Anyone have a religion?

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

I am Christian and proud of it

[Traitorfish]

Pastafarian. All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Lord of Creation!
Technically I'm Catholic, but catholocism is rarely something you choose- you're born into it, and there's almost no way of getting out of it.

[Alive-Cat]

My religion is Cidism.

[Yamaneko]

Am I a member of a particular religion and do I practice their beliefs? No.

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

btw I am protestant :D

[Chris]

Nope.

[Winter Nights]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.

[Jack]

Well I'm assuming since millions follow a belief of sorts, then I'd think someone other than you have a religion...
And hello Christian, how are you? Are you proud of your name?
...
... :D
...
I do not have a religion, but I feel that people who want to believe in something (as long as it isn't something that threatens me) can do as they please. But i don't see why you have to say you are proud of being a Christian when effectively, you should NEVER be un-proud of your faith. Doing such makes you rather un-Christian in my thinking.

No one should be shamed of their faith. That's why I say happily that I have no faith. Because it's what I believe.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

Not really. More of eclectic personal beliefs.

[Faris]

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

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info

[Dreddz]

I dont believe in anything, so Im pretty much an atheist.........

[ZeZipster]

WWFSMD?

[Alive-Cat]

I guess I chose Cidism because it rocks.

[Zeldy]

Im not sure. I dont belive in anything apart from Reincarnation.

[Skarr]

I'm a christian...but i haven't went to chruch in a long time.


I'm Catholic, but catholocism is rarely something you choose- you're born into it, and there's almost no way of getting out of it.

Just like the mob.

[Little Miss Awesome]

I am Christian and proud of it

[Winter Nights]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.

[Old Manus]

I am a follower of General Zod.

EDIT: KNEEL

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.
I compared it with other religions and atheism. And I learned more about Christianity and history of events that happened in the Bible.

[Winter Nights]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.
I compared it with other religions and atheism. And I learned more about Christianity and history of events that happened in the Bible.
Then, you are one out of a billion. Seriously, most Christians know nothing of their own religion. Though, how you can stomach being apart of that faith is beyond me. Kudos for doing research., though. :)

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.
I compared it with other religions and atheism. And I learned more about Christianity and history of events that happened in the Bible.
Then, you are one out of a billion. Seriously, most Christians know nothing of their own religion. Though, how you can stomach being apart of that faith is beyond me. Kudos for doing research., though. :)
Maybe you should do the same.....and maybe you wouldn't make such ignorant remarks.

[Ohhh]

OMG seymour guado goth knows what hes talkin about when it comes to christianity trust me :) so dont be so rude to him eitha! :O

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

Thanks for supporting me ^_^

[Winter Nights]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.
I compared it with other religions and atheism. And I learned more about Christianity and history of events that happened in the Bible.
Then, you are one out of a billion. Seriously, most Christians know nothing of their own religion. Though, how you can stomach being apart of that faith is beyond me. Kudos for doing research., though. :)
Maybe you should do the same.....and maybe you wouldn't make such ignorant remarks.
Right... Cause obviously I would talk smack about people not doing research, because I've done none myself. Did you even think before you posted or did you immediately go on the defensive. I say I have problems with your religion and that makes me ignorant. Good job. :rolleyes2


OMG seymour guado goth knows what hes talkin about when it comes to christianity trust me :) so dont be so rude to him eitha! :O
Like sheep heading to the slaughter. :mad:

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.
I compared it with other religions and atheism. And I learned more about Christianity and history of events that happened in the Bible.
Then, you are one out of a billion. Seriously, most Christians know nothing of their own religion. Though, how you can stomach being apart of that faith is beyond me. Kudos for doing research., though. :)
Maybe you should do the same.....and maybe you wouldn't make such ignorant remarks.
Right... Cause obviously I would talk smack about people not doing research, because I've done none myself. Did you even think before you posted or did you immediately go on the defensive. I say I have problems with your religion and that makes me ignorant. Good job. :rolleyes2


OMG seymour guado goth knows what hes talkin about when it comes to christianity trust me :) so dont be so rude to him eitha! :O
Like sheep heading to the slaughter. :mad:
No I just can't see how you can say it's beyond you that I am Christian.

Sacrifices?

[Traitorfish]

I'm a christian...but i haven't went to chruch in a long time.


I'm Catholic, but catholocism is rarely something you choose- you're born into it, and there's almost no way of getting out of it.

Just like the mob.
Well, the mob are all catholic, right? But they're Italian, rather than Scottish-Irish...
Has anyone ever seen Dara O'Brian, that most terrible genius of comdey? I saw one of his shows once, and he was talking about catholocism, which all catholic comedians do. Billy Connoly... err... Dara O'Brian... err... Billy Connoly?
Anyway, it went along the lines of explaining that you can never really leave catholocism, and 'Even if you joined the Taliban, you'd just be regared as [mock serious voice]a bad catholic[/mock serious voice].' It's actually funny in real life, I swear.

[Winter Nights]

No I just can't see how you can say it's beyond you that I am Christian.
Like you, I've done extensive research on Christianity and found a great deal of things I did not like. I stated this, nothing more. Even gave you kudos for actually making your own decision, rather than being talked into one. Why having an opinion makes me ignorant is beyond me.


Sacrifices?
And I was just referring to the fact that someone would jump to your rescue, like a mindless zombie, at the first person to give their real opinion of your faith.

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

No I just can't see how you can say it's beyond you that I am Christian.

Sacrifices?
Like you, I've done extensive research on Christianity and found a great deal of things I did not like. I stated this, nothing more. Even gave you kudos for actually making your own decision, rather than being talked into one. Why having an opinion makes me ignorant is beyond me.

And I was just referring to the fact that someone would jump to your rescue, like a mindless zombie, at the first person to give their real opinion of your faith.

Well that's you. Being in Christianity makes me happy. And you should know that your opinion would provoke a debate.

???

[Winter Nights]

Well that's you. Being in Christianity makes me happy. And you should know that your opinion would provoke a debate.

???
Actually, it shouldn't cause a debate. Asking a question and getting an answer is by no means justifications for trying to defend your own opinion. People will think differently from you. Lots of people actually. You best get used to that.

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

Well that's you. Being in Christianity makes me happy. And you should know that your opinion would provoke a debate.

???
Actually, it shouldn't cause a debate. Asking a question and getting an answer is by no means justifications for trying to defend your own opinion. People will think differently from you. Lots of people actually. You best get used to that.
I have

[Skarr]

Just when i was about to leave this enticing form of entertainment surfaced…man I love you guys. :lol:

Kudos to seymour and autumn for such delightful fun.

[Winter Nights]

Just when i was about to leave this enticing form of entertainment surfaced…man I love you guys. :lol:

Kudos to seymour and autumn for such delightful fun.
Erm.. Glad my annoyance could entertain you. :p

[Traitorfish]

Im not sure. I dont belive in anything apart from Reincarnation.

that would be buddism
No, actually, it wouldn't be. Reincartnation is simply part of Buddhism, and there are many other parts that Zelda did not claim to believe in. That's like someone saying 'I beleive in God' and someone else saying 'So you're Christian, then?'. Other religions, like Hindu and Shinto, as well as man other minor religions, have similar ideas on reincarnation.

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

No I just can't see how you can say it's beyond you that I am Christian.

Sacrifices?
Like you, I've done extensive research on Christianity and found a great deal of things I did not like. I stated this, nothing more. Even gave you kudos for actually making your own decision, rather than being talked into one. Why having an opinion makes me ignorant is beyond me.

And I was just referring to the fact that someone would jump to your rescue, like a mindless zombie, at the first person to give their real opinion of your faith.

Well that's you. Being in Christianity makes me happy. And you should know that your opinion would provoke a debate.

???
Just because it makes you happy does not mean the religion is not open to crititisicsm. Nobody wants you to stop being a christian, but they are allowed to ask questions.
What questions?

[Traitorfish]

I edited that because I realised it made no sense, and that I sounded like a prat... Sorry.

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

I edited that because I realised it made no sense, and that I sounded like a prat... Sorry.
Okay......*runs away*

[Jess]

Agnostic.

[Winter Nights]

I think Traitorfish meant you should keep an open-mind and not dismiss other opinions as "ignorant". At least, I hope that's what he meant. :p

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

I think Traitorfish meant you should keep an open-mind and not dismiss other opinions as "ignorant". At least, I hope that's what he meant. :p
Well it depends what you call open-minded. Goodnight people

[Winter Nights]

I think Traitorfish meant you should keep an open-mind and not dismiss other opinions as "ignorant". At least, I hope that's what he meant. :p
Well it depends what you call open-minded. Goodnight people
Understand that other people may not believe the way you do, then agree to disagree. Goodnight.

