------------------
Isaiah 40:22 ".....the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers"
--
Meaning that the earth is round. 
Yet another discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to the Bible.
------------------------------
Job 28:25 "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure."

Meaning that the wind (air) has weight. Another discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to the Bible.
------------------------------

These are but a few verses which prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible.



mrmoby @ Wed Jan 26 said:


> ...I just think that the idea God pointed his finger, and poof, seven days later we had the earth and everything in it is a little far fetched....


That is no more far fetched than the Big Bang theory. The fact that there was nothing, then, suddenly, BANG! order!
Fact: explosions cause disorder. Scientists try to say that the Big Bang - an astronomically large explosion, caused....order??
And scientists also try to tell us that from that explosion everything came together - worlds formed all by themselves! and then one day, out of a lifeless pool, came something living!
(here's an experiment to explain this theory - get a puzzle, blow it to pieces, then sit back and wait for it to first repair itself and secondly put itself together. The fact is, someone intelligent has to put it together, it cant be done by itself)
And they say Evolution is proven. Have they used the Scientific Method to prove this? Has anyone seen evolution happen? Have the 'missing links' been found? no. Neither is the world millions or dare I say billions of years old. 
These same scientists who believe evolution also believe in Newton's law of thermodynamics - also known as the law of entropy, which, in a nutshell, states that all things are going toward disorder - not order. A major contradiction in the midst of their belief system I would say...and it is a belief, not a science.
Carbon dating is not 100% accurate. In England in the 1970's, scientists tested the carbon dating on a living moth. Turns out this living moth was supposed to be 1,000's of years old...oops!


----------



## shev

> The Scientific accuracy of the Bible:
> -----------------------------
> Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
> --
> Meaning that things are made of things you can't see - such as molecules/atoms. a discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to the Bible.
> -----------------------------
> Psalms 135:7 "He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries."
> --
> Meaning that water evaporates from the earth, and comes down as rain. Another discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to this 'primitive' Bible.
> -----------------------------
> Isaiah 40:22 ".....the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers"
> --
> Meaning that the earth is round.
> Yet another discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to the Bible.
> ------------------------------
> Job 28:25 "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure."
> 
> Meaning that the wind (air) has weight. Another discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to the Bible.
> ------------------------------
> 
> These are but a few verses which prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible.


Very interesting!

The church had apposed many of those tho, and if people didnt belive everything the church did they were excommunicated, and charged as heretics. but the church soon realized and accepted new ideas, like the earth being round, everything not revolving around the earth, air being made up of molecules (i think that is what almost got aristottle killed, he couldnt explain how the molecules didnt just fall to the ground) and micro organisms. for a long time people belived spontaneous generation occured where living things came from nonliveing ones, like maggots in meat. but eventually all were proven true and the church accepted it and realized it didnt disprove their religion in any way.



> And they say Evolution is proven. Have they used the Scientific Method to prove this? Has anyone seen evolution happen? Have the 'missing links' been found? no. Neither is the world millions or dare I say billions of years old.


again, not sure if you are just talkiing about humans or everything, but evolution happens all the time and we watch it. Tuberculosis, has evolved, have you heard of the case in russia? where the prison acted like a incubator for the bacteria, and they used antibiotics, whick killed many but left some that had a mutation that allowed them to resist it, and since bacteria reproduce so fast it soon was all over, so they used different antibiotics, and it did the same thing, except now was immune to 2 antibodies. and they passed on that trait, which was a "shell" around it. then some guy went to new york on a plain to find if ny had any new medicines, and 35 people were infectted with the immune bacteria. Humans dont evolve as fast as bacteria simply because we have extremely small reproducing rates. which means less mutations. as i sad above sickle cell was another mutation that was passed on. 



