Anyone have a religion?

[War Angel]

Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?
You see, this is why I dislike atheism, and generally atheists as well. If you can know something is 100% wrong, when you have no solid proof of it being such (just like there's no solid proof of God's existence, or we'd all be believers), it's just as irrational as a faith in God. Blinding believing or blidnly dis-belieiving is about the same thing.

I know my knowledge and perception are limited. I can grasp things and concepts with my mind, intellect and logic... and that's why the idea of a God usually baffles me. However, I don't rule it out. I am open to God's existence, should concrete proof arise. I try to be open to ideas, in general. Everything has a little bit of truth in it, unlike this


Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?
sentence is trying to point. An ignorant phrase that proves blindness flows in both the ways - of the fanatic believer, and the fanatic dis-believer. You try so hard to stray from the ways of religion, disbelieving itself becomes your faith, your religion.

[Traitorfish]

Damn man, just accept it...

I think your perspective is a little confused- scientists aren't unquestioningly supportive of a particular idea or theory, they support which ever they belive to be correct, and if evidence shows one theory to be wrong, they abandon it. It's happened before, even in terms of evolutionism. Just because you are unaware does not mean it hasn't happened.
Actually, most people -- scientists and not -- actually are "unquestioningly supportive of a particular idea or theory", whatever belief it may be. That's why most debates on religion and politics don't get too far for those involved -- it's a preference of beliefs. (Which I don't really have a problem with, until it becomes a case of "I don't know why, but I'm sticking to this".) However, these "scientists" have the benefit of manipulating evidence to support their theory when it's wrong, instead of abandoning it entirely.
I don't think your outlook is entirely fair- you're basing this opinion on what you think poeple are like, not on any sort of substantial evidence. Besides, by your own standards, unquesting beleif is acceptable, isn't it?




Yet, somehwo, I never mentioned the rockies, nor used it as an argument, so what I have and haven't seen is irrelevant.
Let me slow this down. I haven't seen any mountains in Scotland. You haven't seen any mountains in America. You still following me? So it's pointless to bring out those topics, because only one of us has firsthand knowledge of them. It would be like me trying to talk about military topics to you, and you trying to talk...hell, rugby, or cricket, or whatever else you're into that I wouldn't have any experience with. Get it? Don't want to lose you any more than I already have, here.

OK, you're right there. We'll drop the mountain thingy.




I actually said that things fossilise on the sea bed- it was land that I said was no good for fossilisation. But, of course, you have just admitted defeat 'And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way.'

I read that wrong -- thought you said it was more difficult for something to be fossilized in the sea that it was on land. My mistake. I really don't see how I "admitted defeat", but hey, you keep on thinking that. You also tried to say nobody looks for fossils underwater. Keep it up.
I didn't literally mean that you admited defeat... though I can't see how else I was supposed to mean that... I was just over-glorifying a slight, and now it seems non-existant, victory. Oh well.




If fossilisation takes place, the wold would need to be at least hundreds of thousands, even millions or billions, of years old. 6000 years is not enough time for fossilisation to take place.

Let's see... This is a fossilized leg, in a boot. (http://www.ianjuby.org/bootpics.html). Yes, a human leg, in a cowboy boot. This poor guy's leg (someone named him "The Limestone Cowboy") was either torn or shot off, apparently, and was found in a dry creek bed near Iraan, Texas. The maker of the boot, M. L. Leddy boot company (founded in 1936) says the boot is their make, from about 1950. Which means...stay with me now...it doesn't take millions of years for something to fossilize. There are also pictures of a petrified dog in a tree, chopped wood, and an Icthyosaurus giving birth. As my brother put it, "Despite what my mother says, it doesn't take millions of years to give birth." I don't know where I found it, but a few years ago I ran across pictures of a petrified twinkie, I believe -- they told us twinkies had a long shelf life, didn't they?
OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.
And that twinky wasn't a fossil. Bones fossilise, pastry doesn't. Though, I suspect you already knew that, and are simply mocking me. Dam it, everyone always does...




Actually, my point was about continetal drift, not fossilisation. And I must asmit, that I cannot provide a source on my 'half a bird' thing. I saw it on a television documentary a few years ago, and I cannot track down another source.

Your point was about continental drift, in argument to a point about fossilization and fossil locations. Good one. And it's no surprise you don't have a source, really, don't worry about it.
No suprise, hmm? Well, I've yet to see you produce a credible source, except for that cowboy's leg. And don't say 'Bible'. I meant a scientific source.




Err... no, actually, continetal drift is proved by geological and paelontological reserach, as well as the study of earthquakes and volcanoes. Geologist have though long and hard about this, and have been slowly working it out for centuries.
Whatsmore, this theory was created based on certain research and investigation, not as way of proving another theory.

Actually, no, wrong again, it was thought up as a way of proving an aspect of Evolutionism, that being the idea that the earth is billions of years old. And again, wrong, it hasn't been proven. What's more, the main "evidence" for the idea is the fact that similar fossils have been found in Africa and South America, which would make perfect sense with any other theory, not just that one.
Actually, no, it was thought up independantly, by geologists, will evolution was the work of naturalists, biologists and paleontologists. They just happened to fit together. You'll often find that, when two things are true.




Err... that makes little or no sense... the eath is a huge, extremely dense ball of molten rock and metal... water simply souldn't distort the shape of the crust. You haven't actually researched this very well...
Well, here's some info on continetal drift:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Contdrift.shtml

Very good. Good start. Unfortunately, that's just information on the theoy, and not evidence supporting it, especially not against other possibilities. And yes, billions upon billions of gallons of water can (and did) work to shape the earth's crust.
Oh, yes, I agree, a sufficient amount of water cpuld cause the crust to distort. But, the earth does not, nor has it ever, contained that much water. At all. Ever.
Here's some evidence which you would have found, if you'd bothered to actually explore the first link to any depth. It's a kids site. It shouldn't be too hard:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html




I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.
Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.
Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'




Firstly, 'we all evolved from black people' is a gross misinterpretation. We evolved from earlier humans, who's appearance may have been similar to modern africans. As each human group spread across the globe, they all eveolved to fit their new envirnoment. The differences between races are, evolutionary theory says, simply to do with environment, and are no cause for rascism.
That's not the way they taught it in my school...the three different school systems I was in that taught it.
Well, you have rascist teachers. That's a problem for the school system, not a flaw in evolutionist theory.




And if you want to see how creationism leads to rascism, look at the Klu Klux Klan- they believed that white men had been created 'better' than other races. A misinterpretation, I know, but the point is it still happens.
I like this. "You want a good example, here, look at this rare group of extremists." Try again. Better yet, let me point this out. You refer to the idea that Evolutionism is racist as being "a gross misinterpretation", then turn around and recognize that your one and only example of Creationism (which, according to you, "leaves more room for rascism [sic] than evolution") is racist is another misinterpretation.
I know that only weirdo extremists use the bible to justify rascism, but the same applies to evolutionary theory- only weirdo extremists, like Hitler, attempt to use evolution to prove their rascist drivel.




By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.
Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?
No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.




I admit few things have been definitely proven, but nothing that one has not personally witnessed can be true to one's self. And, you can't witness evoultion- it takes too long.
Weren't you just telling me that we've witnessed evolution, so we know it's real? I could be wrong about that. Besides, there's always periods of "accelerated evolution", right?
No. I was not. I said we had evidence for it, evidence so strong that it essentially proves evolutionism true. Not definitely, I'll admit it, but it's very good evidence, and the nearest rival theory lags far behind. And that rival is Evolution By Intelligent Design, not creationism, even scientific creationism.




No, no, no. Scientists believe what they do based on facts and evidence. You beleive what you do based on things far less substantial (I do not mean this offensively- I simply mean 'spiritual' or 'immaterial').
Substantiated, you mean? Here's a tip. Don't tell me why I believe what I do. You don't even know why you believe what you do, there's no way you can see that for somebody else.
Everybody has their own evidence for believing what they believe. What they see, what they feel, and their interpretations of it.
OK, fine, but you told me that I beleived in creationism becasuse it's what I was taught in school. Incorrectly, as it turns out. So, don't "tell me why I believe what I do." Kay?




Well, there you go. We both excerised our freedoms of beleif! Hurrah and huzzah for us! Only, I was fed creationism in school and church, so you may well have picked up your ideas from church, and not indpendent study.
Once again. Don't try to figure out where I picked up my ideas. I might have been taught to believe Creation in church, but they certainly don't go in depth with the evidence. I went on my own and looked into things for myself -- I didn't believe everything I was fed, like most others, on both sides.
Well, congratulations. You actually proved what they wanted you to think, when you should have been thinking for yourself. Whoop-de-doo.




Err... you just explained genetics, the idea you are putting down... And, if there were no genetic defects to start with, how did they occur. Evolution, perhaps?
Also, I apologise for 'freaky mutie kids'. That may have been offensive or insensitive to you or someone else. I'm sorry.
Defects happen -- it's simply a variation in a gene or two, some wires get crossed, and BAM, something's wrong. But while these crossed wires are passed down though generations, the first generation was created without fault, so there wasn't any defect to pass down, was there?
If there was no defect to pass down, then there never should have been any defects. None of this "wires get crossed and BAM" stuff.



Then they're just dumb... how could someone masquerading as a man (or woman) of science possbly revert to such simplistic, unproven ideas? Science is meant to explain things we don't know, not defend what we think we do... That's religions job.
Right. Anybody who disagrees with you is "just dumb". Great way to look at things, you'll go far.
I'm gonna do something more worth my time.[/quote]
No, anyone who attempts to turn back the clock on scientific thought and attempts to use the ideas of bronze-age nomadic shepeards as a scientific theory is dumb. Well, maybe not dumb, that may be the wrong word... err, let's see, ignorant of the facts, OK?

A few questions:
1.What evidence is there for creationism. And by evidence, for creationism, I don't mean evidence against evolutionism or plate tectonics. I mean for creationism.
2. Why do scientists beleive in evolutionary theory if it's so obviously false? Why would people with PHDs and doctorates in bio-chemistry be so obviously duped? Care to explain? Or is it just some creationism of the godless scientists, out to destroy God and rule over the earth? You know that's not true, right? Yur not stupid.
3. How do you explain all the pre-6000Y.A. fossils? I know weve been over the 'fossilisation takes time' thingy, but what about neanderthals, dinosaurs and so on? Surely, if they'd been around 6,000 years, the bible would have made some mention of them, right?
4. How did so many species survive the flood? There's billions and billions of species that should have died, but all survived. Your not going to say that old Noah, and aging farmer, really had time to gather in all the millions of species of beetle in the rainforest? Even with the help of his three suns.