[Shauna]

I'm not anything? I don't believe in God... or anything. xD :love:

[Shlup]

I identify as Christian, but I have to admit that if we went down the list of what makes a Christian I probably wouldn't fit into most people's definitions.

I'm a rebel following my own rules. *flex*

[Slade]

Jedi.........seriously.

[?????]

You mean Final Fantasy isn't a religion?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/azrael19/Talk-Like-a-Pirate-Day-2k5.jpg

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

[rubah]

I'm Christian.

[SammieBabe]

I think Traitorfish meant you should keep an open-mind and not dismiss other opinions as "ignorant". At least, I hope that's what he meant. :p
Well it depends what you call open-minded. Goodnight people
Understand that other people may not believe the way you do, then agree to disagree. Goodnight.


I'm with Autumn rain on this one.... I read the bible...cover to cover more than once... Didn't buy it.... I believe what I believe ... No one has said that you were wrong for being Christian.....

[Psychotic]

I have no want or need for religion. There is one thing I have faith and believe in, and that's myself. (and I didn't even need an epiphany!)

[Sasquatch]

Understand that other people may not believe the way you do, then agree to disagree. Goodnight.

I agree. It's perfectly alright to discuss your beliefs with them, but don't insult members of a particular religion by saying they were "pressured" into it, or that they don't know anything about it, or comparing members of that religion to "mindless zombies", or disagreeing with the very core values of that religion...etc. etc. etc. You may actually learn something you don't hate -- or is that why you don't listen, because that may happen?

[Raistlin]

I have no want or need for religion. There is one thing I have faith and believe in, and that's myself. (and I didn't even need an epiphany!)
Oh my, I'm agreeing with Psychotic.

I think I'll sit this one out. Enough people hate me already. :)

[Winter Nights]

Understand that other people may not believe the way you do, then agree to disagree. Goodnight.

I agree. It's perfectly alright to discuss your beliefs with them, but don't insult members of a particular religion by saying they were "pressured" into it, or that they don't know anything about it, or comparing members of that religion to "mindless zombies", or disagreeing with the very core values of that religion...etc. etc. etc. You may actually learn something you don't hate -- or is that why you don't listen, because that may happen?
Good job. You quoted me saying to accept other's beliefs, then add things I said completely out of context, to make me sound like a asshole. Two hours after it ended, at that. Congrats.. You've done nothing but prove yourself to be a dick. Awesome.

[Kamiko]

I believe in a thing called love!!!
<3 the Darkness
But ja, mostly Christian with a pinch of Buddism and a dab of paganism thrown in for spice.

[escobert]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.
How so? I'm protestant and it's because my family is. I went to church with my family.Therefore I went to a protestant church.

[Winter Nights]

Nope. I'm above peer pressure.
I wasn't pressured into being Christian for your info
Somebody had to talk you into it, if you are a protestant.
How so? I'm protestant and it's because my family is. I went to church with my family.Therefore I went to a protestant church.
I should clean that up a bit, because that that's not really what I meant. But, at some point, either you were influenced by someone (family, friend) .. Or someone convinced you that it was what you needed. This is not always the case, but 90% of the time.. It is. Very few Christians actually research what their faith believes.

Which was my entire point. Once I did research, I didn't like what I found. That's my opinion. Gave him kudos for doing research. I left it at that.

I swear, you people have all these opinions about things that you don't agree with.. But, if someone states that actually dislike what your religion stands for, you know.. have an opinion, you get all uppity. My opinion doesn't have a damn thing to do with you, so don't act like I personally attacked you.

[Sasquatch]

Good job. You quoted me saying to accept other's beliefs, then add things I said completely out of context, to make me sound like a asshole. Two hours after it ended, at that. Congrats.. You've done nothing but prove yourself to be a dick. Awesome.

It wasn't that difficult, really. I just quoted things you said, put 'em all in one post...one end result. Sorry if you don't like it. And it was two hours later...it's a forum, it doesn't really matter much. If it was a chat room, then you'd have a decent point.


I should clean that up a bit, because that that's not really what I meant. But, at some point, either you were influenced by someone (family, friend) .. Or someone convinced you that it was what you needed. This is not always the case, but 90% of the time.. It is.

It's called converting.

[Hawkeye]

Agnostic.
*high five*

[Shlup]

It's called converting.
Even if you're converted you should still do the job of learning what the religion is really about. Which is entirely his point, that most people who follow a religion know little about it.

[Winter Nights]

Good job. You quoted me saying to accept other's beliefs, then add things I said completely out of context, to make me sound like a asshole. Two hours after it ended, at that. Congrats.. You've done nothing but prove yourself to be a dick. Awesome.

It wasn't that difficult, really. I just quoted things you said, put 'em all in one post...one end result. Sorry if you don't like it. And it was two hours later...it's a forum, it doesn't really matter much. If it was a chat room, then you'd have a decent point.
Yes, it does matter. In context, I actually stated valid things or gave an opinion. Your post makes it sounds like I attacked you.



I should clean that up a bit, because that that's not really what I meant. But, at some point, either you were influenced by someone (family, friend) .. Or someone convinced you that it was what you needed. This is not always the case, but 90% of the time.. It is.

It's called converting.
Only a complete moron would make life decisions, based on what someone tells them, with no research of their own.

[Raistlin]

Most people believe what they're taught (typically by their parents), whether it's religion or politics or whatever, without even the consideration that its possible to believe other things, without analyzing the reasons or fundamentals of such a belief, etc.

[Rye]

No, I don't. :)

EDIT: To clarify, I was raised up Christian, but I just don't believe in it. I don't particularly like religon, but that's my opinion.

[Sasquatch]

Yes, it does matter. In context, I actually stated valid things or gave an opinion. Your post makes it sounds like I attacked you.

No. Not me. Just my religion.


Only a complete moron would make life decisions, based on what someone tells them, with no research of their own.

And that's why it's extremely rare that somebody converts without reading any of the particular religion's texts. I've never met somebody who became a Christian -- or anything -- without looking into it at all. Yes, if somebody was to make a serious life decision based solely on a few words from somebody they don't know, I would say they're...well, pretty close to "a complete moron".

[Shlup]

And that's why it's extremely rare that somebody converts without reading any of the particular religion's texts. I've never met somebody who became a Christian -- or anything -- without looking into it at all.
That hasn't been my experience. :/

[Winter Nights]

And that's why it's extremely rare that somebody converts without reading any of the particular religion's texts. I've never met somebody who became a Christian -- or anything -- without looking into it at all. Yes, if somebody was to make a serious life decision based solely on a few words from somebody they don't know, I would say they're...well, pretty close to "a complete moron".
Have you ever BEEN to a church? Somehow I doubt everyone in your church and all of your Christian friends did actual research into it, before converting. And based on that response, I doubt you did either. Not being insulting, just making an observation.

[Shlup]

And based on that response, I doubt you did either. Not being insulting, just making an observation.
I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. :confused:

[Winter Nights]

And based on that response, I doubt you did either. Not being insulting, just making an observation.
I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. :confused:
Mostly, making a observation about how defensive he is over the fact that people actually dislike his religion. I don't know. It's been a long day. I barely know what I'm saying right now. I'm just gonna drop this, cause it's not worth arguing over something so stupid. Especially, when I'm this tired.

[udsuna]

I did plenty of research into a LOT of religions, before "settling down" into a nice little celtic Goddess-worshipping faith. And most people I know, who convert, to ANY religion, do so with a better knowlege of the faith than those who were born into it seem to.

Exception being those "recovering alcoholics/drug abusers/convicts" that seem to have no idea what the hell they're talking about. But, I suppose, if it keeps them on the strait and narrow, we can afford to leave them to their ignorance.

[Daryl]

I am a member of the United Methodist Church.

[DMKA]

This thread is my religion now.

[Rye]

Is LOL Jesus considered a religion?

[XxSephirothxX]

Agnostic, thanks. =]

[Shlup]

Is LOL Jesus considered a religion?
It's a pillar of LOL Christianity.

[beautiful'rays]

I'm oh my lord, fully catholic. I love the ppl at my church too, in our little town are all nice and a tightknit group for the most part. :)

[Samuraid]

It's called converting.
Even if you're converted you should still do the job of learning what the religion is really about. Which is entirely his point, that most people who follow a religion know little about it.

Converting isn't (or shouldn't be) a forced process. It's more along the lines of: presenting a system of beliefs to someone and them choosing to accept it. There's no forcing involved...