> Carbon dating is not 100% accurate. In England in the 1970's, scientists tested the carbon dating on a living moth. Turns out this living moth was supposed to be 1,000's of years old...oops!


carbon dating is used for finding the age of things up to 50000 years old, carbon 14 has a halflife of like 5700 years old. they are always decaying, and always being replaced at a constant rate, all living things have the same percent of carbon14, but when the organism dies, it stops replacing the carbon 14. and so the ratio of c12 and c-14 are proportional, but after the industrial revolution raised C12 levels. moths only live for about a few months. there are other ways of measuring time. and carbon dating is realtively accurate to how old what it is trying to date.


----------



## shev

> And they say Evolution is proven. Have they used the Scientific Method to prove this? Has anyone seen evolution happen? Have the 'missing links' been found? no. Neither is the world millions or dare I say billions of years old.



The common cold is always changing. And dogs, every variety is technically the same species, they can reproduce, and make fertile offspring, although it may be ahrd to breed a st bernard and a chuwawa. they all came from the same looking animal in wild. but artificial selection can really speed things along. people pick a trait in a dog, and isolate it by interbreeding, the trait is passed on=evolution. another example of recent evolution, in the galapagos islands, finchs. i think this would be considered macro-evolution, there was a drought, leaving only larger seeds, and smaller seeds didnt grow. the finchs with little beaks dies, because they couldnt eat the seeds, leaving only the larger beaked finchs survived, they passed on those genes and their children were more equipped for that environment and so it was survival of the fittest. the galapagos islands were once all one wadd of land, and split, geographically isolating them to different islands. that is why there are extremes on islands, like pygmy elephants, they didnt have anything pushing them like struggle for existence. people from asia crossed the bering straight that connected asia to n. america, and they were geographically isolated, and evolved according to their environment.

as for the earth not being very old, what about the layers and layers and layers of rock with organism in them that could have only formed over millions of years. what about pangea? that had to of taken millions and millions and millions of years to have split apart. im gonna try and find a picture describing how the continents fit together so well, and how there are fossils, of the same thing around where the continents split, at the same levels of rock, and same kinds of rocks where the pieces fit together.

And evidence of evolution, theres fossils. long ago people thought fossils were a coincidince that they looked like living things. by seeing fossils in different layers of rocks you can see how an organism evolved over time.

geographical destribution, darwin had found entirely different species on S. america, and Australia, yet when he looked at similar environments on the continents there were animals with similar structures and adaptations to eachother on both.because they were similar environments and similar pressures, different species developed features in common.

many animals develop similar features in the embryo, like the back bone, common cells growing in similar ways makes homologous structures, which is more evidence, many animals have striking similarities of body parts. wings, arms and flippers are homologous structures, which suggests 4 limbed verdibrates have descended with modifications that are more equipped to their environment and the niche they occupy, from common ancestors. and as i sadi before about vestigial organs, even in humans like the appendix.


> Carbon dating is not 100% accurate. In England in the 1970's, scientists tested the carbon dating on a living moth. Turns out this living moth was supposed to be 1,000's of years old...oops!


there are other dating systems using the same thing, radioactive decay. things have different half lives, some being millions and millions of years old. providing accurate dates to things, with only being a few million years off. which isnt much because it is used to date thing 10's of millions of years old things.



> and then one day, out of a lifeless pool, came something living!


I'm going to have to break out my science book for this one. but from what i remember it went: abiotic stew (lifelss pool) ---->simple organic molecules ----->rna---->replicated into protein----> i dont remember. also today complex living molecules dont form today because oxygen is very reactive and would destroy any organic molecules. but when the earth formed it didnt have oxygen in the atmosphere, and if they did form anyway, bacteria would eat them. but there have been experiments having hydrogen, ammonia, and methane (the atmosphere at the time) and sparked it like lightning. amino acids were made, which are building blocks for protein.


----------



## mrmoby

I am sorry, but yes, the bible does come from a primitive people. Just as tribes people across the globe still pray to the sun, moon, and rain, because it is there frame of reference. Take the parting of the Red Sea for example. That could easily be explained by tidal flow, something I am sure they had no concept of. Also, these stories also were recorded by someone who perhaps was not an observer, and we all know what happens to a story as it gets passed along, not to mention what happens during all the translations the Bible has been through. Perhaps the biggest problem, is that passgaes of the Bible are completely open to interperetation, and one can make the Bible say anything one wants to.