OFF-TOPIC-ISH: This isn't actually about the argument, but you the VHS of Dumbo, and at the end it has 3 old cartoons? Right? No? Well, it does... Anyway, in the Noah's Ark one, when they're building the ark, they've got all these monkey heping, but only two mnkey are gonna survive, so there's all these monkeys working cos they think they're gonna survive, but Noah's just gonna let them drown. That freaked me out when I was 7.

[Sasquatch]

I don't think your outlook is entirely fair- you're basing this opinion on what you think poeple are like, not on any sort of substantial evidence. Besides, by your own standards, unquesting beleif is acceptable, isn't it?

You yourself have talked about how Creationists (or others) believe blindly, in the face of opposing evidence. We all know all too often people don't know why they believe something, on both sides of any topic. Many people believe -- whatever they believe -- even though most others may think it's wrong, or have shown "evidence" to "disprove" it.


OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.

Actually, that only goes to disprove the idea that Evolutionists live by, that something has to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old to fossilize, and that fossilization happens very slowly. It proves that fossilization can happen within a couple dozen years. Something from 8,000 years ago could be fossilized, yes, or it might not -- actually, if it wasn't fossilized, it probably wouldn't make it 8000 years.


And that twinky wasn't a fossil. Bones fossilise, pastry doesn't. Though, I suspect you already knew that, and are simply mocking me. Dam it, everyone always does...

Actually, again, no. Things fossilize because they absorb minerals, prettymuch turning whatever it is to stone. A twinkie could absorb minerals just like flesh could.


No suprise, hmm? Well, I've yet to see you produce a credible source, except for that cowboy's leg. And don't say 'Bible'. I meant a scientific source.

I also haven't made such an outrageous claim as to say something like two halves of the exact same bird were found thousands of miles apart. You did. But I'll get to 'em.


Actually, no, it was thought up independantly, by geologists, will evolution was the work of naturalists, biologists and paleontologists. They just happened to fit together. You'll often find that, when two things are true.

Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.


Oh, yes, I agree, a sufficient amount of water cpuld cause the crust to distort. But, the earth does not, nor has it ever, contained that much water. At all. Ever.
Here's some evidence which you would have found, if you'd bothered to actually explore the first link to any depth. It's a kids site. It shouldn't be too hard:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html

Nowhere in that site (which I read the first time, thank you) does it say there's never been enough weight from water to distort the crust. Or that there's never been enough water to do it. Any other sources that would claim that?




I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.
Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.
Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'

If evidence supports it, that's quite possible.


Well, you have rascist teachers. That's a problem for the school system, not a flaw in evolutionist theory.

Right. Three different school systems in two states, and all of my teachers were racist? So we have racist teachers (that haven't been sued and fired, that's a dream), instead of a racist theory. Nice try.


I know that only weirdo extremists use the bible to justify rascism, but the same applies to evolutionary theory- only weirdo extremists, like Hitler, attempt to use evolution to prove their rascist drivel.

There's a difference in manipulating it to be interpreted as being racist, and it being racist from the get-go.




By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.
Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?
No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.

I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.


No. I was not. I said we had evidence for it, evidence so strong that it essentially proves evolutionism true. Not definitely, I'll admit it, but it's very good evidence, and the nearest rival theory lags far behind. And that rival is Evolution By Intelligent Design, not creationism, even scientific creationism.

You see it as lagging "far behind" because you haven't seen (read: looked for) evidence of anything else. Supporting something without knowledge of anything else...why am I not surprised.


OK, fine, but you told me that I beleived in creationism [(Evolutionism)] becasuse it's what I was taught in school. Incorrectly, as it turns out. So, don't "tell me why I believe what I do." Kay?

My mistake. It's what most people are taught in school, which is why they believe it.


Well, congratulations. You actually proved what they wanted you to think, when you should have been thinking for yourself. Whoop-de-doo.

Yes, I actually went out and researched something for myself, instead of listening to what I was being fed. It's a good idea, trust me.


If there was no defect to pass down, then there never should have been any defects. None of this "wires get crossed and BAM" stuff.

You're not making sense. Of course defects will develop, they're defects. That would be like buying a new car and saying hey, it's new and perfect, it should never have anything wrong with it.


No, anyone who attempts to turn back the clock on scientific thought and attempts to use the ideas of bronze-age nomadic shepeards as a scientific theory is dumb. Well, maybe not dumb, that may be the wrong word... err, let's see, ignorant of the facts, OK?

"Scientific thought"? "Nomadic shepeards[sic]"? Both wrong. And I'm pretty sure that scientists that set out to prove Evolutionism "converting" to Creationism isn't because they're "ignorant of the facts". Not them, anyway. Somehow I doubt that somebody who has devoted their life to learning about our "origins" would be completely ignorant of, well, our origins.


1.What evidence is there for creationism. And by evidence, for creationism, I don't mean evidence against evolutionism or plate tectonics. I mean for creationism.

Hold up on this.


2. Why do scientists beleive in evolutionary theory if it's so obviously false? Why would people with PHDs and doctorates in bio-chemistry be so obviously duped? Care to explain? Or is it just some creationism of the godless scientists, out to destroy God and rule over the earth? You know that's not true, right? Yur not stupid.

Is it really so "stupid" to believe that people are looking for any explanation that doesn't involve God? It's not "so obviously false" to the people that believe it -- you know that yourself. Everything they find supports their theory, whether it actually does or not -- you get my drift?


3. How do you explain all the pre-6000Y.A. fossils? I know weve been over the 'fossilisation takes time' thingy, but what about neanderthals, dinosaurs and so on? Surely, if they'd been around 6,000 years, the bible would have made some mention of them, right?

Actually, the Bible does mention dinosaurs, two specifically. It just refers to them as "dragons", as did everybody of that time ... and still today, in certain cultures. Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.

As for fossils...there are many types of dating techniques, and none of them are consistent. Any technique can be used to produce, literally, the desired numbers. They've even dated living things to be millions of years old.


4. How did so many species survive the flood? There's billions and billions of species that should have died, but all survived. Your not going to say that old Noah, and aging farmer, really had time to gather in all the millions of species of beetle in the rainforest? Even with the help of his three suns.

Alright, let's see here. First of all, the rainforest. Since the Garden of Eden was around where Noah was, he didn't have to go extremely far to gather the animals he needed. It wasn't like there were any animals in the Amazon rainforest, because they hadn't moved there yet. Second. Insects are easy. God ordered Noah to take every creature that had the breath of life in its nostrils. No nostrils, no ticket. Insects can float. They can cling to debris, or burrow in the mud, enough survive.

Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.

http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_churchofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_believecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php

The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.

[War Angel]

Things fossilize because they absorb minerals, prettymuch turning whatever it is to stone. A twinkie could absorb minerals just like flesh could.

They'd have to absorb enough minerals BEFORE decomposing, to become a fossil.

[CaZ!]

i am a practising jahovas witness who can have blood transfusions and celebrates christmas

[Traitorfish]

To start off, have you heard that the Catholic Bishops in Britain have declared that not all of the Bible is 'literrally true'? I know this doesn't actually change the argument, but I just thought it was interesting- Creationism is slipping away so much, that even the Catholic Church is forced to update it's doctrines.



I don't think your outlook is entirely fair- you're basing this opinion on what you think poeple are like, not on any sort of substantial evidence. Besides, by your own standards, unquesting beleif is acceptable, isn't it?

You yourself have talked about how Creationists (or others) believe blindly, in the face of opposing evidence. We all know all too often people don't know why they believe something, on both sides of any topic. Many people believe -- whatever they believe -- even though most others may think it's wrong, or have shown "evidence" to "disprove" it.
Well, many creationists do believe blindly. Many people also have blind beleif in evolutionism. But that's just normal, everyday people. Not scientists.




OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.
Actually, that only goes to disprove the idea that Evolutionists live by, that something has to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old to fossilize, and that fossilization happens very slowly. It proves that fossilization can happen within a couple dozen years. Something from 8,000 years ago could be fossilized, yes, or it might not -- actually, if it wasn't fossilized, it probably wouldn't make it 8000 years.
Actually, any archaelogist/paeleontologist will say that the time taken for fossillisation differes depending on environment. Besides, proving that it can take just dozens of years, doesn't mean that it always does.




No suprise, hmm? Well, I've yet to see you produce a credible source, except for that cowboy's leg. And don't say 'Bible'. I meant a scientific source.
I also haven't made such an outrageous claim as to say something like two halves of the exact same bird were found thousands of miles apart. You did. But I'll get to 'em.
Yeah, but that depends on your opinion. I find the idea that the world was made in a week 'outrageous', to say the least.




Actually, no, it was thought up independantly, by geologists, will evolution was the work of naturalists, biologists and paleontologists. They just happened to fit together. You'll often find that, when two things are true.
Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.
Just as you interpreted the Everest fossils so that they helped proved your idea. Hypocritical, maybe?




Oh, yes, I agree, a sufficient amount of water cpuld cause the crust to distort. But, the earth does not, nor has it ever, contained that much water. At all. Ever.
Here's some evidence which you would have found, if you'd bothered to actually explore the first link to any depth. It's a kids site. It shouldn't be too hard:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html
Nowhere in that site (which I read the first time, thank you) does it say there's never been enough weight from water to distort the crust. Or that there's never been enough water to do it. Any other sources that would claim that?
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.






I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.
Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.
Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'
If evidence supports it, that's quite possible.
Yes, evidence... Hmm... I'm afraid your all out of that, too.




Well, you have rascist teachers. That's a problem for the school system, not a flaw in evolutionist theory.
Right. Three different school systems in two states, and all of my teachers were racist? So we have racist teachers (that haven't been sued and fired, that's a dream), instead of a racist theory. Nice try.
Maybe you could blame the poor American school system and it's hugely outdated educational material. Besides, this is a moot point- if my theories rascist, so's your's. There's no real way round that.




I know that only weirdo extremists use the bible to justify rascism, but the same applies to evolutionary theory- only weirdo extremists, like Hitler, attempt to use evolution to prove their rascist drivel.
There's a difference in manipulating it to be interpreted as being racist, and it being racist from the get-go.
Dammit, I admitted that Nazism is a distortion of evolutionism, what more do you want?
Anyway, you couldn't find a single shred of evidence that suggested that evolutionism was inherently rascist.






By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.
Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?
No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.

I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.
Yep. You have. And plate tectonics, a theory which in no way contradicts creationism, despite your opinions. You just denie any eveidnce that I put forward.
Hell, you even called it "evidence". That's obvious denial.