I am a Christian. I've looked at many other religions and studied much of their core principals, but Christianity provides a definite basis of truth, an accurate representation of both the physical and spiritual, and a strong hope coming from faith in Jesus. (and many other reasons, too many to list here)

[The Man]

I was raised Christian, but I'm atheist now.

[Kirobaito]

I have gone to Church my entire life, but I've only been Christian for about 4 years.

People don't convert non-believers, God does.

[Rusty]

I'm a Christian :) And I agree with KB, people don't convert non-believers, God does.

[Samuraid]

Very true. :)

[eestlinc]

Not a religion person myself.

[Calliope]

sometimes I think about converting from Metric to Imperial but I don't have the moxy

[DMKA]

People don't convert non-believers, God does.
I lol'd, but I can't figure out if that was the intention.

[Xaven]

I'm a non-denominational Christian. Yes, I have researched into my faith.

[ThroneofDravaris]

Damn, I missed the boat…

I found an interesting poem that pretty much sums up my thoughts on organized religion…


THE BROAD-BACKED hippopotamus
Rests on his belly in the mud;
Although he seems so firm to us
He is merely flesh and blood.

Flesh and blood is weak and frail,
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock.

The hippo’s feeble steps may err
In compassing material ends,
While the True Church need never stir
To gather in its dividends.

The ’potamus can never reach
The mango on the mango-tree;
But fruits of pomegranate and peach
Refresh the Church from over sea.

At mating time the hippo’s voice
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,
But every week we hear rejoice
The Church, at being one with God.

The hippopotamus’s day
Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts;
God works in a mysterious way—
The Church can sleep and feed at once.

I saw the ’potamus take wing
Ascending from the damp savannas,
And quiring angels round him sing
The praise of God, in loud hosannas.

Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean
And him shall heavenly arms enfold,
Among the saints he shall be seen
Performing on a harp of gold.

He shall be washed as white as snow,
By all the martyr’d virgins kist,
While the True Church remains below
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

T.S Eliot

[Rinoa_Heartillly]

wish I could say something about religions but after studing most of them they all have parts that trace to another, so I don't know, I just pray to God, that's all.

[Rinoa_Heartillly]

I did plenty of research into a LOT of religions, before "settling down" into a nice little celtic Goddess-worshipping faith. And most people I know, who convert, to ANY religion, do so with a better knowlege of the faith than those who were born into it seem to.

That sounds like what I would say, and I kinda settled into the Wicca or Celtic some whould call it. ^^ It's more calming and a religion that actually helps me relieve stress and clean out my aura.

[Tai-Ti]

I'm a certified Bobbian, we have our own language and everything! :D nah, i wont joke about religion, i think thats slack. I dont have a religion, cause my mother is against most churchs, and tis hard to believe the hold she has on me.

[Kijunaa]

mostly wiccan, part atheist, part agnostic.

Yeah, just a bunch of stuff I ended up believing. It's not an organized system of beliefs or anything.

[Behold the Void]

If this were EotW I would have started handing out bans.

But in any case, Autumn Rain knock it off, we don't tolerate personal attacks here.

And as far as religion goes, I'm nonreligious, but I do believe in a higher, benevolent power.

[Winter Nights]

What the smurf? When did I attack anyone? All I did was defend my stance, after other people jumped on my back for disliking their religion. If having an opinion is ban-worthy, let me know so I can find a new forum.

[nik0tine]

I hate gays so yeah, I guess you could say I'm a Christian.

[Dreddz]

Just a question, if there was a God, then why is there so much suffering in the world. Why does he let this go on.
Also, People believe God is a good person, but hes the one thats saying that if you dont worship me you will get an eternity of pain in hell.
God, IMO, sounds like the bad guy........
This makes me believe there is no God, And even if there was, I'd never worship him.
I think people choose to believe in God because they are scared of death, and want to believe something is beyond death, and have dillusioned themselves into thinking there is......

[Shlup]

I hate gays so yeah, I guess you could say I'm a Christian.
lolz

[hisoka*maehara]

I am Christian and proud of it

Me too! Me too!

Actually, I'd very much prefer it if I no one mention that Christianity is stupid. It's not.

And also, religion is not a personal preference. It's fact.

Just so you know, I'm not going against any of the answers of the others, this is my opinion. Hey, that's the point of forums, ne?

[Shlup]

This is a personal request from me to everyone: Please show as much restraint as possible when tearing hisoka*maehara a new one, which I know is coming. It's too easy and I fear there will be some sort of explosion.

Thank you and have a nice day.

[Winter Nights]

Not going here. I'll get banned. ;)

Besides... I'm sure that he did plenty of research to come up with that post. I just KNOW IT. :rolleyes2

[Shlup]

Since Autumn Rain has been accused of attacking people I hope he doesn't mind me speaking up for him, but I think it's safe to say you just repeated what he said.

[Winter Nights]

Since Autumn Rain has been accused of attacking people I hope he doesn't mind me speaking up for him, but I think it's safe to say you just repeated what he said.
God knows, I don't mind. I'm just lost on the whole matter. Especially so many hours later. :p

[hisoka*maehara]

Oh no, so sorry! My brother posted that one there while i was in the bathroom! Darn my brother! He's plain annoying.

[Winter Nights]

Ummm... k. o__O

[boris no no]

i consider myself a wiccan.
i respect other religions ans would never dream of questioning anothers belief. also if you don't want to believe there is a god up there (there are thousands!) thats okies too
^____^ i'm just laid back me ! :D

[nik0tine]

I will respect most peoples opinions in regards to religion so long as they can show me that their beliefs are backed up with intelligence. If you believe in god 'cos that's how mamma raised you, then I feel that your faith deserves no respect.

[Sasquatch]

Mostly, making a observation about how defensive he is over the fact that people actually dislike his religion. I don't know. It's been a long day. I barely know what I'm saying right now. I'm just gonna drop this, cause it's not worth arguing over something so stupid. Especially, when I'm this tired.

Nobody's taking offense to you not liking their religion. It's the blatant disrespect, misinterpretations, insults, and outright lies about it that nobody takes kindly to. That goes for any religion, I'd imagine, not just us ignorant Christians.


People believe God is a good person, but hes the one thats saying that if you dont worship me you will get an eternity of pain in hell.

Actually, He's perfect, and we'd have to be perfect to be in His presence. So He's saying hey, nobody deserves to go to Heaven (and thus does deserve to go to the only alternative, Hell), but through Jesus, you can.

And to defend hisoka*maehara ... That's his/her belief, and it's good that they're strong in it. But there are better ways to come across with it, you know?

[Shauna]

i consider myself a wiccan.
i respect other religions ans would never dream of questioning anothers belief. also if you don't want to believe there is a god up there (there are thousands!) thats okies too
^____^ i'm just laid back me ! :D

After reading this post... I actually started to wonder what the crap a wiccan was. xD Even though its been said lots and lots in this thread.
So, anyone wish to enlighten me? :D

And, like boris, even though I don't have a particular religion, I respect that other people have beliefs and such.
But, mostly, people's religions don't bother me. They can believe in whatever, as long as they don't try and get me to follow what they believe in. :D

[Raistlin]

I considered reading about Wicca in high school, but, as a brilliant friend of mine said, "I don't think I could bear saying those dorky rhymes."

It's more-or-less witchcraft, though not the Halloween type. It does involve magic, though. I really don't know much else about it beyond that.

[ThroneofDravaris]

I blamed Charmed for this...

[Yuffie514]

make a poll! n-e-ways, i'm not a pastor, but i'm a Christian

...though not hardcore...

[Captain VooDoo]

I am atheist, but only because himism is not a religion.....maybe my draem will come true one day :greenie:

[-TIDUS-]

Catholic

[Loudez]

I have no religion! All religions are wrong anyway. It doesn't say God made giant liazard things (dinosaurs) It doesn't even mention anything about dinosaurs, it says he made humans first. Yeah, what ever you say. I don't care though, if people want to worship something, go for it. lol.

[-N-]

Only when I feel like putting off work.

[Chris]

Only when I feel like putting off work.
Yeah like: "I can't do it, I have to go to church and pray". :(

*... Dies*

[Zante]

Was raised as a catholic (kindna), but there were too many things that bugged me about it. I don't follow any religion, don't need anyone telling me how I'm supposed to live my live. I just simply believe in God, don't care if you call him Budha, Shiva, Jesus or whatewer.