If the earth is not as old as some wold lead us tobelieve, then would Adam and Eve been running around with dinosaurs? And we do have the bones to prove those existed. 

Science is certainly not perfect, but Einstein, Darwin, and Leaky have shown me enough to convince me they were on the right track.


----------



## shev

> Isaiah 40:22 ".....the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers"
> --
> Meaning that the earth is round.
> Yet another discovery which could have been made much sooner if people had listened to the Bible.


actually, Isaiah 40:22- It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

according to that it'd be shaped like a circle, or CD, but still flat. they thought this because if they pointed in a direction and spun, and traced it it'd be a full circle, and if they traveled a couple thousand miles it would be the same thing.

and if we were to interpret the bible, or take it literally, then:

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 it says that if a man rapes a virgin, he must marry her and also pay her father 50 shekels for humbling her.....uh oh

Exodus 20:17 it says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." women are property then.

the bible is also all for slavery, and women are substandard to men. how many women clergys were there? and judging from the name characin_gal im assuming youre in fact a "gal".


----------



## Pareeeee

[highlight=deepskyblue:f3b9392630]Quoting Shev:[/highlight:f3b9392630] "...The church had apposed many of those tho, and if people didnt belive everything the church did they were excommunicated, and charged as heretics...."

The church - in history meaning the Roman Catholics. I am not Roman Catholic I am a Born Again Christian. The Roman Catholics also go by a different Bible.
But we are not arguing about that.


[highlight=deepskyblue:f3b9392630]Quoting Shev:[/highlight:f3b9392630] "...Tuberculosis, has evolved..."

sigh. it used to be known as 'mutation'. bacteria and viruses are constantly mutating - it is in the nature of their species. creatures as small as bacteria and viruses are capable of changing their body shape, and 'adapting' to certain things. Even we can 'adapt' to recognize things such as...chicken pox - if we get it once, there's a very very small chance of us getting it again.

Tuberculosis is still tuberculosis - it hasn't become - say - the flu. The day Tuberculosis turns into the flu you make sure you tell me. 

All animals 'mutate' in some way, but they never become a separate species. Neither have the missing links been found to prove animals changing into other animals (ie reptiles into birds, etc.)

How about when scientists date the fossils by the rocks they are in - and then date the fossils by the rocks they are in...lol...circular reasoning I'd say...

[highlight=deepskyblue:f3b9392630]Quoting Shev again:[/highlight:f3b9392630] "people pick a trait in a dog, and isolate it by interbreeding, the trait is passed on=evolution."

No, that is not evolution. It is interbreeding mutations. face it - that cute little Chihuahua is a mutation - and humans selected mutations and bred them together to make that mutation. BUT - it is still a dog! Not some new type of animal...

[highlight=deepskyblue:f3b9392630]Quoting Shev again:[/highlight:f3b9392630] "...another example of recent evolution, in  the galapagos islands, finchs. i think this would be considered macro-evolution, there was a drought, leaving only larger seeds, and smaller seeds didnt grow. the finchs with little beaks dies, because they couldnt eat the seeds, leaving only the larger beaked finchs survived, they passed on those genes and their children were more equipped for that environment and so it was survival of the fittest..."

more mutations. most of what you say is true - the finches with the little beaks dying because they couldnt eat, the ones with the large beaks living because they could eat. 
The ones with the larger beaks interbred with each other because there were no more small-beaked ones left to breed with. So, the finches now have the mutation of larger beaks.

Example: If a man has a large nose and his wife also has a large nose - there's a pretty high percentage that the child is going to have a large nose too. That is not evolution, that is just the passing down of certain traits.

[highlight=deepskyblue:f3b9392630]Quoting Shev:[/highlight:f3b9392630] "Exodus 20:17 it says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." women are property then...
...the bible is also all for slavery, and women are substandard to men. how many women clergys were there? and judging from the name characin_gal im assuming youre in fact a "gal"..."