No. I was not. I said we had evidence for it, evidence so strong that it essentially proves evolutionism true. Not definitely, I'll admit it, but it's very good evidence, and the nearest rival theory lags far behind. And that rival is Evolution By Intelligent Design, not creationism, even scientific creationism.
You see it as lagging "far behind" because you haven't seen (read: looked for) evidence of anything else. Supporting something without knowledge of anything else...why am I not surprised.
I see it as lagging far behind because it is barely an advancement on the mysticism of bronze age shepeards.




OK, fine, but you told me that I beleived in creationism [(Evolutionism)] becasuse it's what I was taught in school. Incorrectly, as it turns out. So, don't "tell me why I believe what I do." Kay?
My mistake. It's what most people are taught in school, which is why they believe it.
Well, like I said, I went to a Catholic School.




If there was no defect to pass down, then there never should have been any defects. None of this "wires get crossed and BAM" stuff.
You're not making sense. Of course defects will develop, they're defects. That would be like buying a new car and saying hey, it's new and perfect, it should never have anything wrong with it.
Cars are affected by wear and tear. The gentic structure is not .(Except from radiation, but that's really a different thing altogether- it tend to just kill, rather than cause wear and tear.)




No, anyone who attempts to turn back the clock on scientific thought and attempts to use the ideas of bronze-age nomadic shepeards as a scientific theory is dumb. Well, maybe not dumb, that may be the wrong word... err, let's see, ignorant of the facts, OK?
"Scientific thought"? "Nomadic shepeards[sic]"? Both wrong. And I'm pretty sure that scientists that set out to prove Evolutionism "converting" to Creationism isn't because they're "ignorant of the facts". Not them, anyway. Somehow I doubt that somebody who has devoted their life to learning about our "origins" would be completely ignorant of, well, our origins.
I don't see how. How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge.
And, as I've said before, when the creation story was written, the Israelites were nomadic animal-herders, and not exactly the most adavnced scientific thinkers. It made sense at the time, yeah. But that time was about five or six thousands years ago.




1.What evidence is there for creationism. And by evidence, for creationism, I don't mean evidence against evolutionism or plate tectonics. I mean for creationism.
Hold up on this.


2. Why do scientists beleive in evolutionary theory if it's so obviously false? Why would people with PHDs and doctorates in bio-chemistry be so obviously duped? Care to explain? Or is it just some creationism of the godless scientists, out to destroy God and rule over the earth? You know that's not true, right? Yur not stupid.

Is it really so "stupid" to believe that people are looking for any explanation that doesn't involve God? It's not "so obviously false" to the people that believe it -- you know that yourself. Everything they find supports their theory, whether it actually does or not -- you get my drift?


3. How do you explain all the pre-6000Y.A. fossils? I know weve been over the 'fossilisation takes time' thingy, but what about neanderthals, dinosaurs and so on? Surely, if they'd been around 6,000 years, the bible would have made some mention of them, right?

Actually, the Bible does mention dinosaurs, two specifically. It just refers to them as "dragons", as did everybody of that time ... and still today, in certain cultures. Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.

As for fossils...there are many types of dating techniques, and none of them are consistent. Any technique can be used to produce, literally, the desired numbers. They've even dated living things to be millions of years old.
Right. Now your using celtic folklore and meso-american mythology as evidence? Wooh... that's not gonna work.




4. How did so many species survive the flood? There's billions and billions of species that should have died, but all survived. Your not going to say that old Noah, and aging farmer, really had time to gather in all the millions of species of beetle in the rainforest? Even with the help of his three suns.
Alright, let's see here. First of all, the rainforest. Since the Garden of Eden was around where Noah was, he didn't have to go extremely far to gather the animals he needed. It wasn't like there were any animals in the Amazon rainforest, because they hadn't moved there yet. Second. Insects are easy. God ordered Noah to take every creature that had the breath of life in its nostrils. No nostrils, no ticket. Insects can float. They can cling to debris, or burrow in the mud, enough survive.
Err... Eden was in mesopotamia (the Tigris and Euphrates ran out of it, and they're in Iraq, and the Pishon runs into 'Cush', or Kush, modern Ethiopia). The animals of the Brazillian rainforest are nor within reasonable distance of there. Besides, what about scorpions? They can't swim. Some of them live in the Sahara desert. No rivers there.



Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_churchofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_believecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.
Well, there are a few decent ones, but they're mostly either gibberish or just plain wrong. They seem to think that self-assurance and logic are the same thing... (Not all, remember- some were alright, if misguided).

OK, but one quesion:
Why the Bible?
WHat I mean by this is, why your particular religion? Why is it right? Because you beleive it? Why not Hinduism, or Taoism? Why not old Viking mythology? Frankly, most of them are as valid as Christian creationism.
That's why evolutionism is different- it isn't based on what you happened to believe- it's based on what's actually true.

[annslow41]

for the record im a christian

born to a christian family
turned away -- rebelled
did my research
christianity made the most sence
now im back

dont get me wrong tho, there are some very interesting phyllosophical ideas that seem to make sence, but on that note, they're just ideas. words. no facts

EDIT: oh, and if ya wanna look up something interesting -- one fact i find that really disproves evolution -- look up the bacterial flagellum
it's this nifty little motor-like machine that bacteria have in order to "swim" arround. evolution works over time, borrowing pieces from other areas to construct new things, but at the same time has the "survival of the fittest" idea, eliminating anything that's not immediately useful. the bacterial flagellum doesnt work unless every single piece exists. if a piece was missing durring evolution and it didnt function, the "survival..." process would eliminate it.... but it's arround today. to add a little more, evolution takes time, again, slowly mutating to make addaptions. the bacterial flagellum has 13-some-odd pieces that are in no other organism anywhere. all of those pieces would have had to be instantly generated and put into their exact places all at once for the process of elimination not to have exterminated it. sounds like it took a little brains to put that whole ordeal together, but isnt evolution sponanious and random? hmmm

[Sasquatch]

Dammit, I had this thing nearly done, and screwed up, and now I have to do it all over again.


To start off, have you heard that the Catholic Bishops in Britain have declared that not all of the Bible is 'literrally true'? I know this doesn't actually change the argument, but I just thought it was interesting- Creationism is slipping away so much, that even the Catholic Church is forced to update it's doctrines.

You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Nice try. And like I said, the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of Christianity.


Well, many creationists do believe blindly. Many people also have blind beleif in evolutionism. But that's just normal, everyday people. Not scientists.

Of course, except those scientists who believe Creationism. Can't forget them. But you, you know what you're talking about, so much moreso than those "dumb" scientists, right? No matter that they've been studying a subject for longer than you've been breathing.


Actually, any archaelogist/paeleontologist will say that the time taken for fossillisation differes depending on environment. Besides, proving that it can take just dozens of years, doesn't mean that it always does.

Yes, they'll say time to fossilize varies. But few will admit (until confronted with the proof, anyway -- and some not even then) that it's possible for something to fossilize in a few years. And no, it may not always take just a couple dozen years for something to become a fossil, but the fact that it has, many times, disproves the well-spread myth that it takes millions of years to do.


Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.
Just as you interpreted the Everest fossils so that they helped proved your idea. Hypocritical, maybe?[/QUOTE]

Actually, the fossils on Everest I mentioned can only be interpreted that way. The "reasoning" you try to use would be like finding a Ford Mustang in a garage built in 1920, and saying the entire thing was built just like you found it. The fossils on top of Everest are of things that Evolutionists say didn't exist at the time they could have gotten where they are -- when Everest was still underwater, there was no way those organisms could have fossilized, because they didn't exist. See how your logic is contradictory?


A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.

Completely smooth by what? Because water doesn't have the power to influence the shape of the crust, right?


Maybe you could blame the poor American school system and it's hugely outdated educational material. Besides, this is a moot point- if my theories rascist, so's your's. There's no real way round that.

Alright, wrong on two parts here. Firstly, though the American pubic school system is nothing to be proud of (because it's run by our government), it certainly isn't "poor" or "hugely outdated". Of the three different school systems that tried to force-feed Evolutionism to me, in one, I was in a class of nearly 500 -- in the next, I made 60. Same material, new books, new "evidence". It doesn't really vary from teacher to teacher, school system to school system, state to state.

Second. Evolutionism is racist in nature. Just because you listed one extremist on either side that interpreted Christianity/Creation and Evolutionism as racist doesn't mean Evolutionism isn't racist in a moderate view as well. That doesn't make Creation racist, because nowhere in Genesis does it say that one race or color of people is any better, smarter, or more advanced than any other. Which is not the case with Evolutionism.



I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.Yep. You have. And plate tectonics, a theory which in no way contradicts creationism, despite your opinions. You just denie any eveidnce that I put forward.
Hell, you even called it "evidence". That's obvious denial.

Wrong again. If I'm confronted with real evidence -- by anybody, in any debate -- I actually consider it. What you've presented, however, is not real evidence, only manipulations and downright fabrications.


Cars are affected by wear and tear. The gentic structure is not .(Except from radiation, but that's really a different thing altogether- it tend to just kill, rather than cause wear and tear.)

You'll learn about genetics in high school, so I won't go too far in depth with this. Basically, as genes are passed from parent to offspring, sometimes things go wrong -- wires get crossed, genes get misspliced, etc. -- and often, those -- we'll call them "defects" -- often, those defects pass from the offspring to their offspring, and so on. There are hundreds of thousands of genetic disorders in the world today, all going back to one defect long, long ago -- everything from Downs Syndome to Anemia to, hell, male-pattern baldness and webbed toes.


I don't see how. How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge.
And, as I've said before, when the creation story was written, the Israelites were nomadic animal-herders, and not exactly the most adavnced scientific thinkers. It made sense at the time, yeah. But that time was about five or six thousands years ago.

Let me show you how you've just severely contradicted yourself with two consecutive statements. Here are the two arguments against this ... "logic".

1.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- which means, according to you, "nomadic animal-herders" may very well know quite a bit about the creation of the world. Hell, they may have been the most technologically advanced civilization in the world at that time, or for centuries to come. Because just because they were "nomadic animal-herders" doesn't mean they didn't know about more than that, right?
2.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- Are you serious with this? Not only do you think you know more than those "dumb" scientists who believe Creation, but you think that studying something for ten, twenty, thirty years doesn't mean you know anything about it? I bet you know more about law than a career judge, and more about the military than a career soldier, and more about medicine than a career doctor, and more about architecture than a career engineer, huh? After all, just because they've done it all their life doesn't mean you don't know more than them about it.



...Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.
Right. Now your using celtic folklore and meso-american mythology as evidence? Wooh... that's not gonna work.

I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches. I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.


Err... Eden was in mesopotamia (the Tigris and Euphrates ran out of it, and they're in Iraq, and the Pishon runs into 'Cush', or Kush, modern Ethiopia). The animals of the Brazillian rainforest are nor within reasonable distance of there.

