whomever created the earth and the life on it sure went out of their way to make it appear that the opposite occurred.

At the risk of paraphrasing the comments of several on this thread, let me make the following statements:

Whether you believe in the Christian version of Creationism, some other form of that belief system, or believe in the Big Bang followed by our evolution from simple amino acids formed "naturally" on the surface of planet Earth, you are exercising a form of "faith".  

All "first principles" are (and must be) taken as articles of faith - they cannot by definition be "proven".  The difference between religious faith and faith in science is one of source and evidence.  Religious faith of the Christian tradition comes from the "revealed word of God" in the form of the Bible, a document that someone pointed out was written not too far off in the distant past.  

Science, on the other hand, is quite a bit younger than that, but we've done a great deal of work with the material evidence available.  Does science have all the answers?  Of course not, but the primary advantage science has (IMHO) is that it doesn't proclaim to know the TRUTH, it suggests a [i]most likely explanation for the evidence thus far found[/i].  Yes, there's a lot of inertia in the scientific community, and people who have dedicated their lives to a certain theory don't like having to give it up when it's proven incorrect, but science is amenable to being changed.  

Religion tends not to be, a fact which Gallileo found to his discomfort.

To me, Creationism and the mindset behind it indicates that someone is uncomfortable with the idea that they don't [i]KNOW[/i].  Whereas a belief in the theory of evolution CAN indicate that a person has the same slavish devotion to the idea of a TRUTH as a religious fanatic.  Hey, maybe Homo Sapiens Sapiens WAS dropped off here by space aliens and displaced the Neanderthals - we don't have any DNA evidence to disprove it.  But it isn't on my top-ten list of "most likely explanations", either.

Have you ever been working really hard on a project, trying to solve a particularly tough problem? You try all kinds of different things, then in the course of your work, you come upon a reference manual written several years before that contains the answers to what you are trying to accomplish. Do you then reject the reference book simply because you didn't write it or disparage it because you didn't come up with the solution yourself? No, you embrace it and carry it around as a source of solutions to similar problems.

That is how many of us see the Bible. Scientists today are finding that the more they discover they more some Biblical accounts make sense. The Bible offers practical solutions to today's problems and is utilized by many as a problem solving resource and guide.

Science is more often proving the Bible as right than wrong. That's not my idea, just the way it is.

Some day, a flying saucer filled with aliens is going to land on Earth.  
The aliens will get out, walk into a church, where a nice man will say to them, "OUR God created the entire Universe."
The aliens will pack up and leave, thinking:
"Those Earthling are mighty obnoxious..."

LOL!

did anyone see the "Marklar" episode of South Park? not too much about creation, but it did go into religion - too funny, also too true!

damn, i'm gonna have to keep up with this thread, it may just help shape my thoughts on this subject!

Indeed, I have absolutely no doubt that a great deal of what is written in the Bible has a source in fact, and as a moral guide on how to live your life it's pretty good.  I just cannot accept that the Bible represents "the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth".  You may.  That is your right.

Without using the "blind faith" arguement, provide evidence to compell an intelligent man to conclude that god created the world as we know it...

I don't think it can be done...

There are also "scientists" who believe the earth is flat and that aliens abduct people regularly.  All those people have one thing in common though...they don't do well in peer review.

I think you are mostly right. By definition, faith means believing in something you do not see and cannot prove absolutely. You have faith that your wife is not cheating on you, but can you prove it absolutely, all the time? No, but you can go by her past behavior and enough facts about her to strongly believe that she is not. The rest you take on faith and trust.

I think that the argument is not so much "Prove that God created it" as it is "prove He didn't."

I can't "prove" either and neither can you. Nor can anyone. I do find it interesting that many of the leading edge scientists today are modifying their hypothesis to include the possibility or reality of Intelligent Design. There is quite a movement towards that in the scientific community these days. They are not prepared to say, "It was God." They are saying that the evidence more and more precludes the idea of random evolution and more supports some form of Intelligent Design.

You are correct in pointing out that belief in anything requires a certain amount of faith, along with facts. I simply ask you to consider that science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive.

blind faith IS the argument, there is no proof either way, that is why the religious believe in Creationism, and the non or less than religious choose either a secular belief system, or like me, a hybrid belief.

i can't accept anything on blind faith, that is why i don't adhere to an organized religion. but i do believe in a God of some sort, only because like the Native Americans, i believe in spirits and a spirit world - i otherwise wouldn't have, but i saw one.