[Traitorfish]

I have no religion! All religions are wrong anyway. It doesn't say God made giant liazard things (dinosaurs) It doesn't even mention anything about dinosaurs, it says he made humans first. Yeah, what ever you say. I don't care though, if people want to worship something, go for it. lol.
To be fair, Dinosaurs pre-date the bible by approximately 65,000,000 years, so it's hardly the fault of the ancient Israelites.
Anyway, it doesn't explicitly say that he didn't create dinosaurs- it makes no mention of most animals, but fundamentalists don't dent the existence of sloths or kangaroos!
The whole creation story is a complex metaphor, and is not be taken literally. The idea is that humans have been placed on the eath as the dominant species (hence 'made in God's image'), and have the power to control almost any animal. The whole apple dealy is about human nature- basically, we've got this really nice set-up, but we're such greedy, arrogant smeg-heads, that we screw it up and ruin it for everyone. The Garden of Eden actually represents the world, but humans screw everything up by being jack-asses, and make a mess of the whole damn thing.
Basically, it was the ancient Hebrews trying to explain to each other why the world was (and is) such a godawful mess.
But, Creationism is still stupid, narrow-minede and wrong. I've nothing against religion, but those guys are just arrogant jerks.

[Raistlin]

The whole creation story is a complex metaphor, and is not be taken literally. The idea is that humans have been placed on the eath as the dominant species (hence 'made in God's image'), and have the power to control almost any animal. The whole apple dealy is about human nature- basically, we've got this really nice set-up, but we're such greedy, arrogant smeg-heads, that we screw it up and ruin it for everyone. The Garden of Eden actually represents the world, but humans screw everything up by being jack-asses, and make a mess of the whole damn thing.
Tell that to the thousands of theists who actually believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, created less than 6,000 years ago.

[Loudez]

I can't understand why people believe in God or whatever you wanna call him, it. People do take it literally though. In my opinion, only weak minded people follow religions. But, I am wrong in most cases. I don't really know everything about religion, so It probably isn't my place to say anything unless I have all the info I need.

[Cruise Control]

Christian! Nazarene.

[Traitorfish]

The whole creation story is a complex metaphor, and is not be taken literally. The idea is that humans have been placed on the eath as the dominant species (hence 'made in God's image'), and have the power to control almost any animal. The whole apple dealy is about human nature- basically, we've got this really nice set-up, but we're such greedy, arrogant smeg-heads, that we screw it up and ruin it for everyone. The Garden of Eden actually represents the world, but humans screw everything up by being jack-asses, and make a mess of the whole damn thing.
Tell that to the thousands of theists who actually believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, created less than 6,000 years ago.
Yeah, OK.
...
Do you have any with you?

Why does the fanatical, unquestioning beleif of these people make my point less valid? I've actually tried to interprate the stories of the bible, and make somes sense of them. It's not my fault that certain others find that idea offensive.

[Jess]

Agnostic.
*high five*

*wins*

[Sasquatch]

I have no religion! All religions are wrong anyway. It doesn't say God made giant liazard things (dinosaurs) It doesn't even mention anything about dinosaurs, it says he made humans first. Yeah, what ever you say. I don't care though, if people want to worship something, go for it. lol.

Actually, there are several references in the Bible to what we call "dinosaurs", and Creation Science -- which many people disagree with because it doesn't support Evolutionism -- has found evidence that greatly supports a Young-Earth theory of Intelligent Design. Evolutionism (the "ism" is because yes, it is a religion) was a huge test of my faith, but I've researched both sides for years, instead of just buying every line they tried to feed me in public school. But then, people would have to have an open mind to consider such evidence, and as we see with some of the people in this thread, some think they're right to the point that nobody should question them.


But, Creationism is still stupid, narrow-minede and wrong. I've nothing against religion, but those guys are just arrogant jerks.
How many people have gotten banned for much less than this?

[nik0tine]

I have no religion! All religions are wrong anyway. It doesn't say God made giant liazard things (dinosaurs) It doesn't even mention anything about dinosaurs, it says he made humans first. Yeah, what ever you say. I don't care though, if people want to worship something, go for it. lol.
Dude, Dinosaurs are a myth. They are a lie conceived by communist left and the evil liberals to decieve people into believing in absurd concepts like science. The whole liberal agenda is one that focuses solely on the removal of god from society. Everything they do is a means to acheive that sinister goal. Believers be on gaurd... the liberals are here.

[Shlup]

I did the wiccan thing in high school. I liked it very much, but I didn't get "into" it 'cause I was put off by all the other "witches" in high school acting like gothtards. And when I cast a spell it worked a little too well. Srsly. o.O

I will respect most peoples opinions in regards to religion so long as they can show me that their beliefs are backed up with intelligence. If you believe in god 'cos that's how mamma raised you, then I feel that your faith deserves no respect.
And who are you, oh mighty one, to show anyone any disrespect?

Not to say you have, but that statement implies that you would find it somehow justified to do so.
Tell that to the thousands of theists who actually believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, created less than 6,000 years ago.We're working on it. :p

And the Bible doesn't say God made humans first. It says He made them last, actually.

[Raistlin]

Evolutionism (the "ism" is because yes, it is a religion)
Do we have a "bangs head against the wall" smilie here? *checks*

No, apparently not. But this adequately portrays the frustration of logic: :weep:

[Sasquatch]

Higher power...past/present/future intervention and application of that power...an incredible amount of faith...sounds like a religion to me. It doesn't have to be organized to be a religion.

[DMKA]

And also, religion is not a personal preference. It's fact.

Just so you know, I'm not going against any of the answers of the others, this is my opinion. Hey, that's the point of forums, ne?
When you say something is fact, that's not an opinion, just to let you know.

[Shlup]

Higher power...past/present/future intervention and application of that power...an incredible amount of faith...sounds like a religion to me. It doesn't have to be organized to be a religion.
Now where is my list of the seven requirements for something to be a religion... Evolution doesn't fit it, I can tell you that.

That said, how do you tell the difference between science and religion? Is geology a religion for rock heads?

[Psychotic]

The whole liberal agenda is one that focuses solely on the removal of god from society.You missed the part about them constantly whining about Bush destroying the Universe or whatever the heck it is he's being accused of these days.

[Raistlin]

Higher power...past/present/future intervention and application of that power...an incredible amount of faith...sounds like a religion to me. It doesn't have to be organized to be a religion.
I don't see how the hell that applies to evolution, which is based solely on empirical evidence. Microevolution is a fact - something conceded even by the most retarded fundamentalists - and macro is merely micro + time. Hell, we've witnessed speciation.

I don't see what "faith" evolution requires, other than the shocking idea that what naturally happens now also happened naturally thousands of years ago.

Just the fact that this conversation is necessary is revolting.

EDIT:

That said, how do you tell the difference between science and religion? Is geology a religion for rock heads?
Haha. You made this thread officially worth-while with that comment. :D

[nik0tine]

And who are you, oh mighty one, to show anyone any disrespect?

Not to say you have, but that statement implies that you would find it somehow justified to do so. My name is Fred Phelps, thank you very much.

[Traitorfish]

But, Creationism is still stupid, narrow-minded and wrong. I've nothing against religion, but those guys are just arrogant jerks.
How many people have gotten banned for much less than this?
I didn't insult another user, or show predjudice against another group.
I stated a series of veiws, all of which can be fully explained as serious opinions, and not simply insults.
When I say stupid, I mean they fail to understand simple scientific fact. When I say narrow-minded, I mean a complete refusal to accept other's veiwpoints. When I say arrogant, I mean, well, arrogant. When I say wrong, I mean they have no right to force their contradictory, unproven ideas down everyone elses throat.
OK?

EDIT:

Higher power...past/present/future intervention and application of that power...an incredible amount of faith...sounds like a religion to me. It doesn't have to be organized to be a religion.
I don't see how the hell that applies to evolution, which is based solely on empirical evidence. Microevolution is a fact - something conceded even by the most retarded fundamentalists - and macro is merely micro + time. Hell, we've witnessed speciation.

I don't see what "faith" evolution requires, other than the shocking idea that what naturally happens now also happened naturally thousands of years ago.

Just the fact that this conversation is necessary is revolting.
Completely true. Evolution is a scientific theory, and, like all scientific theories, lies on a basis of facts and proof. The very opposite of waht faith taditionally entails- unquestioning beleif.

[nik0tine]

You missed the part about them constantly whining about Bush destroying the Universe or whatever the heck it is he's being accused of these days. They bitch about Bush because he is a man of god. The liberals know that men of god are what will ultimately be their undoing, so they do whatever it takes to get rid of them, but to no avail! The lord hath spoken, and he hath spoken loudly!

[Sasquatch]

You don't see how a belief in Evolution requires faith? How about the fact that hardly any aspect of it has been proven? Microevolution is fact, true, but that's changes within a species. However, one species changing to another -- or even higher branches -- has never been proven to be possible. Not to mention there are piles of evidence aganist the idea of the earth being billions of years old, and moer evidence discounitng the "proof" that the earth must be old.

