They don't obey the same explanatoinal patterns, they all obey the same spiritual feeling, sight, and faith. If just one of them is wrong based on faith, then all of them are wrong. Since one can't be right without the others being wrong, you run into a problem.

I am not using ANY tangible way of observation. I am only using my spirituality to feel these beliefs. The only way out of this dilemma is if you admit that somehow your spirituality is better than mine. However that means that you are degrading, insulting by your definition, my spirituality so you could feel better about your beliefs.

In the end, I have caught you in a trap on your own terms and your own rules.

I have mentioned this many timesin this thread, however any creationist theory is guaranteed to be wrong, just because there is no evidence for it. For further explanation I outlined how any idea that pertains to the creation of existance is wrong, including the atheist one.

People come up with these ideas because they don't want to realize that humanity is absolutely isignificant in the grand scheme of things (really, we are) and want to make themselves feel better by trying to explain existance. Then they, laughably, think that the more people believe their idea, the more correct they are. That is utterly laughable.

The truth is, we don't know shit about the actual creatoin (we do have evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution though, and they aren't actual creation) and anyone with an idea about what happened is wrong, regardless of belief.

Actually your problem is that you consider everything on the same levell to be wrong or equally wrong. And that is where you fail. Why are they all wrong and not one right. It`s a necessity that if one is wrong, they are all wrong.
You don`t know who`s actually wrong or right for yourself because you don`t have absolute knowledge and that´s where reason falls. You just don`t know everything about everything.

If i say i am on the right path why is that insulting? If a another person from another religion says that to me i won`t be insulted as there is no reason for being insulted, if said person goes on and goes on making personnal judgements on what others believe than that can be an insult or offensive.
I respect and have tolerance for people who say, as me, that they believe they are on the right path. It`s their right to express their beliefs and that`s no insulting anyone.

I agree that we know shit about how the earth was created. I have faith in an intelligent designer or more specifically Jesus (Trinity) God. However I can't scientifically prove my beliefs anymore then anyone else can.

As for more scientific evidence for the Big Bang or Evolution theories. Evolution is a broad statement for many theories and even some facts. However while Micro Evolution is proven fact, Macro remains and un-proven theory. Just like the collider tunnel that scientists are using to prove the Big Bang, without human interferance it is highly unlikely such an event could take place. Very little solid evidence can prove that life could have come from a big bang and abiogensis.

My post to Sapphi outlines your statements perfectly. None of us can prove our theories. While you may have found apparent flaws in some of the creation theories their are several flaws in many evolution theories.

So no one can explain creation, we can make educated guesses like creationists and evolutionists do all the time. But we can never prove one is right and one is wrong. As such I agree with Sapphi schools shouldn't teach any theories in our schools unless it is done so in a theology class.

School's are raising a bunch of dumb asses, if the student goes to a Christian school they don't learn much about evolution, if they go to a public school they don't learn anything but a few select evolution theories. Either way your going to churn out ignorant people. So in my opinion both systems are wrong and no theology should be taught at all. If schools want to teach theology they should make it abundantly clear to students "These are scientific theories not scientific facts" taught in a theology class to drive home that fact for students. then maybe their would be less dumbies out their!

1. I`m sorry i didn`t mentioned it earlier as i honestly didn`t even thought of that. And i`m sorry for not, in the conversation, stating that God is fair and would never forget those kind of details.
Actually that part of seeing and then believing reminds of the movie Constantine? You saw it? Constantine alreadt saw God, yet he wasn`t set to go to heaven for the sole reason that seeing does not equal believing. Like Thomas did with Jesus.
"You go to Hell unless you make the active choice of taking a "leap of faith" and believing in God even though you have no sufficient worldly justification for believing God exists"
It did, otherwise you wouldn`t mention "have no sufficient worldly justification", this isn´t the same as no proof whatsoever, that`s why i mentioned that these highlighted words word subjective, yet very important.
It`s the same as for the case i referreed a while ago of apparitions and miracles. Your reaction, just for example, was to descredit it. You knew about God, yet you still chose not - for whatever reason.
If you "know" - proved beyong doubt; see by yourself - than the leap of faith has no meaning.
Just to give an example of what i was trying to convey: it`s like when people are afraid to get hurt and avoid relationships. You have the person in front of you that you obviously don`t know completely, yet you must find courage, forget fears and take a leap of faith.
This isn`t a literal example, it`s to show a little bit better what faith means.