You didn't get it. There were no animals in the Brizillian rainforest. They were created in Eden (not near Brazil), and they hadn't yet migrated. Don't worry, you'll get it someday.



Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_churchofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_believecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.
Well, there are a few decent ones, but they're mostly either gibberish or just plain wrong. They seem to think that self-assurance and logic are the same thing... (Not all, remember- some were alright, if misguided).

So instead of debating against them, all valid sources, you attack most of them and dismiss the rest. Nice.


OK, but one quesion:
Why the Bible?
WHat I mean by this is, why your particular religion? Why is it right? Because you beleive it? Why not Hinduism, or Taoism? Why not old Viking mythology? Frankly, most of them are as valid as Christian creationism.

Because I've researched Christianity and Evolutionism, as well as other religions, and I've come back to the one I have now. Evolutionism, believe it or not, was a big test of my faith, until I decided to research both sides of the issue and find out exactly why I believed what I believed, and whether or not I really should believe it. I've found the evidence to support my beliefs -- and I found it myself, I wasn't fed by some anti-religious textbook.


That's why evolutionism is different- it isn't based on what you happened to believe- it's based on what's actually true.

Wrong again. It's based on what you already happened to believe -- that no supernatural being played a part in the creation of the universe and life. Since you've chosen to close your eyes to every other possibility, you think its "actually true" -- whereas most others would realize that it's only a theory, one possibility of many, and nowhere near proven true.

[Raistlin]

You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true.
Ok, then, why should we believe the Bible's true? Any of it? Why should we believe Genesis, when science has alternative explanations based on facts? Why should we take anything on "faith" instead of relying on our own minds to find explanations?

I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.

[Cipher]

Hmm... you guys should write my Thesis Statement. :D

Anyway. Yeah. I'm Roman Catholic, but I am open-minded enough to want to research and learn about other religions. Therefore, I know something about every religion from Black Baptist to Zoroasterism.

Mind you, I'm not an expert on any given religion...but I know enough to give some very general information about it.

[Sasquatch]

Ok, then, why should we believe the Bible's true? Any of it? Why should we believe Genesis, when science has alternative explanations based on facts? Why should we take anything on "faith" instead of relying on our own minds to find explanations?

Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?


I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.

It's all faith, and belief. When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.

[Raistlin]

Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?
Why can't you pick and choose what you want to believe? Why do you have to belong to a specific group? That's mob mentality - support in numbers.

Nothing has been found to prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory wrong, either, so why shouldn't I believe in it? Something must first be proven to have some <i>reason</i>, some evidence, for it to be rationally believed true. Otherwise you allow for any stupid assertions.


It's all faith, and belief.
Faith is the antithesis of reason, and of the value on one's own mind.


When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.
If my dad disagrees with something I'm doing, he is free to give his reasons, and I will weigh them with my own reasons. I don't subordinate my life to anyone or anything - especially to something that I have no reason to believe in. Also, respecting God's judgment is absurd - does He talk to you at night? I didn't think so, so what is there to judge? A contradictory, absurd book (filled with more senseless violence than any other book in existence - if the Bible was a video game, it'd be Manhunt) written by some power-hungry tribal leaders thousands of years ago?

But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.

[?????]

But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.

Wait a minute, that's why they banned me from there? Aw, man! Why didn't someone tell me sooner? I feel so out of the loop. :whimper:

[Lindy]

You know, THIS is why I really don't post or look at here any more.

The internet makes me a sad panda, I hope you all learn one day that the internet, and indeed the whole world, doesn't give a damn about you or your internet arguments.

[RPJesus]

Atheist, I suppose. Is that condradictory? Well, I don't believe in any god or 'what not', so... yep. It's funny saying that, though. I've been taught all my life that there is a god, and to say there isn't is still strange for me. Like saying Santa isn't real.
Legally, I'm Roman-Catholic but I don't believe in little ol' God.

As for this creationism you boys have got going? Getting a little far into it. To be simple:


To start off, have you heard that the Catholic Bishops in Britain have declared that not all of the Bible is 'literrally true'? I know this doesn't actually change the argument, but I just thought it was interesting- Creationism is slipping away so much, that even the Catholic Church is forced to update it's doctrines.

You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Nice try. And like I said, the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of Christianity.

Really? I was taught the bible. Before I was told anything I was told not to take most of the old testament seriously. It's mostly metaphors. Just stories used to explain life to people in a simple way. There was no Adam. No Eve. No Eden. None of that. It was stories. That's what I was taught.


Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?
Why can't you pick and choose what you want to believe? Why do you have to belong to a specific group? That's mob mentality - support in numbers.
Good point. In my opinion, you should never choose a religion 'cause it seems a little better than the others. That doesn't say too much about the religion. Never choose to believe every part of the religion for the reason that it is your religion. Take different ideas if you want and build something that makes an ounce of sense to you. That does leave you open to believe complete tripe, but in my opinion so do organised religions. ...he he? Having the religious authorities tell you what your every belief should be contradicts several of their other beliefs. I'd say it's very wrong to do that. Morally.

[bipper]

But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.

Mabey if you read the thread, and told people where you think they were being irrational. I guess just kicking and screaming about it works as well :rolleyes2 Before you go calling my posts baseless mabey you should read them and adhier to some thought before you throw down a label. I think the "Plants can feel" debate was definatley a great example, I post some actual scientific proof, and you seemingly just disregard it anyways.

Don't call me irrational because I have faith and knowlage in a religion that you think is false. Forcing your opinionated knowlage on someone else is just plaine rude. Granted, science holds many thruths, the bible also does, as well as the faith. Christianity is just fine, and being so, does not make you anyless of a person in any way.

Bipper

[RPJesus]

Doesn't make you any less of a person. True. Unless you started the crusades or you're Joan of Arch, that it is. Or Bush. But... that was really their fault, not Christianity's.

[Traitorfish]

Ok, then, why should we believe the Bible's true? Any of it? Why should we believe Genesis, when science has alternative explanations based on facts? Why should we take anything on "faith" instead of relying on our own minds to find explanations?
Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?
Hmm... it's true... because the rules say it's true? Well, that makes little or no sense to me, but, hey, I'm just a dumb old indepedndant thinker. What do I know about the universe? I never listen to semi-mad preachers or televangelist zealots! I'm nothing but a stupid, small-minded nincompoop who, for some reason, values the views of scienctists more than those of pre-historic nomads.
I mean, how could someone wandering the desert 8,000 years ago not know more about the world than someone with a PHD in zoology or geology? After all, these guys keep sheep, for God's sake! They're all geniuses! (Or geni-i, whatever you prefer).




I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.
It's all faith, and belief. When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.
But your not a kid. And, eventually, you had to start thinking for yourself, and not letting your dad do it for you.
That's the problem- creationists like their ideas because it removes a hell of a lot of effort from running their (and everyone else's) lives. It's all in the book. The untouchable, the all-knowing book. No need to think for yourself, or grapple with difficult moral issues! It'a ll there, written down, tried and tested.
Besides, why is god always the father? I'd think of him more as a mother. Or an a-sexual jellyblob thing.

Have you ever seen this?
http://www.venganza.org/
The interesting thing is that it's just about as plausible, and as easily proven, as creationism.
Check out the World Temperature/Number of Pirates graph. Classic.

EDIT:



But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.

Mabey if you read the thread, and told people where you think they were being irrational. I guess just kicking and screaming about it works as well :rolleyes2 Before you go calling my posts baseless mabey you should read them and adhier to some thought before you throw down a label. I think the "Plants can feel" debate was definatley a great example, I post some actual scientific proof, and you seemingly just disregard it anyways.

That's true- even if I disagree with what you say, you do back up your ideas with valid points. I wish that were a more wide-spread habit...

[Shoden]

lets just bitch on whether or not religion is real.


Thats what always happens with these threads lol.

[Traitorfish]

Actually, the debate was on creationism vs evolutionism (evolutionism wins).
It's already been established that wether or not the concept of God is valid, is far too deeply philosophical too discuss here. It would just go badly.

[Big D]

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.

Completely smooth by what? Because water doesn't have the power to influence the shape of the crust, right?Yes, water erosion would've completely smoothed out the planet's surface. Solid rock, even metal will gradually, inevitably be worn away by water action. Water erosion is ridiculously powerful, even though it takes time to act.


I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches.To my knowledge, there has never been a dinosaur or plesiosaur washed up on beaches anywhere. I'd love to see an article, photograph or report, since this would a particularly significant bit of info. Coelocanths are a common find, but they're merely an ancient fish species. The tuatara, similarly, is an ancient beaked lizard rather than a dinosaur.
I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.Mythology has indeed given us a vast array of 'imaginary' creatures to admire... but again, many of these are based on other ideas. Chinese dragons were influenced by dinosaur bones, it is known that many of the world's greatest fossil fields are in China, and many fossils were ground up for use in medicines. Practically every culture has dragon myths, but with a few exceptions these creatures have no similarity to known dinosaur species. Strangely, none of the mythological entities resemble the truly great, fearsome dinosaur species. Rather than creating legends about the likes of archaeopteryx and plesiosaurus, why aren't there paintings and art depicting theriznosaurus, seismosaurus and quetzalcoatlus?

As for the notion that materials can fossilise quickly... this is, in some senses, true. There's a cave in England which is famous for making porous materials petrify rapidly, due to the mineral content of the water that drips from its ceiling. Cloth, plants, even stuffed toys are turned into silicate 'fossils' in a relatively short time.
However, this is utterly unrelated to vast geological strata of mudstone - the gunk from the sea floor - which has gone from being sand and mud, and truly become rock. Same's true for basically every other fossil-bearing stone.

Another relevant issue is geological stratification itself. Places such as cliffs - where the strata are visible - can provide a useful 'timeline', of sorts. Every year, as the seasons pass, different kinds of residue are laid down in sediment and soil. Volcanic eruptions leave layers of ash; many volcanoes are known to erupt on a regular, predictable basis. What I'm saying is, there's simply too much rock with too many layers to account for a mere 7000-10000 year history. Unless, of course, things started off extremely fast, then slowed down exponentially - thus giving the impression of a steady, continual process. Plate tectonics also comes into it. Rather than being a far-fetched theory, it is known that the continents are drifting at a rate of approximately one centimeter per year. Modern technology has confirmed this. Also, at faults on the sea floor, volcanoes can be seen creating 'new' sea floor, where the continents meet. The theory of all continents having previously been joined is further reinforced by geological evidence, with ancient cliffs in completely separate locations - for example, Europe and the Americas - having exactly the same rock in their lower levels. Not just similar types of rock in similar patterns, but the same stone. Same composition, same thickness and depth of the strata. A geologist could give a better explanation than me, but that's the gist of it.