Jesus existed. He's documented in Roman law. The story about him claiming to be the Son of God and being crucified? That's in the books. But believing Evolutionism is the same as making the link between Jesus existing and believing in Christianity, both require faith.


I didn't insult another user, or show predjudice against another group.
I stated a series of veiws, all of which can be fully explained as serious opinions, and not simply insults.
When I say stupid, I mean they fail to understand simple scientific fact. When I say narrow-minded, I mean a complete refusal to accept other's veiwpoints. When I say arrogant, I mean, well, arrogant. When I say wrong, I mean they have no right to force their contradictory, unproven ideas down everyone elses throat.

You just insulted an entire group of people. How is calling an idea "stupid, narrow-minded and wrong", and the people that believe it "just arrogant jerks" not an insult?

Fail to understand simple scientific fact...refusal to accept others' viewpoints...arrogant...and no right to force their contradictory, unproven ideas down everybody else's throat? SOUNDS LIKE EVOLUTIONISM, SLICK.

[DMKA]

You missed the part about them constantly whining about Bush destroying the Universe or whatever the heck it is he's being accused of these days.
But see, the difference with that is it's true.

[Traitorfish]

You don't see how a belief in Evolution requires faith? How about the fact that hardly any aspect of it has been proven? Microevolution is fact, true, but that's changes within a species. However, one species changing to another -- or even higher branches -- has never been proven to be possible. Not to mention there are piles of evidence aganist the idea of the earth being billions of years old, and moer evidence discounitng the "proof" that the earth must be old.

Jesus existed. He's documented in Roman law. The story about him claiming to be the Son of God and being crucified? That's in the books. But believing Evolutionism is the same as making the link between Jesus existing and believing in Christianity, both require faith.
Err... No, actually. There is no real, scientific proof for the existence of God, while there is large amounts of proof for evolution. And any evidence to suggest that the earth is not billions of years old is most likely flawed- almost all modern scientists accept the idea that the earth is billions of years old, even if the precise age is still unknown. The only ones who disagree with that are neo-evangelists, and they are noted for their skewed veiws of the universe.
EDIT: Any scientist will admit that proof of evolution is imperfect, but that is because of the inherent nature of paelontology- fossils are, basically, pretty rare. They tend to be destroyed long before we find them, so we don't get the complete set. But, there is no other explanation that has even as much proof as evolution, let alone as much general recognition as a major, or even credibe, theory.

[Raistlin]

You don't see how a belief in Evolution requires faith? How about the fact that hardly any aspect of it has been proven? Microevolution is fact, true, but that's changes within a species.
You just said "hardly any aspect of evolution has been proven, though the entire fundamental premise of evolution is fact."

[Sasquatch]

The premise of Evolution is micro-evolution. Which is true. The problem is that Evolutionists try to use it to explain macro-evolution, and it just doesn't work.

[Dr Unne]

I'm an Evolutionist.

My god is Evolutio the Destroyer. Bow before his All-Mighty Flaming Nostrils.

[nik0tine]

The difference between evolution and creationism is that there is evidence for evolution, and not a shred of evidence for creationism at all.aha! But what the liberals don't see is the obvious flaw in this argument!! You see, evolution, like gravity is a theory and therefore it cannot be considered to be valid in any sense.

[Traitorfish]

The premise of Evolution is micro-evolution. Which is true. The problem is that Evolutionists try to use it to explain macro-evolution, and it just doesn't work.
Elaborate, please. From what I've heard, the evolutionary theory is almost flawless when it comes to the fundamental ideas.

[Raistlin]

The premise of Evolution is micro-evolution. Which is true. The problem is that Evolutionists try to use it to explain macro-evolution, and it just doesn't work.
Why?

Holy crap, if random mutations and natural selection can make changes within a generation...if a population is split for some reason (natural disaster, migration, etc.), the two new populations could eventually become so different as to be unable to breed, and become completely different species!

We've also witnessed speciation. Oh, and there is no definite line where "macroevolution" starts. It's scientifically defined as "changes [microevolution] to a population over time." So microevolution logically entails macro.

EDIT:

I'm an Evolutionist.

My god is Evolutio the Destroyer. Bow before his All-Mighty Flaming Nostrils.
Hahahahahahahahahaha

[Sasquatch]

What liberals refuse to see is that there IS evidence supporting a theory of Intelligent Design. And WHO is closed-minded?


Holy crap, if random mutations and natural selection can make changes within a generation...if a population is split for some reason (natural disaster, migration, etc.), the two new populations could eventually become so different as to be unable to breed, and become completely different species!

We've also witnessed speciation. Oh, and there is no definite line where "macroevolution" starts. It's scientifically defined as "changes [microevolution] to a population over time." So microevolution logically entails macro.

And if you can believe that every population has split enough, and stayed apart long enough, to produce the millions upon millions of species we have on this planet...well then, I guess Evolutionism is perfect for you. There's no way of explaining Evolution without using "if this, and if that, and if this, then maybe, possibly, this or that could happen."

And macroevolution is changing from one species to another. That's the line. But not only is microevolution not that fast, it would require many billion years, not just the one billion or so "scientists" speculate the earth's been able to sustain life.

[Traitorfish]

The difference between evolution and creationism is that there is evidence for evolution, and not a shred of evidence for creationism at all.aha! But what the liberals don't see is the obvious flaw in this argument!! You see, evolution, like gravity is a theory and therefore it cannot be considered to be valid in any sense.
True, they are theories but:
1. They have a large amount of evidence to support them
2. There is no other theory that can even come close to explaining what they do.
While creationism, on the other hand:
1. Has no real, scientific proof
2. Is based upon the stories of a nomadic desert people
3. Pre-dates iron-working (i.e. is outdated)
4. Is not generally accepted by scientists as a credible scientific theory

[nik0tine]

What liberals refuse to see is that there IS evidence supporting a theory of Intelligent Design. And WHO is closed-minded?Thank god someone sane minded conservative has realized this! There is evidence to support intelligent design, and evolution is a theory, therefore intelligent design holds more weight than evolution. It says so DIRECTLY in the bible, but you dirty liberals shun that text of gospel truth!!!

[Cruise Control]

Dude, Dinosaurs are a myth. They are a lie conceived by communist left and the evil liberals to decieve people into believing in absurd concepts like science. The whole liberal agenda is one that focuses solely on the removal of god from society. Everything they do is a means to acheive that sinister goal. Believers be on gaurd... the liberals are here.XDDDDD
I knew there was something they weren't telling me in kindergarten.

[nik0tine]

The difference between evolution and creationism is that there is evidence for evolution, and not a shred of evidence for creationism at all.aha! But what the liberals don't see is the obvious flaw in this argument!! You see, evolution, like gravity is a theory and therefore it cannot be considered to be valid in any sense.
True, they are theories but:
1. They have a large amount of evidence to support them
2. There is no other theory that can even come close to explaining what they do.
While creationism, on the other hand:
1. Has no real, scientific proof
2. Is based upon the stories of a nomadic desert people
3. Pre-dates iron-working (i.e. is outdated)
4. Is not generally accepted by scientists as a credible scientific theorySee, this is the thing with closed minded liberals like yourself! You present your argument as if I had to actually listen to you. I'm not listening to you.

[Psychotic]

You missed the part about them constantly whining about Bush destroying the Universe or whatever the heck it is he's being accused of these days. They bitch about Bush because he is a man of god. The liberals know that men of god are what will ultimately be their undoing, so they do whatever it takes to get rid of them, but to no avail! The lord hath spoken, and he hath spoken loudly!Gosh, and there was me thinking it was because they have no tolerance for other people's opinions and views (unless they're a minority group because their opinions are always infinitely better than those of the majority!) despite preaching that they do and that they're better people because of it. But now I know it's all because they're anti-god and not because they're hypocrites. Y'learn something every day at Eyes on FF!

[Traitorfish]

What liberals refuse to see is that there IS evidence supporting a theory of Intelligent Design. And WHO is closed-minded?Thank god someone sane minded conservative has realized this! There is evidence to support intelligent design, and evolution is a theory, therefore intelligent design holds more weight than evolution. It says so DIRECTLY in the bible, but you dirty liberals shun that text of gospel truth!!!
Actually, no, there isn't any proof, at least in a scientific sense. Maybe philosophically, but that is different altogether.
I would also like to question why liberalism and conservatism have entered the argument- they are almost entirely un-related to the philosophical and scientific core of this argument.
One question:

There is evidence to support intelligent design, and evolution is a theory, therefore intelligent design holds more weight than evolution.
But, by your standards, creationism has only evidence, not conclusive proof, just as evolutionism does. This makes absolutely no sense. Hypocrit.