Genesis 2:24 says: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE flesh. 
And yes it is wrong to covet or to want another person's spouse, it is wrong to want to have anything that belongs to someone else.

Yes, I am a 'gal' and I do agree with the Bible 100%, even though, unfortunately, human nature makes me break its laws. Human nature makes us all break its laws. No one is perfect - not even Christians. We all sin because we are human.

Women, no matter how much we do not like to think that way, are to submit to men, but it does not mean we are substandard. It means that the man has the last say in spiritual matters as he must answer to God regarding the leadership in his household. It is human nature to want to go against God's laws, as we can see with all the crime going on today...murder, stealing, lying - who hasn't lied at least once in their life? Who hasn't wanted something that someone else has? The Bible says "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Please, give me the verse where it says the Bible is in support of slavery.

Evolution goes against what God has said, and, human nature, unfortunately, makes many of us want to believe that Evolution is 'right' so that we don't have to listen to the Bible and it's laws. When a thief steals something, he doesn't want to think of it as wrong. He makes up reasons to condone it - just as evolutionist 'make up' or fill in the gaps themselves to make evolution sound real.
The bottom line is, people do not want to have to answer to a higher power, so they try to disprove his existence and evolution is just one of the many tools.
----


----------



## shev

> sigh. it used to be known as 'mutation'. bacteria and viruses are constantly mutating - it is in the nature of their species. creatures as small as bacteria and viruses are capable of changing their body shape, and 'adapting' to certain things. Even we can 'adapt' to recognize things such as...chicken pox - if we get it once, there's a very very small chance of us getting it again.
> 
> Tuberculosis is still tuberculosis - it hasn't become - say - the flu. The day Tuberculosis turns into the flu you make sure you tell me.
> 
> All animals 'mutate' in some way, but they never become a separate species. Neither have the missing links been found to prove animals changing into other animals (ie reptiles into birds, etc.)
> 
> How about when scientists date the fossils by the rocks they are in - and then date the fossils by the rocks they are in...lol...circular reasoning I'd say...


That _is_ evolution. mutations, passed on through hereditary descent. a mutation occured, like capsules on the virus that allowed it to be immune to antibiotics, it lived, passed on those superior genes of that environment, its "children" then have that mutation allowing them to be immune to the antibiotics. thats all evolution is. that would be survival of the fittest. the ones witht he mutation allowing them to live in their environment better than others makes them the fittest, and they have a better chance of passing on those genes. eventually either all the ones without the mutation die, or 2 new species are formed. thats all evolution is.



> All animals 'mutate' in some way, but they never become a separate species. Neither have the missing links been found to prove animals changing into other animals (ie reptiles into birds, etc.)


A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. back to the dogs. all dogs derived from the same looking dog. st bernards and chua was are the same species because they can make fertile offspring. but only because thats relatively new, humans taking and picking certain traits, isolating them and interbreeding. thats artificial selection, it really speeds things along. but still relatively new, only hundreds and hundreds of years, compared to millions and millions. a st bernard trait is that they are large, so larger dogs of the litter are chosen and bred, making larger dogs, the opposite traits are chosen for the chua wa, who are getting bred smaller and smaller. eventually they wont be able to breed on their own. and so they wont, their traits will be seperated, and so both gene pools will go their own way. over years and years they will differ enough they wont be able to breed even if we helped with artificial insemination or something.

another example, meadow larks, mt and field. survival of the fittest, male birds with the best song, and are most able to attract a female, pass on their traits, they are the fittest. the lark population was seperated, and the song of the male birds started to change. the females where they were bred witht hem, but if they were to go back to the other larks, the males wouldnt be able to attract females. so the traits of both sides never inter-mingle. and so they keep changing and changing over the years, but the dna is never exchanged. so eventually they wont be able to breed, making an entirely new species and looking completely different.


----------



## shev

> Please, give me the verse where it says the Bible is in support of slavery.


give me one quote condemning it. but there are many regulationg it (a lot). back then slavery may not have been between different races. The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because. after all, the slave was his property.