But please let me get this straight. Those with non-belief of today aren`t the same that were never talked to about God or Jesus like 3000 year ago. For example, a man of that time did not know God nor never heard about Him, and that`s not the same as a person who has no belief despite knowing who He is, Jesus and being "explained" about Him and still don`t believe. There`s a context for that non-belief part.It`s a really rouch example, but it`s just to show the difference.

If you were concious of this, ignore me then.

2. God made us all, not just Hitler. But that means nothing, no one is set for a path, we make our paths.
You still don`t seem to understand that if you are completely free (free will and liberty) you are completely responsible for the result of your actions. You can`t put not even a single ounce of blame on someone else if you accept that you are free.
Hitler was the sole responsible for his actions as he decided on his own free will.

1. 
They are different, and yet ...

I see the leap of faith you describe as a yawning chasm.  It's like the difference between "you've been dating someone for a year and they want to marry you, yes/no?" and "you signed up for a dating service and it says there's a good match for you, will you marry them yes/no?"  I see the various religions asking me to believe in God as the latter.  I don't have any reason to believe all the stuff in their holy texts is accurate depictions of real events.  Hell, even THEY'll admit they don't have concrete proof.  They just believe, and they want me to too.  Well no thanks, I'll just find out when I die and if God exists and isn't a humongous dick then the worst I should get is Purgatory if I've been a decent guy.  And if God is one, then I doubt my odds were too good anyway. 

When I said "sufficient justification" I did so because if I'd said ANY justification then you could just point to the Bible.  Fact is, you can't prove that any of the God-stuff happened.  There is NOTHING you can honestly call "proof", otherwise religious people would be shutting up atheists left and right.  It's all faith. 

2. 
You can't say Hitler bears any responsibility for the murders the Auschwitz guard committed and then turn around and say God doesn't.  At least, not without being a huge hypocrite. 

Creationism is a science based theology just like Evolution. Infact some creationist theories even include Macro Evolution and many include Micro Evolution things we are taught in school. Its highly ignorant to judge all theories but Darwinian evolution as un-scientific.

Plus right in your post you say that theology has no place in school, then why should the theory of Macro Evolution , Big Bang, Abiogenesis? None of those three theories are anymore scientific then the many Creationist theories. None of the three are scientific fact, all of them and infact all the methods of creation I was taught in school all of them were theories.

Replies in bold

Joe practically every sentence you say is a cringeworthy regurgitation of completely false creationist talking points.  But I'll try to answer some of the most egregiously wrong stuff here. 

This is so wrong I have trouble figuring out where to start.  I suppose I could just take them in order of appearance. 

--Creationism is not scientific, it is not science, and those involved in it are not scientists while so engaged, though they may be scientists in other areas of their lives.  One important reason for this is that creationism does not produce testable hypotheses that would prove creationism flawed or wrong if the hypothesis was incorrect. 

What and you think we can test Macro Evolution? Why is it that their is no missing link if Macro Evolution truly occurs in nature? Some said Lucy was but the skeleton was barely 1/3rd there and it wasn't collected in one peice it was scattered about. Infact no fossil's can be found that show any species evolving even gradually into another species. We can see similarities between dinasuars and birds, but is their any fossils showing Dinasuars gradually evolving into birds?

Also you prove my point yet again you stereo type Creationist theology.Infact some Christian theologians believe in Intelligent designed Darwinian Evolution. Infact they believe exactly like Athiests in every single belief except that they believe God created modern life through Evolution. Now how is that any less scientific then Darwinian Evolution? It is Darwinian Evolution in every shape and form.

Why is a biology proffesor who believes in God not a scientist, while a biology proffesor that does not is? Infact a leading proffesor and employee of the Smithsonian came forward and stated that God existed and backed some Creationist theories with facts. They terminated him for disagreeing with their theology. Now was he any less of a scientist then any of the others? Are you saying someone in a Government position of science in the Smithsonian one if not the most world renowned museums was somehow less of a scientist because he believed differently then his collegues?