Also, at the risk of causing my own death through sheer exhaustive repitition... I want to remind everyone, regardless of what "side" they're on, to try keeping this debate impersonal and at least superficially respectful. We're not going to change each others' minds anyway, so the best any of us can hope to accomplish is demonstrating that our own beliefs are justifiable. This isn't achieved by stating, "omgz u r rong cuz u r dum".

[GooeyToast]

I never really understood the purpose of religion. :-\

[fantasyjunkie]

I never liked religion. I've had christians and buddists literally follow me down the street trying to convert me. I've had catholics tell me I'm going to hell because I'm not a Catholic and I've had Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door saying the same thing. I'm quiet sick of people trying to force me to follow their beliefs. Thats why I can't stand religion. Hell, i've even had athiests trying to bring me to their ways of combating religion. In my book they are just as bad.

[Winter Nights]

I never liked religion. I've had christians and buddists literally follow me down the street trying to convert me. I've had catholics tell me I'm going to hell because I'm not a Catholic and I've had Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door saying the same thing. I'm quiet sick of people trying to force me to follow their beliefs. Thats why I can't stand religion. Hell, i've even had athiests trying to bring me to their ways of combating religion. In my book they are just as bad.
Amen, brother.

[TurkSlayer]

I'm in atheist myself, as some of you may know, if any of you remember me from my previous arguements. And, by some cruel twist of fate, I was torn from California and placed with in the south, where many people wish to mug me for not believing in God. I was actually raised a Christian, but, like Autumn Rain, I found things about the religion that I did not like, as well as things that made no sense. I have not researched it to a great extent like Autumn Rain, but if left up to my neighbor, that will soon change. Still, I doubt this research will sway me. In fact, I believe it will only make it worse. But really, I can find no solid evidence to suggest that God exists, and unlike some, that is something I need. I'm just not capable of believing something without real evidence, which evolutionist have far more of. Now, if God came down and said "Sup, I'm God, believe in me." then that would be decent evidence. Until then, I remain atheist. Unless I join the Pastafarians...

[Trumpet Thief]

I don't take part in religion, but I'm not atheist.

Trowa: I couldn't say it any better.

[tastetherainbow]

I am Christian and proud of it

me too.

[annslow41]

Actually, the debate was on creationism vs evolutionism (evolutionism wins).
It's already been established that wether or not the concept of God is valid, is far too deeply philosophical too discuss here. It would just go badly.

hmm... i dont think anyone addressed the issue of the bacterial flagellum. how'd evolution happen to mutate one of those?

[Big D]

hmm... i dont think anyone addressed the issue of the bacterial flagellum. how'd evolution happen to mutate one of those?Random outcropping of additional protein that eventually proved useful? Could be. Selection pressures are a wonderful thing...

[Shlup]

Actually, the debate was on creationism vs evolutionism (evolutionism wins).
It's already been established that wether or not the concept of God is valid, is far too deeply philosophical too discuss here. It would just go badly.

hmm... i dont think anyone addressed the issue of the bacterial flagellum. how'd evolution happen to mutate one of those?
How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs? The same way it mutates everything. That's what evolution is. It's not wonder you don't believe in evolution if you don't understand the very basics of it. xP

[annslow41]

so explain.. you asked all those questions. if you "understand" evolution, enlighten me..

"How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs?"

how exactly is "The same way it mutates everything," hmm?

something i dont get, is that if you're saying over time bits and pieces are put together and eventually, after some millions of years, make something useful, what's happened to the whole idea of "natural selection" over that time that the pieces do not make a whole? i mean, natural selection doesnt just allow random useless pieces to lie arround. if it's of no use, it dies off and doesnt get passed on. it isnt contributing to "the fittest" so it's getting eliminated. and if that's the case, nothing would ever get accomplished thru evolution. see my point? it's not very logical...

plus, doesnt evolution totally go agains the 2nd law of thermodynamics? there's a little fact that is that "devices always move from order to disorder" ... but it seems that evolution pretty much goes in dirrect violation of this fact. while evolution is just a theory, the other's a law -- a tested fact.

the main mutations i've heard of make people die, and that's called cancer. i mean sure, i've heard stories and seen pictures of turtles w/ 2 heads, or a cow w/ an extra leg, but that extra leg.. i mean look at it. it's not in a useful place. it's all weak and sickly looking. and usually those special animals' life expectancy is less than a normal one's. w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.

and at least check out my earlier post before commenting -- i could repost it, but it'd be a waste of space

[Big D]

so explain.. you asked all those questions. if you "understand" evolution, enlighten me..

"How did evolution happen to mutate anything? How did it mutate eyeballs? How did it mutate blonde hair? How did it mutate legs?"

how exactly is "The same way it mutates everything," hmm?

something i dont get, is that if you're saying over time bits and pieces are put together and eventually, after some millions of years, make something useful, what's happened to the whole idea of "natural selection" over that time that the pieces do not make a whole? i mean, natural selection doesnt just allow random useless pieces to lie arround. if it's of no use, it dies off and doesnt get passed on. it isnt contributing to "the fittest" so it's getting eliminated. and if that's the case, nothing would ever get accomplished thru evolution. see my point? it's not very logical...It makes perfect sense, when you take a different look at things: For example, the evolution of the eye. Imagine, if you will, a small multi-cellular organism with no eyes at all. An utterly blind, primitive organism living among other blind, primitive organisms. It may be eyeless, but there are plenty of stimuli out there. Then, by fluke chance, this organism's distant descendent gains a cell or two that are just a little more sensitive to heat and light. Not much, just enough that this creature's slightly more capable of determining whether the sun's directly over its head. This mutation adds a very slight bit of extra survival value, since sunlight is a key factor for primitive organisms. This critter's chances of reproducing go right up, as do any of its kin with a similar chance mutation. Soon (i.e. after many hundreds of generations), the slightly-light-sensitive organism is doing much better than it's not-at-all sensitive forebears. It's become the dominant species of its kind. Then, by further chance, some more of these guys develop just a little more photosensitivity in their photosensitive cells. More survival, more mutation, with each 'improved' version gaining more sensitivity to light. Given enough time, you get more complex multicellular organisms. A single over-developed cell which functions as a nerve allowing, for the first time, some perception of light and dark. Lo, the sense of sight is born - in a rudimentary fashion. In the eons that follow, more improvements take place: organisms with slightly convex photosensitive cells are better able to distinguish light and dark; this trait is 'selected' by natural processes since it improves the odds of survival, however infinitesimally. Over time, these convex cells give rise to the first lens - a clear shell of protein covering photosensitive cells, which can help to focus and deliver information to the first central nervous system.
And so on, until you get to the more complex, fully-developed organ we now call an eye.
plus, doesnt evolution totally go agains the 2nd law of thermodynamics? there's a little fact that is that "devices always move from order to disorder" ... but it seems that evolution pretty much goes in dirrect violation of this fact. while evolution is just a theory, the other's a law -- a tested fact.Evolution follows a certain amount of logic - traits that improve an organism's chances of survival are likely to be passed on to future generations, because that organism is more likely to breed. It happens around us today - big, strong, healthy animals in the wild are more likely to breed than weak, sickly variants of the same species.
the main mutations i've heard of make people die, and that's called cancer. i mean sure, i've heard stories and seen pictures of turtles w/ 2 heads, or a cow w/ an extra leg, but that extra leg.. i mean look at it. it's not in a useful place. it's all weak and sickly looking. and usually those special animals' life expectancy is less than a normal one's. w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.Ah. I see there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of evolution, here. Evolution isn't about a new creature simply being born with a new organ or a new ability. It's an incredibly incremental process, dependent on miniscule mutations taking an effect over countless generations. One species can't simply "evolve" into another species in the space of a single generation. The 'mutations' we know as cancer and other deformities aren't part of the evolutionary process because they're radical, often actively harmful, mutations. Evolution involves tiny mutations, often of a single base in the DNA sequence. You never hear about this kind of mutation, because it's such an immeasurably small change that it's scarcely noticeable.
"In shocking news, a child has been born with a brain that's 0.002% larger than predicted!"

[Traitorfish]

w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.

Well, some have evolved during man's existance, you just weren't around to witness it. After all, 3,000,000 years is a long time. Horses, for example, have only been around for about 4,000,000 years. Slightly longer than man, but still not very long.
No major new speices have appeared, but there has been considerable evolution still. Horses, again, were very different 4,000,000 years ago- they were much smaller, and not nearly as big as the shire horses that you see today.

[Sasquatch]

I noticed Traitorfish has conveniently passed over my last post debating him... not much of a surprise there. I went camping last night, and I'll probably be gone tonight, but don't worry, I'll add my two cents to the rest of this. Seems some interesting -- and some illigical and irrational -- topics have come up, I'll have plenty to add.

Especially on the oft-used concept of single mutations becoming new traits for a species -- and how Big D contradicted himself on this very topic, which nearly his entire last post was about.

On a non-related note. Did y'all know there's a town in Wisconsin called Nutbush? That's right. "Now entering Nutbush". Nice.

[ThroneofDravaris]

I noticed Traitorfish has conveniently passed over my last post debating him... not much of a surprise there.
Oh wow, could it be that he doesn’t care anymore?

I knew this thread was more about being right than it was anything else…

[DRFTerX]

Im Atheist at the moment...

[Alive-Cat]

I guess truthfully I don't NOT believe in any religion, but I don't believe in one either...They're all pretty confusing and war inducing...Hey, that ryhmes!

[Rainecloud]

Oh, I just can't decide which one would be the easiest to follow that won't make me lose my super-sensitive conscience and cement-like beliefs and morals.

*snigger*

[annslow41]

meh, since im getting tired of reading this thread, im just going to say that it really appears that u guys who are biased toward evolution seem to have a lot more to defend than those who believe things were created. ya'll just have to try harder to think of ways for it to work. it'd say it takes more faithto believe in all that stuff than it is to believe it was simply created.
you all are smart people, and im no expert on this subject, but i dont really wanna be coming home and checking a thread on an arguement, so im out

[bipper]

I agree there, its sad when the people with "Scientific Facts" are more biased than those with the religion :D I really find the irony just humiliating there.

Scence is teh roxar and Spurtualliez enlightenz are Nubz cuz donkees cant talk and 40 yuths cant be killed... But I em Smart cuz sciece is teh r0x0rz:rolleyes2

I have seen a few people whom still argue based on facts, like D and Traitorfish, and I am sure a few others. When arguing facts, arrogance is a wet fish when knowlage is a borad sword! Huzzah!

When it comes down to it, the mobile of attack would be to look at the bible, which is a topic in EOEO. Unfortunatley, I realize some of us are Banned, but its truley a great topic thus far.