It says so DIRECTLY in the bible, but you dirty liberals shun that text of gospel truth!!![/
Why do only right-wingers say that? You don't see socialists yelling 'God is against the holy teachings of Das Kapital! Heretic!'
The Bible is over 2,000 years old, and has suffered numerous re-writings (don't say 'in your opinion' because that is an historical fact), so is not, actually, a credible guide to the universe.
It also says, for example, that the world is flat. Do you think so?
EDIT:

See, this is the thing with closed minded liberals like yourself! You present your argument as if I had to actually listen to you. I'm not listening to you.
'Close-minded liberals'? Did you know that Websters includes the definition for liberal 'Not narrow or contracted in mind'.
Besides, you over-zealous defense of an obviously flawed concept is far more 'close-minded'.

[DMKA]

You missed the part about them constantly whining about Bush destroying the Universe or whatever the heck it is he's being accused of these days. They bitch about Bush because he is a man of god. The liberals know that men of god are what will ultimately be their undoing, so they do whatever it takes to get rid of them, but to no avail! The lord hath spoken, and he hath spoken loudly!Gosh, and there was me thinking it was because they have no tolerance for other people's opinions and views (unless they're a minority group because their opinions are always infinitely better than those of the majority!) despite preaching that they do and that they're better people because of it. But now I know it's all because they're anti-god and not because they're hypocrites. Y'learn something every day at Eyes on FF!
Psy, you're getting "liberal" and "democrat" confused...alot of people tend to lately.

[Shoeberto]

But, Creationism is still stupid, narrow-minede and wrong. I've nothing against religion, but those guys are just arrogant jerks.
How many people have gotten banned for much less than this?
This would be an instant EoEO ban had it been posted there; outside of that forum, however, there isn't much we can do.

I believe in God. I don't believe in strict literal interpretations of the Bible, though.

[Sasquatch]

True, they are theories but:
1. They have a large amount of evidence to support them
2. There is no other theory that can even come close to explaining what they do.
While creationism, on the other hand:
1. Has no real, scientific proof
2. Is based upon the stories of a nomadic desert people
3. Pre-dates iron-working (i.e. is outdated)
4. Is not generally accepted by scientists as a credible scientific theory

1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.

Traitorfish: Nit0tine is being sarcastic. I'm surpr......well, no, I'm not really surprised you haven't realized that. But just to let you know, he's mocking his idea of...whatever the hell he's trying to mock.

[Psychotic]

Psy, you're getting "liberal" and "democrat" confused...alot of people tend to lately.So do most people who label themselves liberal, so I just go with the flow.

[Traitorfish]

True, they are theories but:
1. They have a large amount of evidence to support them
2. There is no other theory that can even come close to explaining what they do.
While creationism, on the other hand:
1. Has no real, scientific proof
2. Is based upon the stories of a nomadic desert people
3. Pre-dates iron-working (i.e. is outdated)
4. Is not generally accepted by scientists as a credible scientific theory

1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.
1. Like what? DOnt say 'Bible'.
2. Then your ignorant- the Israelis were nomadic for millenia before settling down. The Greeks and Romans only adopted Christianty later- they had their own, even more absurd, creation theories.
3. Err... Yeah it does. It claims that the earth is flat, the sky is water, and that the stars are trap-doors opened by angels to let the water (from the sky) in, to make rain. It's WAY off.
4.Science's veiw of 'supenatural power' is irrelevant. I'm not disputing the existence of God, as such, but the scientific basis of creationism. God does not nessecarilly entail Intelligent Design.

[nik0tine]

Gosh, and there was me thinking it was because they have no tolerance for other people's opinions and views (unless they're a minority group because their opinions are always infinitely better than those of the majority!) despite preaching that they do and that they're better people because of it. But now I know it's all because they're anti-god and not because they're hypocrites. Y'learn something every day at Eyes on FF!Praise be to god.. you have seen the light!

As for you traitorfish, you are a traitor to the lord jesus christ. May he smite you with all of his pacifism.

[Sasquatch]

3. Err... Yeah it does. It claims that the earth is flat, the sky is water, and that the stars are trap-doors opened by angels to let the water (from the sky) in, to make rain. It's WAY off.

Where's this, then?

[DMKA]

1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.
1. No.
2. Me either.
3. It's been changed tons of times, and there's tons of different "versions", not to mention it's not even in it's native language anymore, which is cause of being changed drastically.
4. No, Science is based of facts through solid evidence. Religion/creationism is based off blind faith and fear of non exsistence, among other things (no offense, but I'm just using the same bluntness as you're using against Science and Evolution).

I don't believe in either though, so I don't care who kills who.

[Shoden]

I don't have one at all never really had I used to question it all the time but I still follow the religion of christianity I just don't believe in anything from it.

God or no god who cares I believe there aint one but it's opinion, I wonder into Philosophy too much to have ever seriously had a religion.


You don't burn people with different beliefs thats just... mean.

[Big D]

This would be an instant EoEO ban had it been posted there; outside of that forum, however, there isn't much we can do.:)We can, of course, remind people YET AGAIN that it doesn't cost much to show some basic freakin' respect for other forum members, even where they disagree with their beliefs.

The only reliable way to prevent flames and arguments in a thread like this is for people to remember the basic principle: "If I don't insult others, they'll be less inclined to insult me; I can express disagreement and even disdain without being personal".

I'd hate to see this thread go down the toilet like so many other GC threads; I'd love to see a *positive* discussion of members' religious beliefs.

[SomethingBig]

Sup, 4th Density Beings?

[Traitorfish]

3. Err... Yeah it does. It claims that the earth is flat, the sky is water, and that the stars are trap-doors opened by angels to let the water (from the sky) in, to make rain. It's WAY off.

Where's this, then?
Oooh, err... the BIBLE? The topic of what I said? It's in there. If you want to find it, read the bible. I don't remember exact chapters and verses...

EDIT:


This would be an instant EoEO ban had it been posted there; outside of that forum, however, there isn't much we can do.:)We can, of course, remind people YET AGAIN that it doesn't cost much to show some basic freakin' respect for other forum members, even where they disagree with their beliefs.

The only reliable way to prevent flames and arguments in a thread like this is for people to remember the basic principle: "If I don't insult others, they'll be less inclined to insult me; I can express disagreement and even disdain without being personal".

I'd hate to see this thread go down the toilet like so many other GC threads; I'd love to see a *positive* discussion of members' religious beliefs.
No offence was meant to other forum users. I was merely stating my opinion on neo-evangalists and cretaionists, independant of this forum. If any other user was offended, I apologise. But I've been offended too, you know- I consider being called 'close-minded' offensive, as it insults my way of thinking.

[DMKA]

Sup, 4th Density Beings?
Eh, just bored as usual, seeing as there's no one else intellegent enough to converse with around.

[nik0tine]

You don't burn people with different beliefs thats just... mean.If you're a Catholic you do! *zing!*

[Shoden]

the Bible just makes me laugh, I found so much violence and sex involved in it I just laugh and attempt to make sense of it.

It's like Mary had a little lamb. It can have so many ways of saying the old rhyme and changing it.

I'm glad I live in modern day because I would be ash if I lived in the 17th century.

[Sasquatch]

1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.
1. No.
2. Me either.
3. It's been changed tons of times, and there's tons of different "versions", not to mention it's not even in it's native language anymore, which is cause of being changed drastically.
4. No, Science is based of facts through solid evidence. Religion/creationism is based off blind faith and fear of non exsistence, among other things (no offense, but I'm just using the same bluntness as you're using against Science and Evolution).

I don't believe in either though, so I don't care who kills who.

1. What? Yes, there is plenty of evidence supporting both sides. They just don't teach you much of anything that goes against Evolutionism.
2. They weren't.
3. Creationism has never changed. There are different interpretations and languages of the Bible, yes, but they are incredible accurate to the original texts. And, again, Creationism has never changed.
4. You talk like "science" and "religion/Creationism" are mutually exclusive -- they are not. Nowhere near. Too bad all too many people are too ignorant to realize that. Whereas most people believe Creation only because it's part of believing the Bible, many people, as myself, have actually studied it, and know why we believe it.

[nik0tine]

It's like Mary had a little lamb.Actually marry had a little boy child.