I have personally met graduates of several biology programs from the states. They believe in creationism, I have met paleontologists both Creationist and Evolutionist your telling me that two people with the same educational background in the same scientific field, that one is less of a scientist because he believes differently then the other based on scientific evidences?

 
--The scientific body of theories popularly referred to as "evolutionary theory" is in no way theology or theological.  If there is a theology called Evolution (or Evilution), it is a strawman created, probably by creationists, for the religious to fight against. 

Umm even my science texts stated that Macro Evolution was a theory. While the text said it was a theory based on science it was still called a theory. The many theories are in no way anymore scientific then the Creationist theories. Darwin was a very intelligent theologian and scientist. But his theories while some turned out to be smack on like Micro Evolution and survival of the fittest others were false. People seem to think of Darwin as infaulable and everything he says is fact because some of his theories were right.

 
--It is far from ignorant to judge something unscientific if that judgment is based on a serious evaluation of its nature, methods, claims, etc., either done personally or by someone both trusted and knowledgeable.  http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

Now this is funny, you qoute a website created by Athiest scientists to try and disprove Creationism as a science. Thats credable...... lol Thats like the ancient days when the Catholic church thought the world was flat. THe scientist came forward and says it is round and you qoute the church as a reliable source that the world was flat.

Of course an Athiest is going to say he is right, just like I could quote tons of Creationist scientists who say that Macro Evolution isn't science.

Infact the only reliable source would be from someone who does not believe he knows how life came about. Someone unbiased. I hate these debates because they usually go on for days with me quoting creationists and the Evolutionist quoting evolutionists. It gets no where because neither of us can prove each other wrong, If you have new evidence that proves their was no involvement of intelligent design be my guest and present this ground breaking evidence. But such evidence doesn't exist because Evolutionary theology is exactly that "Theology" it is not proven fact in any sense of the word. It is just as scientific as Creationist theology, sure some creationist theories aren't based on science but some of the Evolution theories don't hold scientific water either.

--On the contrary, they are scientific, as you would know if you understood what a scientific theory was.  And I do not say that insultingly or dismissively, or in passing:  it is abundantly clear that you do not know, or do not acknowledge, what science is and what it is to be a theory.  I seriously doubt that anything you were taught that denied what you call "macroevolution" was ever a scientific theory. 

I must be misreading your statement. Macro Evolution is the theory, theories are not proven facts. Any Hypothesis or idealogy that cannot be proven right or wrong are theories. Infact some that have been proven wrong are still taught in Science 10 as theories. Having gone to Public Highschool I was taught evolution theology.

A scientific theory as you mention is an idea of how something did or did not come about, how something does or does not work. Any idea about something based on scientific fact. Macro Evolution is a perfect example, because Micro Evolution occurs naturely within a species over the course of dozens to hundreds to thousands of years obviously it could occur in larger scales that could go as far as creating new species. This makes it a Scientific theory, why because their is no direct evidence to show that species evolve into entirely different species, but inter species evolution occurs which leads some to believe it could occur on a larger scale though it remains unproven. It is not scientific fact, it is scientific theory.

Just like the theory that a God created life on Earth over billions of years. The fossil record clearly shows species appearing out of nowhere over millions to billions of years. No record of species evolving into one another, similarities yes but no missing link has ever been found. So who was creating these new species? When the asteroid destroyed the Dinasuars who created the new species? A few species that just showed up, where did they come from? Did reptiles (Cold Blooded creatures) evolve into Mammals (Warm Blooded creatures). Evidence shows these species suddenly showing up out of nowhere. Suggesting that these species were created not evolved.

I could go on talking about what makes Creationist Scientific theories scientific, what makes Evolution theories not scientific but to be honest Its stupid to debate with people who are so set in their beliefs that they won't listen to you no matter how much evidence you thow at them.

I once debated an Athiest for like 3-months, hundreds of replies back and fourth on FaceBook. Untill finally he said "You know what, I don't know how we were created and neither do you so lets just let it go" From then on he called himself agnostic.