Interesting. What did you see?

I don't believe in UFO's.
I don't think it's practical.
If one landed in my backyard, I STILL wouldn't believe in UFO's.
What am I going to do?  Drop everything and become the "UFO Guy"?  Start going on all the talk shows, acting like a nut? Writing books, going to conventions, putting up a web-site?
Nope.
Not practical, serves no purpose.

(the above is an analogy, BTW)

Nothing overly dramatic.  I've always been interested in science, and the more I found out as I read more detailed and technical science texts through college, the more I realized that literal Creationism wasn't realistic.
Then I started pondering (and this took years) the problem of how God could interact with reality.  The more I thought about it and studied it, it seemed to me that it would be more likely that a Creator would design the universe just as he wanted it and allow it to unfold on its own...in essence, Deism.
After that I started pondering the nature of reality and of a possible Creator and finally came to the realization that anything that exists outside our Universe (as a Creator necessarily must) is not understandable or even conceivable to a human mind, and thus I became an agnostic.

A major component of any definition of God is that he is eternal.  Given that God is eternal, that would make stuff that is not-God not eternal.  If matter is eternal, then matter is God, and vice versa.  Since God is eternal, he cannot be created or destroyed without not having been God in the first place.  

If God had a beginning, then he is not God, and we are worshipping the wrong thing!

If you can allow these statements, allow this.  Matter is subject to God, by definition, and thus cannot be eternal like God.  Therefore it had to have been created.  The only thing that can create, is something that exists.  Existing is what God always does.  Therefore God created matter simply by definition.

Now we can argue all day about how the current version of the universe formed.  I can see a few possible scenarios:

1.  Matter is eternal thus raising the arguement that Matter is God, and this would make us God.

2.  God created the Earth to look very old.  It would seem odd that God would attempt to fool those who wonder about him.

3.  Matter is eternal and therefore nothing is God.  This would make everything that has happened thus far accidental.  This would have the unseemly result of rendering all human intelligence and reason worthless.  In other words: 2 + 2 = 5 or whatever you want, or not at all, maybe.

4.  Current theories are misunderstanding the current state of scientific evidence.  This does happen quite often.  Science is never always right.  Science is a continuing reformulation and study of the world.

5.  We are living in the Matrix, and have no comprehension of the "Real World".

6.  God started the process by which the earth has been formed.  This seems most likely given the state of scientific state of affairs.  God may have influenced this process at several important steps.  The emergence of Humanity would be one of these steps.  Humanity ceased to be an animal and became something special.  (No apologies to PETA and their idiotic Rat=Boy theory)

I find it interesting that both science and faith both try to discredit the other, but make themselves weaker in the process.

end-rational-thought or not...
[%|]

well, i didn't really want to get into it, but i saw a human figure come through a wall and move up to the sky. one of my cousins was there, and he saw it too. we were young, but we know what we saw.

as MM said above, that doesn't make me a religious freak, it just opens my mind to the possibility of another plane of existance, one which we don't understand, and so far, a higher power is the only way to rationalize the event. it by no means is explained in my mind, but i will carry the memory of it forever, and use it to shape the world around me, like the Bible does for some.

Rik, thanks for the answer. I am glad to hear you came to your conclusions through thought and not simply because someone pissed you off. Too many people get turned off cause someone comes on too strong about an issue.

I agree with you that the idea of a Supreme Creator who can control the universe is beyond my limited ability to understand. Same way I ahve trouble conceiving of the universe as infinite and without end.

I guees the difference with me is that I have learned not to let my lack of total understanding get in the way of what I do know.
It is a mystery to me why IMR4064 will drill my handloads into 1/2" groups but 4895 will make my rifle into a shotgun. But I do know it happens, and I do know that I will continue to load 4064. Same on more important matters.

There is much about science that I don't understand and never will, but I accept the fact that some things are just the way they are. Someone else has gone before me and proven that is how it works, so I accept it and move on. That is not blind faith, but educated, reasonable faith.

I accept what you have said and appreciate your honesty and politeness in responding.