I stick to my guns when I say that science simply the process started by GOD, and runs the world. The both can exist, but bottome line is, we just don't know enough factual evidence to disprove the bible. Its hard to ask why did the sea split for Mosses or How did Jesus pull a coin out of a fish mouth when he had no money on him, when we can barely have factual evidnce on evolution. We are still guessing.


If your Knowlage can't explain it, is it a fault of God's and not yours? This same debate has gone on for a long time, and every step forward that science takes, can fit into the bible. Its hard to go the otherway, and look at things that are hard to explain with our present knowlage, and call them off. To me, that is like saying Science cannot exist, because it cannot explain God. I would be an idiot to believe that with as much structural evidence that science has to support it. Science in my eyes, will reach the same point as religion someday, as it seems to be the very processes in which God uses.
Bipper

[fantasyjunkie]

Bipper has a point

[DRFTerX]

No argument with that... (BIG SMILES!) :D

[?????]

meh, since im getting tired of reading this thread, im just going to say that it really appears that u guys who are biased toward evolution seem to have a lot more to defend than those who believe things were created

Of course it does. Evolution is far more complex than simply attributing all of existence to some higher force. Therefore, evolutionists do indeed have more to defend. However, their theory falls within the realm of the natural and the logical. Creationism, at least of the variety that ignores the numbers, falls within neither category and is therefore easily dismissed.

Some of evolution's opponents have pointed out, and rightly so, that there is a degree of nihilistic thought involved with evolution. If this is true, and the universe is indeed a place governed by might rather than right, would this not imply that the thesis of the Abrahamic faiths that human nature is inherently sinful is correct? Would undeniable proof of such an existence not merely increase the desire to rise above a universe where one must take life in order to sustain one's own? This of course rests on certain assumptions made by the followers of a given religion, but when operating from those assumptions, it seems to me that their theses are only strengthened. That said, I cannot hold with any religion that implies that nature itself (and by extension, logic and reason) is somehow wrong.

People who support the avenues of logical, rational inquiry can often appear to fierce religionists to be biased because they are indeed biased. Just like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Do you honestly expect anyone advocating any position to offer evidence that doesn't support their side? It's irrational to do such a thing. Not only that, they possess emotions as well, and rightly become angry when logic is ignored in favor of what can best be described as an addicting drug.

[DarkLadyNyara]

And how, praytell, does Creationism leave more room for "rascism" than Evolutionism? How is "God created man" more racist than "black people evolved from apes, and we all evolved from black people"?
Let me put it this way: slavery wasn't justified by evolution, it was justified by religion.

w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.

[Sasquatch]

And how, praytell, does Creationism leave more room for "rascism" than Evolutionism? How is "God created man" more racist than "black people evolved from apes, and we all evolved from black people"?
Let me put it this way: slavery wasn't justified by evolution, it was justified by religion.

Let me put it this way: You're wrong. No religion justified slavery. Sometimes, religions were manipulated to "support" the idea of slavery, but that doesn't mean they actually did. Many things can be misinterpreted -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to support things they really don't. That's how Evolutionism gets most of its evidence.

You're missing the entire point. While Christianity has to be manipulated and misinterpreted to support racism, or slavery or whatever evil you want to put out there, Evolutionism envokes racism even in any moderate belief. It has since the idea was thought up, and it still does today. Not to mention, the topic was how Creationism supports or does not support racism, not Christianity.



w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.

Minor evolution, yes. Speciation, no. What Evolutionists all too often forget is that nobody denies that evolution happens on a minor scale, only that one blob of cells can somehow, given an extravagant amount of time, become something incredibly complex. Yes, we've seen evolution happen. In nearly everything domesticated -- dogs, flowers, crops, you name it. Even viruses, to some extent. No, we haven't seen Evolutionism happen.

[Karl]

Anyone have a religion?
everyone has a religeon

[War Angel]

One point - evolution contradicts part of the Bible, it does not contradict the idea of a God. God could have had evolution as one of its many mechanisms of controlling the universe and all of existence.

I seperate between God and the Bible. The Bible is a human interpretation of what God is. God could exist with a 100% certainty, and still the Bible wouldn't have to be true. The Bible merely raises ideas, interpretations... it is not the end to all discussions.

[bipper]

Um, yeah, I really don't want to turn this into another Bible dispute, but I belive the Bible is the word of God being written down by humans. How else do you describe many of the truths in the Bible. Anyways, Like I say, its another debate for another thread: http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71534

As far as religion being used for slavery, there are very, very few that actually encourage slavery. I am talking very small relgions or primative peoples such as Amazonians and Incas. Christianity actually stands <i>against slavery</i>.


Bipper

[?????]

And how, praytell, does Creationism leave more room for "rascism" than Evolutionism? How is "God created man" more racist than "<a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=92&k=black%20people&st=1" :bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou:over="window.status='Search for: black people'; self.ql_skeyphrase='black%20people'; if(window.event) self.ql_sevent=window.event.srcElement; self.ql_timeout = setTimeout('ql_doMouseOver(1)', 1000); self.ql_isOverLink=true; return true;" onclick="if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; ql_closeiframe(); self.ql_skeyphrase='black%20people'; window.status='Search for: black people';return true;" :bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou::bou:out="window.status=''; if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; setTimeout('ql_closeiframe()', 1500); ">black people</a> evolved from apes, and we all evolved from black people"?
Let me put it this way: slavery wasn't justified by evolution, it was justified by religion.

Let me put it this way: You're wrong. No religion justified slavery. Sometimes, religions were manipulated to "support" the idea of slavery, but that doesn't mean they actually did. Many things can be misinterpreted -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to support things they really don't. That's how Evolutionism gets most of its evidence.

You're missing the entire point. While Christianity has to be manipulated and misinterpreted to support racism, or slavery or whatever evil you want to put out there, Evolutionism invokes racism even in any moderate belief. It has since the idea was thought up, and it still does today. Not to mention, the topic was how Creationism supports or does not support racism, not Christianity.



w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.

Minor evolution, yes. Speciation, no. What Evolutionists all too often forget is that nobody denies that evolution happens on a minor scale, only that one blob of cells can somehow, given an extravagant amount of time, become something incredibly complex. Yes, we've seen evolution happen. In nearly everything domesticated -- dogs, flowers, crops, you name it. Even viruses, to some extent. No, we haven't seen Evolutionism happen.

Racism is not explicitly promoted by either point of view. It is implied in both. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery anywhere in its pages - a fact Christian slaveholders of the Confederacy were well aware of.

Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?

Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.

[Sasquatch]

Racism is not explicitly promoted by either point of view. It is implied in both. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery anywhere in its pages - a fact Christian slaveholders of the Confederacy were well aware of.

It is expressly stated in Evolutionism. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a certain color or race of people should be enslaved, does it? Whereas Evolutionism does indeed state that Africans are the "least developed" form of man.

EDIT: By the way, if you didn't know, many people in the South did not own slaves, and many people in the North did at that time. You're probably one of the people who think "the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves!" Besides, what textile factories and such in the North did to their women and children was worse than most slaves had to go through. But we're not on that topic now.


Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?

Because it doesn't involve God. It doesn't matter if it holds water or not, because not involving God is all it needs for most of "science" to accept it. I thought I already explained this.


Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.

Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.

[bipper]

[quote]Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.


I just have to pipe in and say that Evolution not equal to recessive traits comming forth, or freak mutations occouring. In fact, most of these are stressed in Genesis. Name an animal that has evolved. I mean, evolved beyond the integrity of its genetic code with out any direct outside influences.
Bipper

[udsuna]

It's true.... far easier to justify the enslavement of a race using "scientific" theories. Very easy, actually. Now, the enslavement of an individual is one that has a long and rich history in almost every religion. Usually, it's not so terrible a concept, and falls into a structure of belief in certain forms of honorable repairation of a debt. Kill a man: inherit his family (CRAP!!!). Save some guy's life, end up getting his daughter to marry. Hell, marriage was used as the ultimate form of slavery, and still is, in many ways.

As for evolution, I have only a couple questions.

1- why are fruit flies more genetically similar to humans than they are to house flies? And, for that matter, why are WE more genetically related to said fruit flies than we are to any mammals aside for other primates?

2- how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless. More than useless: you get no flight, but you also lose a pair of perfectly useful forelimbs. Humans and raccoons have proven that hands are better than wings. You do NOT get winged flight from any form of gliding flight, it just doesn't work. The two designs are entirely incompatible, and if you evolve gliding it actually makes it impossible to evolve real flight. Aerodynamics. You can argue about evolution, you can't argue about elementary lift/thrust dynamics.

Evolutionarily, those are impossible scenarios. Absolutely impossible. Human DNA has the exact code for producing fruit fly wings- at no point in our evolutionary history should that have been picked up. No other primate, no other ANIMAL, except the fruit flies themselves have it. It's freakish to the point of B-movie science fiction involving teleportation machines. As for wings: useless unless they're usable. There's nothing in the animal kingdom that uses half-wings. Some animals have vestigial wings, this is true, but those are wings that once worked and have since stopped working. All the evolutionary influence in existance couldn't take a chicken or penguin and make it fly again.

[nik0tine]

how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless. More than useless: you get no flight, but you also lose a pair of perfectly useful forelimbs. Humans and raccoons have proven that hands are better than wings. You do NOT get winged flight from any form of gliding flight, it just doesn't work. The two designs are entirely incompatible, and if you evolve gliding it actually makes it impossible to evolve real flight. Aerodynamics. You can argue about evolution, you can't argue about elementary lift/thrust dynamics.They jsut did. I'm not an expert on evolution, but from the way I understand it, everything is just random mutations. If you happen to get a disadvantagous genetic mutation you are more likely to die and not pass on that gene, whereas if you receive an advantages mutation you are more likely to survive and pass on that gene. It's all random from the way I see it. Creatures didn't evolve a certain way because it would be advantagous, it's just that they DID evolve that way, it happened to be advantagous, and therefore they survived and passed on the genes.

[Sasquatch]

Ah. I see there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of evolution, here. Evolution isn't about a new creature simply being born with a new organ or a new ability. It's an incredibly incremental process, dependent on miniscule mutations taking an effect over countless generations. One species can't simply "evolve" into another species in the space of a single generation. The 'mutations' we know as cancer and other deformities aren't part of the evolutionary process because they're radical, often actively harmful, mutations. Evolution involves tiny mutations, often of a single base in the DNA sequence.