Leviticus 19:19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field.

Leviticus 27:3 "And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
(4) And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
(5) And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
(6) And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
(7) And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. "

^those quotes are for the slavery thing and women being substandard. ^



> Women, no matter how much we do not like to think that way, are to submit to men, but it does not mean we are substandard.


Genesis 3:16 I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule 
over thee. 

2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."


----------



## mrmoby

I am still wondering where all the biblical passages with references to dinosaurs are. The bible also does not spell out the other planets of the solar system. Do those not exist either? Also, you mention that the Born Agains use a different bible. That right there should tell you how open to interperation it is. You might also be interested in knowing, that they are using that horrible, inacurate, carbon 14 dating to test the Shroud of Turin. 

Also, I am curious, what are the remains that have been unearthed, that are amazingly close to man, but not quite, in regards to bone strucutre, brain size etc. I just wonder how one can completely ignore archealogical evidence that points to there being someone else before us.

And no, I am not trying to justify my way out of answering to a higher power, I just feel that God gave me a brain to see, and try to comprehend the power of nature, and it's means of carrying on life, and not base my thinking on a book of fairy tales.


----------



## shev

> more mutations. most of what you say is true - the finches with the little beaks dying because they couldnt eat, the ones with the large beaks living because they could eat.
> The ones with the larger beaks interbred with each other because there were no more small-beaked ones left to breed with. So, the finches now have the mutation of larger beaks.


 :fun: yay. and larger beaks make them more fit to their environment than the small beaked. so they passed on those mutations, the superior traits. the skeletons of the little beaked birds remain unchanged, but the big beaks continue to change and grow more suited tho their eenvironment, so in a while (anywhere from a couple hundred to a million years) the birds will look completely different from the little beaked ones. or maybe there will a situation where smaller beaked finchs have the advantage, then it swings around.

there are many definitions of evolution, heres a few that would fit whats above.


> In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.


- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 

and radual change in phenotypic frequencies in a population that results in individuals with improved reproductive success.

# A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
#1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.

# Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

and one that really fits the description of the finchs: the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms.


----------



## hogan

um most of you probably think im a dumbass, but im actually a zoology/pre-med major haha how ironic ( and when i miss-spell stuff wrong thats bc i have a learning disability not because im a moron haha)


----------



## hogan

OMG wow u guys need to realize the Bible is not a non-fiction novel. It was a book written way way back to inspire the peoples of old not to commit the wrong doings of the time. They did ithis by telling them proverbs that were sufficient with the times and now have basically no or little meaning. The meaning it does have now comes from a totally different perspective. Please lets stop argueing over the Bible because it is a stupid thing to argue over. it is not a work of non-fiction. It would b like going and saying that a Stephan King novel is the truth and soley the truth which it is obviously not. But its easy for us to see that King is not the truth because it is written in our era but it isnt easy to see that the Bible isnt the truth because it is so far beyond us we thing hell it may just may be truth


----------



## shev

True. and she started it. haha jk. but i heard the bible was also a book they kept records in, and has some historical accuracy.

completely off topic, if the pope dies does his son because pope? or do they elect a new one? he's been sick in the hospital, just wondering.


----------



## mrmoby

Thats my point....the bible is a collection of stories, basically to demonstrate moral behavior, and by and large try to control it through fear. The tales are told by people, according to their knowledge, and understanding, almost like telling a child Santa comes fits down the chimney through "magic". The larger point is, that there is a growing movement in this country, that want to take this book, which is so often quoted, and twisted to reinforce one's point of view, and force it upon everyone else, as how we should live and be governed. That is just plain scary.


----------



## mrmoby

And Shev, no the Pope does not have a son. Catholic clergy are celibate, or at least they are supposed to be. When any Pope dies, there is a secret meeting of cardinals from around the world, who elect a new Pope. When they have reached a decision, it is announced by a plume of white smoke from a chimney at the place where they meet.