[Traitorfish]

You don't burn people with different beliefs thats just... mean.If you're a Catholic you do! *zing!*
Hey, you fascist! I'm a goddam catholic, so why don't you leave us alone! What happened 400 years ago sucked, but it's no reflection on the people of today.
Protestant killed their fair-share too- Luther was distinctly anti-semitic. But it's in the past. Get over it.

[Shoden]

You don't burn people with different beliefs thats just... mean.If you're a Catholic you do! *zing!*


errr *runs away*

Holy sheep pwn holy people!


Jesus was just a cool hippy not a son of god, he so cool the jews killed him!


err crap...

[The Man]

3. Err... Yeah it does. It claims that the earth is flat, the sky is water, and that the stars are trap-doors opened by angels to let the water (from the sky) in, to make rain. It's WAY off.Where's this, then?Matthew 4:8 implies that the earth is flat. I don't have references for the other verses.




1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.
1. No.
2. Me either.
3. It's been changed tons of times, and there's tons of different "versions", not to mention it's not even in it's native language anymore, which is cause of being changed drastically.
4. No, Science is based of facts through solid evidence. Religion/creationism is based off blind faith and fear of non exsistence, among other things (no offense, but I'm just using the same bluntness as you're using against Science and Evolution).

I don't believe in either though, so I don't care who kills who.

1. What? Yes, there is plenty of evidence supporting both sides. They just don't teach you much of anything that goes against Evolutionism.
2. They weren't.
4. You talk like "science" and "religion/Creationism" are mutually exclusive -- they are not. Nowhere near. Too bad all too many people are too ignorant to realize that. Whereas most people believe Creation only because it's part of believing the Bible, many people, as myself, have actually studied it, and know why we believe it.1. Then post it. Just repeating a fact over and over doesn't make it true, despite what our leaders want to have you believe.

2. The Jews were nomadic for at least forty years while under the leadership of Moses. For someone who purports to be religious, you demonstrate very little familiarity with your own religion's history.

And he never implied that the Greeks and Romans were nomadic.

4. The problem with this assertion is that an astounding amount of modern science is based off of evolution, so if you deny evolution, then you also deny all the science that is based off of it.

[SomethingBig]

It's times like these I wish I had a "HA HA! I'M USING RELIGION!" picture.

[Sasquatch]

3. Err... Yeah it does. It claims that the earth is flat, the sky is water, and that the stars are trap-doors opened by angels to let the water (from the sky) in, to make rain. It's WAY off.

Where's this, then?
Oooh, err... the BIBLE? The topic of what I said? It's in there. If you want to find it, read the bible. I don't remember exact chapters and verses...

You didn't get it. I was saying you're full of it. Of course, you can't go find evidence to back up your outrageous claims, so I guess it'll end there.


The only reliable way to prevent flames and arguments in a thread like this is for people to remember the basic principle: "If I don't insult others, they'll be less inclined to insult me; I can express disagreement and even disdain without being personal".

Funny, when did you realize this? It must have been after I was constantly insulted in EotW and banned when I lashed back.

[Shoden]

I love this thread, it aint serious just basic with a few serious stuff thrown in.

*bah*

the christian religion seems full of subliminal encouragement to violence by what I've read and heard.

[nik0tine]

You didn't get it. I was saying you're full of it. Of course, you can't go find evidence to back up your outrageous claims, so I guess it'll end there.YOU TELL HIM SASQUATCH!!


the christian religion seems full of subliminal encouragement to violence by what I've read and heard. We are only violent against those who are morally bankrupt, such as abortion doctors, and muslims.

[Big D]

You don't burn people with different beliefs thats just... mean.If you're a Catholic you do! *zing!*Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more catholics!

Later

What was that?
What was what?
That noise.
Noise? Did you hear a noise, Percy?
No...
Good.
...apart from that colossal drunken roar.
Oh, <i>that</i> noise - it's the Catholics next door, I'm afraid. I'll just go and burn them. Back in a minute.

The point... is that nearly every religion has as history of being nasty to every other religion, usually by setting fire to them. But just because they were nasty in the past, doesn't mean they have to be nasty today. There are plenty of good people in every faith.

[Traitorfish]

1. There is quite a bit of evidence to support Creationism and disprove Evolutionism. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not out there. Neither theory has any real, scientific proof.
2. Funny, I didn't know the Greeks, Romans, and Isrealis were nomads.
3. It's thousands of years old, and hasn't needed to be changed. Because it hasn't been disproven. More than you can say for nearly every theory of Evolutionism.
4. Because most "science" can't accept the idea that there might be a "supernatural power" of some sort controlling anything.
1. No.
2. Me either.
3. It's been changed tons of times, and there's tons of different "versions", not to mention it's not even in it's native language anymore, which is cause of being changed drastically.
4. No, Science is based of facts through solid evidence. Religion/creationism is based off blind faith and fear of non exsistence, among other things (no offense, but I'm just using the same bluntness as you're using against Science and Evolution).

I don't believe in either though, so I don't care who kills who.

1. What? Yes, there is plenty of evidence supporting both sides. They just don't teach you much of anything that goes against Evolutionism.
2. They weren't.
3. Creationism has never changed. There are different interpretations and languages of the Bible, yes, but they are incredible accurate to the original texts. And, again, Creationism has never changed.
4. You talk like "science" and "religion/Creationism" are mutually exclusive -- they are not. Nowhere near. Too bad all too many people are too ignorant to realize that. Whereas most people believe Creation only because it's part of believing the Bible, many people, as myself, have actually studied it, and know why we believe it.
1. Actually, much evidence supporting creationism comes from theological and philosophical sources, not scientific ones.
2. They were. The hebrews were a nomadic, semitic people of the near-east, who settled into cities several millenia BC. Just like the Babylonians, Sumerians and Assyrians (though these people weren't semitic). When the creation story was first told, they were nomadic tribesmen, who hered sheep across the wilderness.
3.Whether on not it has changed means nothing. In fact, it's that very rigid attitude which makes creationism unsucessful. Creationists almost always fail to compromise- they beleive in what's in the bible, and refuse all other theories. While the theory of evolution has been repeatedly updated and addapted for new evidence.
4. You misunderstand. I meant that religion ahd very little inpact on science these days, as the idea of an all powerful sentient God is becoming increasingly difficult to explain.

[DMKA]

1. What? Yes, there is plenty of evidence supporting both sides. They just don't teach you much of anything that goes against Evolutionism.
2. They weren't.
3. Creationism has never changed. There are different interpretations and languages of the Bible, yes, but they are incredible accurate to the original texts. And, again, Creationism has never changed.
4. You talk like "science" and "religion/Creationism" are mutually exclusive -- they are not. Nowhere near. Too bad all too many people are too ignorant to realize that. Whereas most people believe Creation only because it's part of believing the Bible, many people, as myself, have actually studied it, and know why we believe it.
1. Again, no. If you honestly believe that there is, good for you.
3. Yes it has, and again, if it comforts you to tell yourself so, good for you.
4. And everyone else in this thread including you isn't? Is that not your whole central theme in all the posts you've made? I studied the bible and evolution for years (the bible FAR longer), and that's why I don't believe it (or disbelieve it). Same with Evolution.

[Shlup]

1) Evolution is just speculation of sciencey-people. We can't confirm that all the evidence to support it is true because we don't have a book written in the past that says it is.
2) Creationism is true. We don't have to have evidence to support that it's true because we have the Bible.

I always believed evolution was creation. I don't eat a wad of Play Doh and spit out a chicken; I make a ball, then a wad, then add a beak and a... thing... and then some other stuff.

[The Man]

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?

When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided?

Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.

[nik0tine]

1) Evolution is just speculation of sciencey-people. We can't confirm that all the evidence to support it is true because we don't have a book written in the past that says it is.
2) Creationism is true. We don't have to have evidence to support that it's true because we have the Bible.


My point exactly! It's so freakin' infallible!


How did this sortve crap make it to GC? Do you all have Eoeo bans or something?Yes. :p


This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.What's laughable is how true it is.

[The Man]

How did this sortve crap make it to GC? Do you all have Eoeo bans or something?The thread starter made the thread in GC, and it's EoFF's policy not to move threads from GC to EoEO or vice versa unless the thread creator specifically requests it :monster:

[DMKA]

The Vedas are far older than the Bible, actually.

[Traitorfish]

1) Evolution is just speculation of sciencey-people. We can't confirm that all the evidence to support it is true because we don't have a book written in the past that says it is.
2) Creationism is true. We don't have to have evidence to support that it's true because we have the Bible.