[Resha]

I'm going to cut across the conversation, and say yes! I do have a religion. I'm Hindu. :D

[Big D]

2- how did WINGS evolve. You can't argue "slight advantage"- halfway usable wings are still completely useless.Rudimentary wings, in the form of furred/feathered limbs, could provide some form of limited gliding ability. A lighter, longer, more densely feathered limb would provide better gliding, till eventually you get a wing that's capable of acrively providing lift, rather than just slowing a fall. I don't see how the two (glide and flight) are necessarily mutually exclusive. Pterosaurs and bats are useful examples.Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.It's untrue to say there's "no" evidence, when there's plenty - mainly in the fossil record. It's a matter of simple logic that deeper rock is older than the rock above it. The deeper you go, the further 'back' you can see. In the oldest, deepest fossil-bearing rocks, the most primitve fossils are found. Basic plants, eventually a few insect-like creatures. Later on, you get slightly more complex forms: vertebrates, arthropods. Further still, you find larger fish and amphibians. Eventually, you see the emergence of reptiles, mammal-like reptiles and other land-dwellers - but still very primitive organisms. The further 'up' the record you go, the more elaborate, more complex creatures become: dinosaurs, mammals, primates, other examples. Significantly, it's not just that new species emerge in the fossil record; the more primitive ones often disappear. Like they've been 'replaced'. This is especially true where the fossil record appears to show speciation (the evolution of one species into another), as shown by fossilised horses. The earliest horse fossils are of a small creature, with toes rather than hooves. But as you come forward in time, this smallest horse has vanished, to be replaced by a larger relative; eventually, the toes disappear and are replaced by hooves. Either one species evolved into the other, or else the 'primitive' horses were destroyed one by one, and replaced with an 'improved model'. The same's true for every other species that shows an apparent change over time, in the fossil record.
It'd take one heck of a coincidence for the oldest rocks to contain only primitive life-forms, unless they really were the only form of life present then. Same goes for more recent fossils, too - the record clearly suggests the progressive emergence of more-developed species, and the progressive disappearance of many (but not all) lesser-developed species. It has been estimated that 99.99% of all species that ever existed, are now extinct.

So in reality, there is evidence of new species evolving. Not proof, but evidence.

[?????]

Racism is not explicitly promoted by either point of view. It is implied in both. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery anywhere in its pages - a fact Christian slaveholders of the Confederacy were well aware of.

It is expressly stated in Evolutionism. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a certain color or race of people should be enslaved, does it? Whereas Evolutionism does indeed state that Africans are the "least developed" form of man.

Technically, Africans are biologically the least developed. Except for maybe one thing...damn, I watch too many pornos.

The Bible doesn't specifically say that any presently existing tribe or race should be enslaved. It also doesn't say that they shouldn't be, and need I remind you of the Israelites' crusades into Canaan?


By the way, if you didn't know, many people in the South did not own slaves, and many people in the North did at that time. You're probably one of the people who think "the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves!" Besides, what textile factories and such in the North did to their women and children was worse than most slaves had to go through. But we're not on that topic now.

Way to make assumptions. Slavery was ILLEGAL in the North. Bias against other races wasn't, of course, and it still ran rampant.



Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?

Because it doesn't involve God. It doesn't matter if it holds water or not, because not involving God is all it needs for most of "science" to accept it. I thought I already explained this.

You didn't answer my question. If there is a bias against religion in the scientific community (and there demonstrably is) why do you think it got that way in the first place? Science strives for natural explanations of the universe's various phenomena. Postulating a reason outside of nature doesn't fit very well with that paradigm, does it?

Besides, in order for your idea to hold true, you have to make a highly unprovable and very broad generalization that science is some kind of anti-God cult. Science is only against religion when it gets in the way of progress. Basically, you don't tell us how to evaluate facts, and we won't tell you how to get people to not want to break the law.



Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.

Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.

Heh, if you want to argue against the craptons of evidence that have been established, be my guest. But know that doing so amounts to solipsism, because it's questioning the very validity of reason to promote a supernatural solution in place of a natural one. If you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.

[bipper]

If there is a bias against religion in the scientific community (and there demonstrably is) why do you think it got that way in the first place?

Because most science types are VERY arrogant. I mean this in an eye gougingly mean way. Yes, they think if they cannot explain somthing, it cannot exist or it is simply too complex. If somthing does not present itself in the form of a scienctific text, or a logistacal theorom then it must not be explainable, and there for does not exist. This is why I have hated about 90% of science nerds I have met. From my experiences, the are so high on themselves and having to know every little thing that makes the universe tick that it gets sickening. While I don't mind people gaining as much knowlage possable, I do mind arrogance.

/sigh. Science still has not disprovent the Bible, nor does it have much of a leg to stand on. Its a guessing game that entails looking at the small facts that we know, to wonder how the world came about. Like I always say, with enough knowlage, I think that Science and the Bible will have more in common than most science types would like to admit.

Off from this, who says that God even has to exist with in our scope of existance. It could be just as possible that he is a being outside our laws of science. After all, the clear idea of Creationism is that the universe was created. These rules were all made, and made for a reason. We could be comparable to a program written on a computer. The program may be instructed to follow certain rules, that the programmer does not neccesarily have to follow. /shrug If this is how it is, science may never find the proof it seeks.

Bipper

[nik0tine]

What I don't understand is why people think that evolution and religion are two contradicting concepts. They aren't.

[Big D]

Yes, they think if they cannot explain somthing, it cannot exist or it is simply too complex. If somthing does not present itself in the form of a scienctific text, or a logistacal theorom then it must not be explainable, and there for does not exist.I disagree. Sensible scientists are only too willing to acknowledge that science is limited and incomplete. Evolution, while it fits the facts and evidence, is not fully understood or explained. The origins and nature of the universe, too, aren't fully understood with much dependability.
It's true, however, that there are arrogant and self-righteous types in every field - science, religion, and so on.

[bipper]

Yes Big D, I agree. What I am saying, is that it is much easier to belive science than religion. Somthing that you can clearly see, over somthing you have to belive.

I am not trying to say that the whole field of science is flawed, I am trying to say that people whom are raised in schools, learning science laws and theories are going to simply be more prone to belive that scince > religion. The knowlage that they find in more research of science will fit into their conditioned way of thinking a lot better than religious concepts.

In my mind religion and science are about on the same level. The difference is Science can make you money, which makes it more important ( :confused: :mad: ) for children to learn so that they grow and serve thier government better. Millionares look better on paper than religious humble types.

I really wish that public schools might offer a brief class on at least an over view of religions. Not to spiritually enlighten people, but just for the fact that there is a loth of people whom see other religions as completley different, and just rediculous. I think it would be worth it (especially in the us) to create more of an understanding of other people. (almost on the same lines as cultural studies and social studies)

[/tangent]

Bipper

[?????]

The difference is science can make you money, which makes it more important ( :confused: :mad: ) for children to learn so that they grow and serve their government better. Millionares look better on paper than religious humble types.

What, and religion doesn't make money? One word: televangelists. Those bastards make more money in a week than most scientists and engineers see in a year, for doing something that causes society to regress rather than advance. It's one of this age's ironies.

You've said that most scientific types are arrogant. That may very well be true, but it's wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not their viewpoint is well-supported and based in fact.

One may say that science is limited. Of course it is. We don't know everything yet. But the epistemology that underlies scientific inquiry is utterly flawless.

[Sasquatch]

Way to make assumptions. Slavery was ILLEGAL in the North. Bias against other races wasn't, of course, and it still ran rampant.

I have plenty to reply to, but I'd like to point out this blatantly false and either severely misguided or extremely idiotic statement. Slavery wasn't made illegal until after he Civil War. Some states made slavery illegal, but it wasn't really enforced, and there was no nation-wide ban on slavery until well after the Confederacy broke off.

[bipper]

What, and religion doesn't make money? One word: televangelists. Those bastards make more money in a week than most scientists and engineers see in a year, for doing something that causes society to regress rather than advance. It's one of this age's ironies.


That is just horrible. Yes, there are people whom take advantage of a religion to make a horde of money. I dont see the relevance in this though, as the origional point was that science can open more higher-paying careers to students. Which allow them to both make money, and be more of use (loosly used) to the government. As for your initial what, try reading the paragraph again. It made perfect sence, though I am a little tired, the idea should be discected quite easily.



You've said that most scientific types are arrogant. That may very well be true, but it's wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not their viewpoint is well-supported and based in fact.

*Slaps forhead* What!? Look at the debate and main idea of my post. I was merley answering your querstion pertaining to bias.

Why is there such a Bias. Well arrogance, and ignorance go hand in hand. A man whome looks at facts, will not accept much unless it is sustained by facts that he is The facts are all well and good, but are often portrayed by actual scientists whom are open minded, as Big D had pointed out. Unfortunatley, there is a majority of the Scientific populace whom will kick and scream, and say this is how things work, and when it comes to backing up what they say, will not throw down a single resource.

(personal experiences follow)

I have had several debates here that work in that mannor. If it goes against thier thinking, they will throw out hordes of insults, basless comments. Yet the moment a fact gets thrown down, they back off and simply dissapear, only to come back preaching the same crap that was just proofed wrong.

I have had to get in debates with teachers several times to prove the points I have put down on paper. I had a nasty habbit of studying from other textbooks at the library, and looking at university sites. Often times I would run across somthing that was not in the teachers scope, and it would usually result in a discredited paper, or a lowered grade (even with research information, and detailed logs of sites).

About my senior year in high school, I merely gave up on science for this reason, as it seemd if you thought outside of the box, you would just be ridiculed. Even though the box was never enclosed to begin with. Science has shown that same track record with the Earth is flat nonsence, as well as many other scientific discovereies, which are clearly depicted in the bible.... hmmm.




One may say that science is limited. Of course it is. We don't know everything yet. But the epistemology that underlies scientific inquiry is utterly flawless.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. So you are saying that philosiphical scince questions are flawless. I guess I really dont see what your sentance gets at here. I dont really say that scince is baseless, or that the root philosophy of the Scientific drive in humans is needless. I merely gest that Christianity and Scinece are prolly closer than we think.

Bipper

[?????]

The way I used the word epistemology refers to a way of evaluating knowledge, that of the logical paradigm. It is often used in this manner because, as you said, epistemology is the study of the origin of knowledge.

I only wish science were more relevant in today's culture. South Korea, at one sixth of America's population, is producing an equivalent amount of hard-science specialists. No matter what your standpoint on religion is, that's pretty sad.

I and many others have theorized that there are laws of physics that govern the laws of physics. Take for example the beginning of the universe. To cause the Big Bang would require a theoretically infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to a speed much, much faster than that of light, so matter would expand and the very forces that govern our present-day universe would become distinct. Time itself would be circular in such a situation. In a closed universe, time can be taken to be circular anyway. On the other hand, it's possible that the universe has never existed as a point, but that seems pretty convenient: holding to our current views of time and probability, why would the universe be any more likely to exist in this state than any other?