----------



## Pareeeee

quoting mrmoby:
""I am still wondering where all the biblical passages with references to dinosaurs are. The bible also does not spell out the other planets of the solar system. Do those not exist either? Also, you mention that the Born Agains use a different bible. That right there should tell you how open to interperation it is. You might also be interested in knowing, that they are using that horrible, inacurate, carbon 14 dating to test the Shroud of Turin. 

Also, I am curious, what are the remains that have been unearthed, that are amazingly close to man, but not quite, in regards to bone strucutre, brain size etc. I just wonder how one can completely ignore archealogical evidence that points to there being someone else before us. 

And no, I am not trying to justify my way out of answering to a higher power, I just feel that God gave me a brain to see, and try to comprehend the power of nature, and it's means of carrying on life, and not base my thinking on a book of fairy tales.""


This may take a while for me to type.




This passage talks of what I believe are dinosaurs, two very interesting references. They were named Behemoth and Laviathan
In Job chapter 40, and 41:

Chapter 40:

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. >>>>>a plant eating dinosaur
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. >>>>> has great strength
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. >>>> his tail is like a cedar, which is a very large tree in Israel. most people think that Behemoth is a elephant, who ever has seen an elephant with a huge tail like a cedar?
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. >>>>>> another reference to amazing strength
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. >>>>he is so large that it seems that he could drink a whole river.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Chapter 41:
Laviathan, the sea dinosaur, see from the references that he is near to impossible to capture or kill

1 ¶ Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? >>>>reference to drawing him out with a hook - as out of water
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? >>>fill his head with fish spears - he must be much larger than fish - the reference to plural spears
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? >>>a fearful creature
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? >>>> God comparing the beast's power to himself - if no one is fierce enough to even dare to anger Laviathan, then who dare to stand against God, who is the all-powerful one?
11 ¶ Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. 
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. >>>large, fearsome teeth, who can dare open his mouth?
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. >>>>has scales, as a reptile, he cannot be a whale
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. >>>>scales are strong, cannot be broken
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. >>>> more reference to him being an amazing creature
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. >>>> hard to explain, possibly a type of dragon - many cultures from across the globe have stories of a 'fire breathing reptile' , including ancient Europe, China, American Indians, etc.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. >>>> more reference to his strength and most possible largeness - iron is like straw to him.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The planets, of course, exist, even though God found it only necesarry to mention the earth, the moon, and the sun. Would you have wanted God to have told us everything in the Bible, so that we would have nothing to discover, nothing to learn ourselves, no desire to seek out new knowledge? Of course not. That would make life extremely boring.
-------------------------------------------------
No I am not interested, I believe that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax, and a very good one too. Just as God said no one will ever find Moses' grave site, I believe no one is meant to find Christ's actual burial place, let alone his burial cloth. 
Unfortunately, many non-Christians see all those who believe there is a God as Christians, which is sad, because many false Christians call themselves Christians, and do very strange and horrible things, which give the true Bible-believeing Christians a bad name.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I use a different Bible than many other religions. The Bible I use, many people do not want to accept, because it is the original version of the Bible. It is called the Authorized Version; the one derived from the original Hebrew texts, the true Bible. It matches exactly to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There are many other versions that I would definitely question the validity of, New International Verstion, American Standard Version, New Age Bible, etc. They have been, unfortunately, changed by man, just slightly, but just enough to make the meanings of the verses different. These newer versions of the Bible can lead many people down the wrong paths to destruction of the soul.

The Bible says in Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
>>>>>>>>>>> The jot and tittle are the smallest letter and part of a letter in the Hebrew language, equal to our English "dot of an 'i' and cross of a 't' " In other words, the verse means: until heaven and earth are gone, the dot of an 'i' and the cross of a 't' should not be taken from the law.

If man hadn't interfered with the original Bible, than many more of us would be on the path to heaven, instead of being mislead by all these man-changed versions.

Even though there are differences in these versions, there is still enough original gospel left in them for a person to come to Salvation.
------------------------------

quoting mrmoby:
"...I just feel that God gave me a brain to see..." 