[img]datacore.sciflicks.com/2001/images/2001_large_13.jpg[/img]

Then...
[img]www.visual-memory.co.uk/2001/icons/stargate.jpg[/img]

Cerebrus wrote: " I think that the argument is not so much "Prove that God created it" as it is "prove He didn't."

I didn't ask for proof... I asked for "evidence to compell"

There is a difference..

Can you provide any evidence to compell?

OK, fine. I appreciate your answer and respect your desire to not get into it. At least you recognize the spiritual dimension. So many otherwise intelligent and well educated people are hobbled in their search because they refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural. You are a step ahead.

...but Fatty is wise enough to accept it AND realize that he cannot explain it.
There are many people who would try to tell him EXACTLY what it was that he saw.
Organized religion too often presumes to know the "explaination" for it all.  It doesn't.
I know just as much about God as the pope, or any priest knows.
The big difference is that he knows alot more false information and bullshit about God than I do.

The key word here is "similar".  Is the problem of understanding how life came to assume its current forms "similar" to a problem like knowing how to raise a family?  IMHO, no.

I would not waste my time flipping through the Bible in search of a periodic table of the elements, nor would I consult a chemistry textbook to find the answer to a moral dilemma.

Oops!  I must be one of those so "hobbled".  I think that "supernatural" is an oxymoron.  All the "supernatural" is is something our current level of understanding doesn't encompass.  It doesn't mean we [i]can't[/i] understand it, just that we [i]don't yet[/i] understand it.

The difference is that those who follow the path of science are comfortable with the idea of [b]"I don't know"[/b], and secure in the belief that some day we very well [i]may[/i] know, if we just keep working at it.  Or at least we'll have a working hypothesis.

The same could be said for propositions such as "Satan created the universe", "God is dead", and "We're all just figments of someone else's imagination".  In fact, there is an infinite number of unprovable propositions.  

Why should one [i]deus ex machina[/i] explanation be preferable to another?

Sorry, my bad. There is a difference. You can probably tell by my posts that I am neither a great scientist nor a great theologian, but I will try and throw out a couple of ideas.

I guess I would first look at the genetic blueprints that make up all life. Each species of plant or animal is genetically unique. There are limitless variations in the genetic structure within a species, but any mutation in the genes/DNA string results in a defective specimen, not in a mutation towards a better one. In addition, though the diversity is unlimited [b]within[/b] a species, it does not tranfer [b]inter-species[/b]. You cannot mate dogs and pigs, and pigs don't evolve into dogs.

Though there is fossil evidence of great diversity and a variety of many extinct life forms, many of these fossil forms are biologically similar to species that exist today. The fossil and archeological records support the idea of natural selection, that certain species could not adapt to climate changes or were affected by catastrophic environmental effects and died out while others survived. But Natural Selection and Evolution are two separate issues.

The similarity in overall "system designs" among plants, fish and mammals while preserving a unique genetic/DNA code within a species argues for Intelligent Design.

Thirdly, there is new evidence coming to light every day from a variety of disciplines that verifies the Biblical account of major events like a world wide flood, for example. Dinosaur like creatures are specifically described in the Bible, and I would ask you to remember that the various books of the Bible were not written in a vaccuum. There is much contemporary literature that describes these events with remarkable agreement in timing and detail.

For example, some scholars have dismissed th idea that David, King of Israel, ever existed. They have postulated that he was a man of myth, a composite of many different men painted into a great story. Recently, archeologists have uncovered not only Jewish stone ornaments and carvings describing the Davidic kingdon, but have found a stone monument put out by an opposing army describing their defeat of "David, King of the Hebrews."

There are many other examples of this kind of thing, that would take far too much of Goatboys space, so I won't go farther. I will end by saying I disagree with Trof's point that " both science and faith both try to discredit the other, but make themselves weaker in the process" Science and faith are NOT exclusive of each other. It is the thought that they [b]must[/b] be opposing that makes both sides weaker. There is more strength found in the similarities than there is in the differences.

Well, now you've gone and done it!
We killed God.
God is dead.

OK, one quick question here,  I you believe in evolution, and that means we decended from apes, primates etc. ......
Then why do we still have apes ???????
WELL ?????