Fact is I am not going to change what I believe based on some unproven theories. Just like you won't change your beliefs based on my unproven theories. What I am saying is that all of our scientific theories are still theology, they are theories not scientific fact.

If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable then it is not scientific fact. If it is not scientific fact, a theory to be considered scientific theory must be based on scientific fact. Since neither Evolution theology or Creationist theology is scientific fact then both of them are theories. Theories are theology anyway you look at it, whether you like it or not they are all theories.

I could argue that creationists' guesses are considerably less educated than they might be, but more importantly, the theories of "evolutionists" are way beyond any stage that could be called a guess.  A hypothesis is advanced, tested, tested again, refined, retested, and if no one in the scientific community can manage to show that it inadequately explains the world around us compared to existing theories, then after years of trying, it too starts to be considered a theory. 

So a proffesor who worked for the Smithsonian is less educated then you? A science major with over 20 years in the field is less educated then you? A paleontologist who now teaches science in school, yah you and your other science teachers are so much more educated then them.

Just face the facts that your theories aren't anymore factual then their theories. Instead of allowing yourself to be brainwashed into the belief that everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated nut job. Maybe you should realize your just as much of an uneducated nutjob, no pun intended.

Scientific theories are not theology, and I'm not even sure what you think makes a fact scientific instead of regular.  

Hate to break it to you, but theories until proven as fact are theology. The Earth being round was a theory until proven factual, just like the Earth being flat was a theory until being proven false. Gravity while being a scientific theory was theology until proven factual just like the earths gravitational pole.

In the same way Creationist theories will continue to be  theology just like Evolutionist theories until either of them can be proven fact. Do you even know the definition of Theology?

Now I also do know that most people limit theology to just religious beliefs and faith based belief system so some do not consider Evolution to be theology. So lets open that can of worms Evolution is a faith based if not religious belief system. Evolutionists believe in something that cannot be proven right or wrong, can not be seen and is illogical in the eyes of those who don't believe in it. It is infact a religious beliefs system just as much as Buddhism is or Christianity.

It takes far more faith to believe a single celled organism evolved into man over billions of years. Then to believe an intelligent being created our biological make up.

Plus their are now churches of Darwin. So their are church's their are texts which base the athiests religious belief system and they believe in an unseen force creating life as we know it based soully on faith then any actual facts.

If Athiesm is not a religion then neither is the majority if all religions. Now the common argument is Athiests don't believe in a God so they aren't a religion. Well hate to break it to you but every Athiest believes in a creator whether intelligent or not they all do. Whether it be a big bang or an alien or any other creator they all have faith in an unseen unprovable creator.

In the end as I said we could drag this on for 3 months like I have with others. Or we can admit you know what I am not smarter then everyone else, I don't know all the answers and the theories I believe in are exactly that "Theories".

When I refered to uneducated Athiests I was refering to those who don't know about any other theories then their own. Their are many uneducated Creationists as well. But no matter how much education you have you can't prove Creationist or Evolutionist Theology as fact.

Sapphi not trying to be offensive but this is what I was talking about. Your stereotyping creationism. Creationism is not a single theory that earth was made in seven physical days, like many uneducated Athiests believe. Their are over 12- different creationist theories from protestant Christian scientists that I have heard of not to mention the many theories from scientists around the world.

Creationism is a science based theology just like Evolution. Infact some creationist theories even include Macro Evolution and many include Micro Evolution things we are taught in school. Its highly ignorant to judge all theories but Darwinian evolution as un-scientific.

Plus right in your post you say that theology has no place in school, then why should the theory of Macro Evolution , Big Bang, Abiogenesis? None of those three theories are anymore scientific then the many Creationist theories. None of the three are scientific fact, all of them and infact all the methods of creation I was taught in school all of them were theories.

If theology has no place in schools then no theories at all should be taught. Leave the guessing and faith out of our schools. I agree whole heartedly that nothing un-factual should be taught in school unless it is in a theology course which give all faith based theories equal attention.

So yes your right evolution (Other then Micro) should be kept out of our schools. Theories have no place in the classroom!