Yes, God did give each one of us a brain, but he also gave each one of us a heart. You have been using your brain and you have been questioning, which is good, but have you shut your heart off to the truths that God can reveal to you? Not everthing can be explained by science. 
We cannot understand everthing, because we do not have the all-knowing mind of God.


If any of you are interested, you can browse around this website: www.creationresearch.org


----------



## aquariumfishguy

Ok, we all know where to find info on the bible, and we also know where the science side of it can be found. Why not leave it at that?


----------



## shev

> If man hadn't interfered with the original Bible, than many more of us would be on the path to heaven, instead of being mislead by all these man-changed versions.


Arent you interpeting the bible too? thats how the others were morphed, interpretation. and putting words in gods mouth.


alright, i dont have my note book and am porbably going to brutalize this information:

2-2.5 million years ago the genus **** appeared. hominids were the first. everything with the genus **** came from africa, hominids have a small brain size, and walked on 2 feet. and were 3-4 feet tall and 60-100 pounds, and yes there are fossills of this. **** habilis was "handy man". they were no taller than 5 ft, and had half the size of brains than we do, they were more adaptable to their climate and ate a larger variety of foods (evolution at work) and they used tools. then **** erectus which was the upright human being. even taller, and had 1/3 the size brain as we do. traveled greater distances because they could adapt to the cold better. **** sapien is the wise human. type one was neanderthals, they were in europe and the middle east. and **** sapien sapiens wise wise humans, and were found in africa, and replaced the hominids. then they spread out across the road at about 2-3 miles per generation. all of which there are fossils records agreeing with it. like where they are found and what layers of rock in the earth they are. **** erectus migrated over to europe, developed into the hominids which went extinct, then a second migration of **** sapiens went up to europe. oh and there is also DNA evidence of this.

http://www.exn.ca/hominids/wherethebonesare.cfm
http://www.episcopalhs.org/~jmm/Olduvai/Man/Man.htm is a chart



I'm repeating myself. so i will just quote myself.


> Why would evolution occur on everything but us? do you think we appeared on earth exactly like we are today? what about the vestigial organs in humans. like the appendix, long ago there was a use for the appendix, but now not so much, and so it has become much smaller and pretty much worthless, and is evolving away. and if you take the evolution theory all the way back, all organisms were derived from one.or maybe not all, but homologous body structures and common similarities in early development. kind of like how birds fish mammals and other animals have the same general structure in their arms, suiting them to their environment.


the appendix was used to digest some of the foods we ate long ago. but now our diet varies so much the appendix is pretty much deevolved away. so god created us with this shriveled up useless organ? this is the same with cave tetras, eyes were pretty much pointless, and have deevolved away. many lizards like skinks have shriveled up and useless legs. and there are fossils showing that the legs were once used and and were normal looking legs, over the years they were useless and eventually started to dissappear.


----------



## mrmoby

Again, quotes which could mean anything. How do you know that the reference to a tail is not a reference to an elephants trunk? We think of a tail as being on the rear, however, it is not implausible that someone could refer to it as a tail when attempting to describe it. And again, we are going back to a book that is so vulnerable to translation, and interperetation. Consider this, the first books of the bible were not written until 1100 B.C. . Moses led the Isrealites from Egypt in 1300 B.C. . You can't tell me something wasn't lost as this was passed along 200 years. And if Adam and Eve were the earths first in habitants, then they would have to been here roughly 8,000 years prior to the first writings of the bible, otherwise you woul have to ignore the Phoenicians, Sumerians, Greeks, and Egyptians.


----------



## BlueAmbist

Hey Charoonie!! as you can see, alot of us don't bother getting into this debate/argument. It never ends, Personally I agree with you and you made great points, but it just won't end, best to save your energy for cleaning the fish tanks!


----------



## Pareeeee

You're sure right, Blooooo. It never does end, and I am growing weary of writing things that people just write back with answers that make no sense.
So I am going to have to wind this up, because no one is listening to me, they just skim over it but don't really read it.