Last month Worldnet magazine had a great article outlining some of the flaws in the theory of evolution.  It made some very good points.  I will try to recall some of them:

1) A single strand of DNA is much more complex than the source code of Windows 98.  Using this analogy, how long would it take for the source code of Windows 98 to naturally occur from random events?  The odds are beyond astronomical.  Plus, it wouldn't be good enough for just a strand of DNA to come into being, it would need some sort of survival mechanism PLUS some form of reproductive capability.  The odds of this kind of organism occurring in a perfectly random environment -- let alone a hostile environment -- are incalculable.

2) Darwin theorized in "The Origin of Species" that archeology would eventually turn up some fossils of transitional animals.  After all, since everything alive today evolved from the same basic ancestors, there should be plentiful fossil evidence of the transitional animals (ie, the animals between them and us.)  None had been found in Darwin's time (which he admitted) and to this day no conclusive evidence has been found.

3) Evolution proponents say that the key to evolution is mutation. That is, something alters the DNA of an organism to make it into something else.  However, experiments have shown that mutation (through radiation or other means) only *destroys* genetic information, it has never been observed to *create* it.  In other words, random mutations make organisms less robust, not more.

4) Lab experiments have reproduced organic chemicals, true, but has a lab experiment ever produced *life*? Has it ever produced one fragment of DNA from scratch?  There is a mighty big difference between amino acids and DNA.  It's kind of like saying that since the human body is 90% water, I have 90% of a human being in my water cooler.

There were a lot more points that I don't remember.  The article wasn't cheering creationism so much as it was trying to expose the fervor with which the hardcore evolutionists were promoting it as hard and fast truth.  It's long ago stopped being a theory in their minds.

Another thing to think about:  when you were three years old, how much did you know about finance, computer technology, or law?  Could you have understood it even if it were explained to you?  Isn't it equally plausible that we aren't capable of understanding the nature of God and his methods?  Just a thought.

Sorry Bud, I didn't mean to offend and certainly wasn't pointing at you. In fact you and I agree on several things. I agree that the [b]supernatural[/b] is something we do not yet understand. But that lack of current understanding doesn't stop our search for more knowledge.

Scientists and religionists both have a problem with "I don't know." The most mature Christian believers I know will tell you there is a lot they don't know about their faith, just as will the most sincere scientists will tell you about their discipline. But lack of total understanding doesn't require either one to abandon their search to learn more. Only a fool says that he knows all there is to know. Wise men will continue to seek knowledge and be open to any changes that newly discovered facts require them to make.

Excuse me?  Since when?  Not all mutations result in "defective specimens", or we'd be unable to breed new strains of corn or of dogs for that matter.And no one claims that's the path they took to get here either.  You can, however, breed horses to donkeys and the result is a mule - by definition a sterile offspring of two very closely related species (which dogs and pigs are not).I've got to see your dictionary.  They are [b]not[/b] separate issues.Well, maybe to some.  I don't have a problem with the concept that "it just growed".Granted.  I'd be more than surprised if major environmental catastrophes and other events that occurred during the existence of thinking human beings on the planet DIDN'T end up being remembered, recorded, and passed on.  However: I truly believe that the last dinosaur was extinct long before Homo Sapiens walked the surface.  Did ancient man find fossilized skeletons?  Doubtless.  Did someone tell stories about them?  Also doubtless.Meaning:  we haven't learned all there is to learn yet, no matter how much we pat ourselves on the back.  That may be true, but there are fundamental disagreements that produce a chasm between science and faith.  The bridge between them is pretty shaky.

...because we didn't kill them off yet, give us a chance!

seriously, it has been explained that environmental factors such as location/isolation from another gene pool is responsible for that. much the same as when homo erectus was emerging, homo sapiens also walked the earth at the same time - neanderthals too, and some believe that humans killed them off.

But are those actually mutations, or are they just cross-breeding to emphasize desirable traits?  You don't grow smaller Chihuahuas by walking his father on Three Mile Island.

Elisha was a hermit.
One day he was heading up to the mountains, when a large group of children (22) began making fun of his bald head.
Elisha cursed them in the name of the Lord.
God then set "Three Giant She-Bears" upon the children.  The bears killed all 22 of them.

Real nice.
Just for making fun of his bald head.

Well, Eohippus is gone, but we do have horses, donkeys and zebras.  We are not the descendants of modern chimpanzees and gorillas.  We share a common ancestor somewhere WAY back, just as all mammals share a common ancestor MUCH farther back.  M'kay?