According to Feynman's sum-over-paths approach to quantum mechanics, a particle not only traverses multiple paths to a destination, it traverses every possible path at once: the path we actually "see" it take is based on the probability that it will take any particular path. This is similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in that it cannot be predicted where a particular subatomic particle will be at any given time by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics extends this to say that it cannot be predicted by any method. So, consider this:

What if the universe itself operates the same way, and we're a possibility? It would definitely lend some new food for thought, especially regarding spacetime and relativity.

[Big D]

I really wish that public schools might offer a brief class on at least an over view of religions. Not to spiritually enlighten people, but just for the fact that there is a loth of people whom see other religions as completley different, and just rediculous. I think it would be worth it (especially in the us) to create more of an understanding of other people. (almost on the same lines as cultural studies and social studies)Excellent point, and a useful idea. It actually happens, too - in Geography class at high school, we were taught about the basics of many major religions, and the societies they're prominent in: Christianity and Islam, in particular. There was never any promotion or encouragement, rather just a description of the core beliefs, and how the cultures evolved.

As for its "importance" as far as teaching goes... Religion's always gonna be a touchy subject. If schools even teach students about religions, some parents will start crapping bricks about it. Then there's the issue of ensuring that students get told an accurate account of each religion. With science, the theories are concrete and often quantifiable (on paper, at least) whereas religion involves a lot of personal interpretation and faith - which is perhaps why some people would say it's best left to parents, churches and personal choice. Although a truly balanced, objective overview of other religions would do wonders for countering prejudice and intolerance...

[Shauna]

Yes Big D, I agree. What I am saying, is that it is much easier to belive science than religion. Somthing that you can clearly see, over somthing you have to belive.

Yup, that's exactly it. If I see something, I'll believe it... but, there's always the arguement of Air. :p
If someone says something completely unbelievable to me, I'd want to see whatever they're talking about, before I'd even think of believing them. :D


Science has shown that same track record with the Earth is flat nonsence, as well as many other scientific discovereies, which are clearly depicted in the bible.... hmmm.

Are you saying, that science once followed the whole 'Earth is Flat' thing? If you aren't... ignore what I'm gonna say. No need to make any more arguements, right? :D
Wasn't that because the early scientists were Christians? And they believed in what the bible said? If not... I'm being a silly 14 year old and making stuff up in my mind. :D

[Sasquatch]

There was never any promotion or encouragement, rather just a description of the core beliefs, and how the cultures evolved. ... With science, the theories are concrete and often quantifiable (on paper, at least) whereas religion involves a lot of personal interpretation and faith

Actually, as per Evolutionism, there are many different versions to go by. Which one should be taught? Evolutionism is not a concrete theory, and certainly not quantifiable in any sense, and does involve "a lot of personal interpretation and faith" -- but that's still taught, and taught as fact usually. Where do we draw the line? Why is it alright to teach one religion as fact, but we can't mention any other religions?


Are you saying, that science once followed the whole 'Earth is Flat' thing? If you aren't... ignore what I'm gonna say. No need to make any more arguements, right?
Wasn't that because the early scientists were Christians? And they believed in what the bible said? If not... I'm being a silly 14 year old and making stuff up in my mind.

Actually, you're right and wrong. Yes, scientists once followed the idea that the earth is flat. So did nearly everybody at the time, because they didn't know any better. No -- again, NO -- the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.

[Fire_Emblem776]

i dont call myself anything. But i belive in jesus. does that make me a bad person?

[?????]

There was never any promotion or encouragement, rather just a description of the core beliefs, and how the cultures evolved. ... With science, the theories are concrete and often quantifiable (on paper, at least) whereas religion involves a lot of personal interpretation and faith

Actually, as per Evolutionism, there are many different versions to go by. Which one should be taught? Evolutionism is not a concrete theory, and certainly not quantifiable in any sense, and does involve "a lot of personal interpretation and faith" -- but that's still taught, and taught as fact usually. Where do we draw the line? Why is it alright to teach one religion as fact, but we can't mention any other religions?

Um, because evolution has a bunch of support for it? You just don't get it. Seriously, you have just about the worst understanding of evolutionary theory, and the definition of "theory" in general, that I've ever heard of, but what's more, you have to go and try to add an air of intellectual legitimacy to your thoughts. There aren't any gaps in the theory. There are gaps in the evidence because (zomg!) there are still fossils left to be dug up. Like I said, if you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.



Are you saying that science once followed the whole 'Earth is Flat' thing? If you aren't... ignore what I'm gonna say. No need to make any more arguements, right?
Wasn't that because the early scientists were Christians? And they believed in what the Bible said? If not... I'm being a silly 14 year old and making stuff up in my mind.

Actually, you're right and wrong. Yes, scientists once followed the idea that the earth is flat. So did nearly everybody at the time, because they didn't know any better. No -- again, NO -- the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.

Revelation references the nations in "the four corners of the Earth." A sphere doesn't exactly have corners, now does it?

[Sasquatch]

Um, because evolution has a bunch of support for it? You just don't get it. Seriously, you have just about the worst understanding of evolutionary theory, and the definition of "theory" in general, that I've ever heard of, but what's more, you have to go and try to add an air of intellectual legitimacy to your thoughts. There aren't any gaps in the theory. There are gaps in the evidence because (zomg!) there are still fossils left to be dug up. Like I said, if you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.

Actually, I've studied Evolutionism for six or eight years now. And whereas I've debated my side since the topic came up in this thread, you came in the other day and have presented absolute dick, then have the gall to hurl insults towards me. By the way, this might help you.


the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
...
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Tested: No. Obviously, can't test Evolutionism.
Widely accepted: Somewhat. Most Americans believe that some form of Higher Power had something to do with our creation, and highly doubt Evolutionism.
I hope I don't have to explain assumption, limited information or knowledge, or conjecture.

Looks like you've got some researching to do. Come back when you have something to add to the debate instead of insults, after you figure out what "Evolution" and "theory" mean.


Revelation references the nations in "the four corners of the Earth." A sphere doesn't exactly have corners, now does it?

Actually it's an elipse, not a sphere. And it doesn't matter, because "the four corners of the Earth" is obviously a figurative saying. Like "the ends of the Earth". There are four Cardinal Directions -- c'mon, we learned this stuff in Elementary School -- East, West, North, and South. "The four corners of the Earth" refer to the farthest extents of each direction. If you can't figure that out, that doesn't mean it's something wrong with the Bible, it's just yet another thing YOU can't figure out. There seems to be a pattern here, doesn't there?

[Big D]

Yep, "four corners of the Earth" is simply a figure of speech, one that's widely used even today.

Some old scientific beliefs were indeed encouraged by religious belief, such as the idea that Earth is at the center of the solar system, and the center of the universe itself. However, I think this had more to do with the belief that humans were the focal point of creation and the greatest of God's work.

Anyway. As for teaching evolution in schools... sure, it's fine in science class, because it's a widely accepted scientific theory. It's taught as such - the theory is explained, along with the evidence for it. Just the same as how they teach atomic structure in chemistry class, or Newton's laws in physics.
Tested: No. Obviously, can't test Evolutionism.However, evidence can be obtained from such sources as the fossil record, and from the observation of processes such as point mutation and intraspecific variation, in the real world. "Theory that fits the facts", basically...
Widely accepted: Somewhat. Most Americans believe that some form of Higher Power had something to do with our creation, and highly doubt Evolutionism.Whether or not it's got popular acceptance has little to do with its favourability among the scientific community. To say that "it's not good science unless laypeople believe it" would be, I believe, like saying that the legal process isn't a valid method of dispute resolution if people don't understand or agree with it. As a scientific theory explaining observed phenomena, it's got validity and support.

[?????]

<!--

Um, because evolution has a bunch of support for it? You just don't get it. Seriously, you have just about the worst understanding of evolutionary theory, and the definition of "theory" in general, that I've ever heard of, but what's more, you have to go and try to add an air of intellectual legitimacy to your thoughts. There aren't any gaps in the theory. There are gaps in the evidence because (zomg!) there are still fossils left to be dug up. Like I said, if you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.

Actually, I've studied Evolutionism for six or eight years now. And whereas I've debated my side since the topic came up in this thread, you came in the other day and have presented absolute dick, then have the gall to hurl insults towards me. By the way, this might help you.


the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
...
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Tested: No. Obviously, can't test Evolutionism.
Widely accepted: Somewhat. Most Americans believe that some form of Higher Power had something to do with our creation, and highly doubt Evolutionism.
I hope I don't have to explain assumption, limited information or knowledge, or conjecture.

Looks like you've got some researching to do. Come back when you have something to add to the debate instead of insults, after you figure out what "Evolution" and "theory" mean.

Um...just...LOL.

I can't figure out why I was ever polite to intellectual n00blets such as yourself in the first place -- people who REPEATEDLY deny well-established scientific theories and even question the very validity of the scientific process while offering nothing better in return.

I don't feel the need to be polite to someone whose ideas are so blatantly illogical that I question their very existence as a sentient being, since it is our mind that defines our existence. You've offered nothing but religious, pseudo-intellectual drivel. I've read the entire goddamn thread, dumbass, and about a billion others like it. And I guaran-f**king-tee you I've studied this /xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif a hell of a lot more and more in-depth than almost anyone else who takes part in these debates, including intellectual n00blets like you. I am SO sick of people dissing evolution and not offering anything better. You've CONTINUALLY dodged that question ever since I came into this flamefest. So put up or shut up. Most of us would favor the latter.

YOU need to figure out what theory means from a scientific standpoint, since that's what matters. When you're reduced to using a dictionary, it shows that you have absolutely no grasp of what the hell's going on ANYWHERE.

Technically, yeah, the Earth is an ellipse. Does it look like an ellipse? No. Did you get the point of my sentence? Maybe. Who knows? Considering the viewpoint you're espousing, I doubt it, so stfu until you can come up with something substantive.

YOU need to figure out what theory means from a scientific standpoint, since that's what matters. When you're reduced to using a dictionary, it shows that you have absolutely no grasp of what the hell's going on ANYWHERE.

(Edit: Wait, I already said that. I guess that means it's doubly true.)

Can you directly test either theory? Obviously not, and if you can test creationism, then you've gotta be psychic or something. But then again, if you were psychic, you'd be being experimented on by some government black ops group and out of the hair of thinking, reasoning beings.

As far as I'm concerned, this whole topic is refuted, done, dead. Creationism is unsupported and WRONG. It's as simple as that, so get it the hell out of my field. I could go into a massive diatribe about how religion is bull/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif, but forget it, you're not going to listen anyway, since your brain is closed off to logic.-->*snip*

Edit by D: No need for that.

[eestlinc]

this thread is over now.