----------



## mrmoby

I am going to bow out of this debate also. I knew all along it was pointless to argue with someomne who cannot see beyond the literal words of a book tainted by man's translation and interperetation. You may be right, as well I may be right, one day I suppose we will find out.


----------



## Pareeeee

Yes and when you find out, I dont want to be you on Judgement Day if you haven't done anything about your soul.
Dont take me the wrong way, I am doing this because it is important that I do so - being a Christian, I must tell others in the hopes that they want their lives saved, and that they will ask Christ to save them.


----------



## aquariumfishguy

For a Christian, you sure are judgmental. There is a time and place for everything. Those who want to be saved will be saved. Those who do not wish to have it taught upon them will stay as they are. I'm betting you think I am the anti-Christ right now, huh? Truth be told, I consider myself a Christian, just as you do... but how you approach the situation makes all the difference in the world.

This whole thread taught us nothing.


----------



## osteoporoosi

You americans are so passionate about relicion  .
Just joking, it should be a passion or the opposite. It is a personal thing.
I myself am a lutherian but not by choice. I haven't thought about leaving my church, guess I just don't care that much about religion. 
This is just my opinion but I really agree with people who say that human icreated god, not the other way around.


----------



## shev

> You're sure right, Blooooo. It never does end, and I am growing weary of writing things that people just write back with answers that make no sense.
> So I am going to have to wind this up, because no one is listening to me, they just skim over it but don't really read it.


Ive read all of your posts, they are mostly of the bible and i cannot argue with that because i have never read the entire bible and the posts are of what you think the bible means, in your opinion.


> These newer versions of the Bible can lead many people down the wrong paths to destruction of the soul.


So anyone believing in anything other than yours is eternally damned? the bible was created a long time ago and was found in the middle east-european areas. so everywhere else that didnt have the bible or had never heard of it were destined to be eternally damned? communication back then sucked, and even word of the bible would have taken a very long time to make it over to the far ends of earth.




> You americans are so passionate about relicion Very Happy .
> Just joking, it should be a passion or the opposite. It is a personal thing.
> I myself am a lutherian but not by choice. I haven't thought about leaving my church, guess I just don't care that much about religion.
> This is just my opinion but I really agree with people who say that human icreated god, not the other way around.


up to the end of the 19th century most finns were either Lutheran or the Orthodox Church, not until the Act on Nonconformity were other protestant religions officially recognized in finnland. not until the 1900'sish was there religious freedom. but finland was still dominately lutheran, and religions are pretty much inherited beacuse someones parents will definately shove their religion onto their children. if children werent raised a certain religion there would be a lot more diversity( i bet 1$ characins parents feel the same way about religion as characin gal does) so finnland would still be lutheran dominated. i heard, not sure if it was about nowadays or a while ago, but if there is a majority of students of one religion in a school, then that religion will be taught. so your family and friends would be the same religion. as for the US there is more religious diversity. but yeah finland is a heckova lot more secular becuae of that.

As for me i am undecided, and dont care what religion you are. go ahead and be a satanist as long you dont sacrifice one of my black cats.(or any cats for that matter) religion is still a matter in politics here. and not just because of "religious morals". but lets not get into that.

i have a feeling this thread is getting to personal and probably wont last too long. maybe it should be replaced with a "who likes math" thread. because who the hell likes math?


----------



## aquariumfishguy

On a lighter note,

I think we should end this before you get a bad look from the pope:









And have you ever wanted to stick it to those who think they're holier than thou? Just don't post this on their office door:


----------



## BlueAmbist

God wrote the Bible threw men, as far as I know Moses wasn't around and hanging out watching Adam and Eve but he wrote Genises....anyways thats my little post to add.


----------



## shev

hahaha funny pics!


----------



## aquariumfishguy

Can you see them? They don't work for me.


----------



## osteoporoosi

religion isn't a matter of politics in here, we don't make a that great deal about it.
It is determined in the law here that children have their right to have teaching about their religion. Or have something compensating teaching if they aren't a member of any religious group.

In my opinion it is everyones right to construe the bible in their own way. There isn't one "right" way to be a christian.


----------