Really?  So if my DNA codes for dwarfism, and a mutation results in my son not being a dwarf, he's defective?

I didn't realize that [b]all[/b] living things were so perfect that [b]any[/b] change would be detrimental.


What about mating horses with donkeys?  Or dogs with coyotes?


The implication of this belief (species can become extinct, but new species can't arise) would be that the Earth was once a very crowded place -- humans, dinosaurs, mastodons, trilobites, and every other species would have been crammed together, all competing for over-lapping ecological niches.


Or for descent from a common ancestor.  My siblings and I all have similar overall "system designs" and unique genetic codes but I strongly suspect that we share the same parents.  [;)]


The Bible also states that giants once walked upon the earth.  Yet I've seen lots of dinosaur bones but no giant bones.  Hmmm...

Major, do me a favor. When you take a passage from a book you don't believe in and try to use it to make a point, at least do some research first.

Elisha was a prohept chosen by God to do a specific job. While on his way he was confronted by these "children." The Hebrew word used in the original texts translates "youths", young men, probably older teenagers. Not little kids making fun of a bald old man.

So imagine your on your way to work when you are confronted by a group of 22 young inner city gangbangers who start making fun of you, probably encircle you, and who just want to play a while. How do you feel? Then the Big Guy who called for you comes along and breaks up the party, so you can go about his business. That's what's going on in this passage.

I try not to make wild statements on the board. Please try to do the same.

did anyone see a discovery ch. show called "the Fingerprint of God" ?? it was a fascinating search into a mathematical formula. the formula is way too complex for me, but the jist of it was, that once the the formula was programmed into a computer, and allowed to run, it was discovered that the formula has no end! like pi or something.

the formula on its own, when "drawn", looked like a paisly pattern. when the computer "zoomed in" on the paisly, it was shown that one could zoom in forever, without seeing anything but more paislies within the last.

anyway, the computer formed a model or a graph to correlate with its "findings" or put simply to graph the formula through its processes toward a solution. the formula is in fact randomly occuring, but it took a man to discover it. the graph was nothing short of shocking!

it first made a curved line, like a horizon, then it began to "sprout" lines (seemingly random) from the curve, in an upward and outward motion. the whole time the computer was generating, the "picture" continued to be more plain.

it resembled the earth with trees, plants, contours and hills. it was amazing.

Yes, actually they are really mutations.  Selective breeding can be done by us, or by environmental pressures.  "Desireable" is defined by the environment.  A mutation is any genetically coded physical change.  Not all genetic changes are harmful.  Most, probably, have no noticeable effect on the organism.  

Evolution is most dramatically noticed (not surprisingly) in bacteria.  Has anyone noticed that disease organisms are becoming less and less affected by our battery of antibiotics?  Why?  Because those who survived exposure have replaced the ones that didn't.  And there are NEW species of bacteria creating NEW diseases that we haven't seen before.  Evolution works fast in bacteria because the reproductive cycle is so short.  Evolution of new higher species is not something that you notice in the lifespan of a human being, nor even in a few generations.

If Christianity developed from Judaism, then why do we still have Jews?
If motorcycles developed from bicycles, then why do we still have bicycles?
If television developed from radio, then why do we still have radios?
If Clydesdales were descended from wild horses, then why do we still have wild horses?
WELL????? [rolleyes]

No, it means that the defective gene was corrected through the mothers contribution.

[b]I didn't realize that [b]all[/b] living things were so perfect that [b]any[/b] change would be detrimental.[/b]

I never said "change", I said "mutation", the kind required to get something completely different from the parent organism

[b]What about mating horses with donkeys?  Or dogs with coyotes?[/b]

Donkeys are sterile and cannot be reproduced without outside intervention. Dogs and coyotes are both canines. Like Caucasians and Asians and Indians and Negroes can all produce fully functional offspring among each other.

[b]The implication of this belief (species can become extinct, but new species can't arise) would be that the Earth was once a very crowded place -- humans, dinosaurs, mastodons, trilobites, and every other species would have been crammed together, all competing for over-lapping ecological niches.[/b]

New species are being discoverd, but are found to have been in place for a long time. You are confusing natural variation with entirely new, genetically unique species.

[b]Or for descent from a common ancestor.  My siblings and I all have similar overall "system designs" and unique genetic codes but I strongly suspect that we share the same parents.  [;)][b/]

Quite true, and I would suspect that non of your siblings are fish. There are all human, right?

