agreed, It's more or less become a scientists' religion. The reason I speak so harshly against it is because of this reason. As for gravity, one mentioned that gravity is not proven.....Gravity is a LAW not THEORY you can see the effects of gravity very plainly, but evolution is theoretical and has not been ABSOLUTELY proven. Being a theory is not problem, there are lots of theories like the Big Bang, that sound great, but too much faith shouldn't be put in them as they are theories. The only things that are absolute (and not entirely absolute) in science are laws. We know that laws work, we don't necessarily know how, but we know they work. This is the difference between theory and law. Although a theory cannot be said to be false upright (depending on evidence that supports the theory and how valid the evidence is) it can't be totally discounted, however, it can't be totally proven either. Evolution is one such theory that the evidence is questionable, and cannot be proven 100%, the fact that other considerations such as "this may be another creature that died out" or "this one could have had problems in birth" are not even looked into is what bothers me, the moment the bones that are used as evidence are found, they are counted as being evolution without second thought.

This is NOT open-minded science! The reason such people as Darwin and Einstein are counted as great scientific minds is because they didn't just see evidence and immediately think "well, this must be this theories explanation...well, we're done here". NO! E=MC² was not developed in a short time. It took continuous equations and testing to see IF it COULD be possible. The equation and theory attached to it are pure genius, but it is still theory because it cannot be proven with modern day science, so there is not ABSOLUTE that you could go back in time IF you could go lightspeed. Einstein theorized well, and was one of the most genius minds that we know of BUT, that being said alot of his work is theory. E=MC² contributed to making the atom bomb, so once again, although there is evidence to support the equation, since all grounds around it cannot be covered it is a theory.

Like I said, a theory is not a bad thing but, it must have evidence AND must be tested continuously, or it stays a theory and is never proven nor disproven. I'm just saying the evidence is questionable, and it is. It's about as questionable as most of our early AD and BC history.

@PHeMoX: to answer some stuff, I may not post much more here, but if you have more you wish to debate, we will

"Same here and thanks. I definitely like a good open minded discussion instead of aggressive mud fighting as if we're still chimps."

Your genius is showing

"China basically has no freedom of religion, so it's difficult to say what the average Chinese thinks of Buddhism or any religion for that matter."

Then you're kind of agreeing with me

"Not really as history has shown time and time again that historic documents are often quite unreliable. Mainly because the one who lives is obviously the one able to write history. Many kings in the past have bragged so incredibly much that it's difficult to take them serious when it comes to counting taxes (something that's difficult to brag about when it's simple documentation for government purposes)."

That COULD be said about history, however, on that side. It supports the idea of having creationism and bible history. We teach alot of BC and early AD stuff, it's just as questionable as you say the bible is.

"If you find only one chariot in the Dead Sea, where hundreds or perhaps even thousands should have been... something tells me the story is wrong."

The question is, how did that one get there? Sombody was just drivin' along and "Hey, what's that water doin' over thar...come on horsey, lets go fer a swim" ( lol ) The Dead Sea isn't exactly great at making "fossils" (so to speak) and that did happen a LONG time ago.

"And the Jews stole it from the Egyptians who stole it from the Sumerians. There's a whole line of religions using the same old stories. Christ-like main characters included!"

That depends on the literature, some early books (old testament) were in and around Egypt and Sumeria, however, books such as the Gospels were written by Jews in Israel. MOST of the bible was written by Jews, not all, but most.

"Yes, the Torah is older, but again it was based on the ancient Egyptian religion(s) and other religions. The fact that the books are old doesn't really mean a thing to be honest with you. Also, apparently it doesn't make your eyebrows frown knowing that Christianity copied so incredibly much from the Torah?"

Not at all, Judaism and Christianity are more-or-less the same religion, the Jews just didn't accept Jesus Christ, they are still waiting on their king. Other than this difference we both serve the same God, "Jehovah" "Yahweh".

In fact, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy make sense to have been taken from the Egyptians, Moses was an Egyptian turned Jewish. His line was Hebrew, but he lived in Egypt, this also supports where they were found.

"I know you never said that, but in my opinion simple logic demands an answer to this paradox. I'm very open minded about this though, as the universe doesn't have to make sense according to logic or be still tangible when going down the rabbit hole deep enough so to speak. There are several points from which we have to admit that 'we just don't know yet'."

True, but I would rather believe what God and the Bible says. Simply put, God is something you have to experience to truly believe, and once you have it opens your mind to what he says.

"The coming into existence of our universe wasn't a coincidence. Forget about people that talk about 'chance' and 'chance of life to come into existence'. It's pretty much valueless crap as long as we do not have more answers. Like for example is our planet the only one with life? And so on and so forth."

I agree, that is why I do not agree with evolution, evolution relies on "chance" as being why everything came about. Forgive me, but this place is TOO perfectly designed to be mere chance, it took more than a single cell organism to asexually reproduce and "Magically" change under conditions that are scientifically impossible. I also agree that other planets may very well harbor life, it is closed-minded to think outside the box.

"I respect that, but I use a different definition for 'evidence'. It's not an attack to you or anyone else, but as said before I don't think the Bible is that much of a 'valid source' for itself to be counted as true evidence. I think you have to look into the research that has been done to try and find cities or prove events from biblical times... you'll be surprised how incredibly little has been found to be even remotely (read: can't rule out whether or not it happened or not) accurate,

Cheers"

Simple, there are many explanations in the bible for where the places are:

Eden, it mentions being centered around a river that splits into 4: Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates. - It is logical to suppose that Gihon and Pishon could have dried up over time, or been filled in or cut off. Tigris and Euphrates are still there today. This places eden near Iraq.

Canaan, this is modern day Israel, it also encompasses Palestine and Lebenon. In the bible God promised this land to the Israelites. The Jews used to own most of this land until (current day) Palestinians decided to fight for it and get the land. There has been religious warfare there ever since, it is the world Epicenter for warefare. Of course, no one can foget the Six Day War in which the Jews were outnumbered extremely and Divinely took back the area. I say divinely because of the ratio of numbers and days. Simply put, the Arabs were Pwned. It makes since that war has been going on there for so long because the entire area they were promised does not belong to them.

Are there more places you wish to ask about?