[b]The Bible also states that giants once walked upon the earth.  Yet I've seen lots of dinosaur bones but no giant bones.  Hmmm...[/b]

Come to Florida, buddy. The ancient Calusa Indians were huge, well over 7 feet tall and very large boned. Compared to my 5'10" frame, I would call them giants.

You're describing the relatively new mathematics of "Fractals", which is closely associated with Chaos Theory.  One practical use of which is the really amazing computer generated images being done by special-effects companies.  Another is in weather modeling.

The paisley pattern you describe is the Mandelbrot set, a formula devised by an IBM fellow named Benoit Mandelbrot.  There are many others.  There's a book out by a guy named Gleick (sp?) titled [u]CHAOS[/u] that I highly recommend.  Excellent explanations for the layman.  Really neat stuff.

Your statement has some truth to it.  Not all genetic changes are harmful, but taken as a trend mutations tend to be inimical to the genetic health of a species.  



That's right.  That is natural selection at work.  Natural selection is a phenomenon that has been observed for quite a while: anyone remember the studies on moths in industrial parts of England?  The sootier-colored ones became more prevalent than the white ones.  But natural selection does not equal evolution, at least in the "Theory of Evolution".

The reason the bacteria are beating our antibiotics is because antibiotics are designed to attack certain characteristics of a bacterium's cell membrane.  Bacteria that are mutated or for whatever reason have a dissimilar membrane are not attacked, they do survive and multiply. But are they "stronger" or "better" than the ones that didn't survive?  No. This can be said to be "evolution," after a fashion.  But can you extrapolate this instance to cover every living thing on the planet?



Nobody said that organisms don't change over time, but do gradual variations among generations of a species account for the diversity of animal life on the planet today?  Has enough time passed?

I don't put much faith ;) in either one.

The problem I have with evolution, is not the theory itself, but the fact that people use evolution to proclaim that there is no God.

The problem I have with creationism is that if you have enough sense to look at the world around you, then the literal interpretation of Genesis is silly.  A silly thing to do would be to trace the generations back to get the age of the earth.

I don't think there is any doubt that evolution itself exist and that species change over time.  

If you look at the complexity and design of our universe, earth, and even the trees in your yard, there is no doubt that these things are not a chance happening.  

Is there a GOD?  yes
Is evolution correct? yes
Is there a large gap in our understanding? yes
 

Was it a fractal? [url]http://spanky.triumf.ca/[/url]

You just made quite a wild statement.
My reading of the text is much more accurate than yours.
You twist the text to make yourself more comfortable.  The translations always read "children", you make a HUGE leap to claim they are gangbanger-like.
Nor did they impead his work:
(I was wrong with the #s)

"He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.  From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and then returned to Samaria"

This is a prime example of how people twist the Bible and the "word of God" to fit their needs.

thanks! i've wanted to know more about it all, does the book get into religious vs. secular implications at all???

Your reading of the text is more [b]literal[/b] than mine. Go do the background and context.

Nope.  It just lays out the history of fractal mathematics (which goes back farther than you'd think) and Chaos Theory.  The reason that fractals and Chaos Theory is springing up today is that the mathematics that they use are non-linear and iterative.  Computers can do this kind of calculation (repeat the same calculation over and over and over using slightly different variables) where humans can't.  In fact, in Gleick's book he related a story where someone suggested that Chaos theory is the study of non-linear mathematics, and someone else said that's like calling zoology the study of non-elephant animals.  It's a BIG and important field that allows us to model and understand  things we were never able to before.

Here's a link to the book: [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140092501/qid=997810874/sr=2-1/002-1866915-1208005[/url]

Your question makes a couple of wrong assumptions.  The first is that descending from something means you're progressing beyond it and that there is no room for the thing from which you descended. That is not necessarily so.
The second is that humans descended from apes. Humans AND apes descended from various ape-like primates.  Taxonomically, humans ARE a species of ape.

Read it again:

"He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and then returned to Samaria"

I believe the above text was written to inspire fear in those who would mock God's prophets. Am I wrong?
I think it also shows a brutality that you attempt to defend or justify, by reading "small boys" as "gangbanger like" older teens.  It's not there.

Not surprising.