I always believed evolution was creation. I don't eat a wad of Play Doh and spit out a chicken; I make a ball, then a wad, then add a beak and a... thing... and then some other stuff.
1) Sciencey people? Darwin was 'sciency people'? You should show them more respect.
Darwin was a fantastic scientist, and a downight genius.
The Bible is, basically, the folk-tales of stone age hunter-gatheres, dressed up a bit. It made sense 6,000 years ago (actually, the Hebrew creation story is one of the most sensible), but this is now. It's just plain outdated.
2) The Bible is a book. Just a book. Just as 'Origin of the Species' was just a book. Evolutionists admit that, because they've seen it it's made of paper and what-not. You may believ it to be the word of God, I accept that, but personal belief has little or no scientific merit. You need facts. Cold, hard, definite facts.

[Shlup]

So, Traitorfish, how's that sarcasm radar coming along? Still in the repair shop? That's too bad. I hear repairs on those can be costly.

[Big D]

Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.If you really wanted, this *could* be interepreted as a metaphor for the way that environment can affect physical characteristics. It used to be a common belief that the location and emotions present during conception and pregnancy influence appearance; this was the "scientific theory" for quite some time, in the distant past. Now, of course, we know about the role of genetics, but it's also true that environmental factors influence development.

[nik0tine]

2) You need facts. Cold, hard, definite facts.Either that, or you need a gospel truth like the bible. One or the other, basically.

[Traitorfish]

1) Evolution is just speculation of sciencey-people. We can't confirm that all the evidence to support it is true because we don't have a book written in the past that says it is.
2) Creationism is true. We don't have to have evidence to support that it's true because we have the Bible.


My point exactly! It's so freakin' infallible!
You can't just sya 'Bible! I'm right!' You have to admit the shortcomings of your theories, as scientists do.




This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.What's laughable is how true it is.
Err... What? Laughabley true? I don't really understand, I'm afraid.
EDIT:


2) You need facts. Cold, hard, definite facts.Either that, or you need a gospel truth like the bible. One or the other, basically.
No. You don't. You need facts. The Bible is just the veiws and beliefs of one group of people. Facts are universal and ultimate. What's a fact now, has been and always will be. Whether we know the facts is different. But that's the essence of science! Discovery! Not accepting what you already 'know'.

[nik0tine]

Err... What? Laughabley true? I don't really understand, I'm afraid.If you aren't born again you should be afraid.

[Shlup]

AHEM. *pokes Traitorfish* (http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1331219&postcount=180)

[Traitorfish]

Err... What? Laughabley true? I don't really understand, I'm afraid.If you aren't born again you should be afraid.
Again, what? What are you talking about?

[nik0tine]

AHEM. *pokes Traitorfish* (http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1331219&postcount=180)
:p

[Traitorfish]

AHEM. *pokes Traitorfish* (http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1331219&postcount=180)
Goddmait! Why does everyone keep doing that? You should show your saracsm, or something. It's hard to pick up tone through text. At least use smileys or something... I stand by what I said, though.
Well, -ish...

[The Man]

This thread amuses me. http://fools-gold.org/forum/images/smilies/WA07.gif

[nik0tine]

This thread amuses me
I would say that it amuses me as well, but the Bible specifically forbids amusement of any kind.

[DMKA]

This thread is my religion.

[Shlup]

From now on all my sarcasm will be written in "sandy brown."

[Shoden]

wow err thats nice.

Don't burn me as I don't have a religion I just follow one while being a sod and denying it.


If christianity is so violent in the past and the Bible promotes and encourages retro violence then I'm not surpised how messed up the Irish religion fight is.


Don't burn me plz.

[Traitorfish]

From now on all my sarcasm will be written in "sandy brown."
OK, and all Raging Against the Machine will be written in bold red.

[Sasquatch]

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

Unless it came down already, and isn't there anymore. Which answers your next question


The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?

Where did it come from? How about the seventh layer of our atmosphere? Where'd it go? How about the ocean, for one? (By the way, it's believed that the weight of the water pushed up the earth in different spots, so Everest wasn't as high before the flood.) Where's the evidence? Why are there fossilized sea creatures on top of Mount Everest? Why are they stuck in the ice, many feet below the surface? They weren't put there by climbers.


Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.

The author of Genesis was Moses. And it doesn't mean he believed genetic characteristics are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception, it means he believed God worked a miracle...in his goats.

[Destai]

From now on all my sarcasm will be written in "sandy brown."
I dont get it.

[nik0tine]

From now on all my sarcasm will be written in "sandy brown."
I dont get it.
It's just a precaution so that people don't get bit by her wit.

[Shlup]

From now on all my sarcasm will be written in "sandy brown."
I dont get it.
You must've sent your brain to the same repair shop Traitorfish's sarcasm radar went to. lolololz

[The Man]

If there's a magical seventh layer of the atmosphere composed entirely of water, then how did the space program get through it without any trouble? Or are you going to theorize that the satellites and moon landings don't really exist? And if it's possible for the entirety of this atmosphere to torrent down and hit Earth, why hasn't it happened again? Oh right. It's a miracle.

There is absolutely no evidence that any of the stuff you theorized actually happened. It's entirely based on faith, and the word of the Bible... which, again, you have to take on faith, because there certainly isn't much scientific evidence pointing towards most of it.

I'm still waiting for this so-called "evidence" on Creationism, and a response to my assertion that Matthew 4:8 implies the Earth is flat.

[Traitorfish]

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

Unless it came down already, and isn't there anymore. Which answers your next question
I thought you said Genesis never became any less true? Hmm?




The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?

Where did it come from? How about the seventh layer of our atmosphere? Where'd it go? How about the ocean, for one? (By the way, it's believed that the weight of the water pushed up the earth in different spots, so Everest wasn't as high before the flood.) Where's the evidence? Why are there fossilized sea creatures on top of Mount Everest? Why are they stuck in the ice, many feet below the surface? They weren't put there by climbers.
Actually, there isn't enough water in the ice-caps and the atmosphere for that. Even if all the water on earth was in liquid form, the sea levels would not rise by over half a dozen miles.
Besides, Everest fossils are due to continental shift. There is no way that the rock they are buried in could have floated up there. (The fossils pre-date any human activity by a good few hundred million years, so couldn't have been left during the flood.) No amount of water can carry the kind of rock that everest is made from. Rocks, rather patently, do not float.




Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.

The author of Genesis was Moses. And it doesn't mean he believed genetic characteristics are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception, it means he believed God worked a miracle...in his goats.
Actually, no. Moses simply re-wrote existing folk-tales. After all, the creation story pre-dates Moses by thousands of years.

EDIT: The Flood, like the creation, is a metaphor. It means 'Be good, or God will kick yo' ass, sucka!' Only less annoying, and more God-ish.
HAs anyone noticed that the flood (water) and armageddon (fire) are similar. Traditionally, fire and water are the great cleansers.

[Del Murder]

I don't have a religion, but is that itself a religion?

What is deemed offensive is very relative. The best we can do is go by our own interpretations. These of course won't be agreed with by everybody. I hope those of you who disagree with them can either respect our judgements and move on, or find another message board that better adheres to your ideologies.

[Hawkeye]

I think everybody should just hold hands, stop bitching, and sing kumbaya

I DONT BELIEVE IN THAT SONG

Well your SOL go kill yourself

=Catholicism

[Raistlin]

I have read just enough of the new posts to know that I love nik0tine.

Anyway, this was amusing (in my usual "humanity is stupid" type of manner), but not it's just getting retarded. Let's at least get our facts straight.

1. Evolution is a fact. Let's just get that out of the way first.
2. Evolution requires no faith; it merely requires eyes and a brain. Most Creationists are lacking the latter.
3. Intelligent Design is not a valid theory, unless you use the laymen's use of the word, which basically means "guess."
4. Evolution is a valid theory, which means it has so far been <i>proven</i> right.
5. Even though evolution is a fact, it is not a law, nor will it ever be.
6. There is no six.

Evolution is a fact of existence. We have observed it. Anyone who has taken a simple high school biology class would know this. Microevolution was proven way back in Mendel's time. Macroevolution by definition is "microevolution + time." Since both microevolution and the progression of time are also facts of existence, then macroevolution is a fact of existence. Macroevolution has no scientifically drawn line, though for convenience's sake, it's usually drawn at speciation - which has been observed.

Creationists say "most parts of the evolutionary theory are unproven." Like what? Blank. "You can't prove macroevolution from microevolution." Why not? Blank. ""Evolution requires faith." How? Blank. Gross generalizations, and when asked to specify, can't actually name anything.

Intelligent Design is creationism with a retarded name. It lies on the idea that, well, even though evolution happens, it couldn't have possibly resulted in the diversity/complexity of life we see today. Science estimates that life first appeared on this planet in its simplest form some 3 billion years ago. Yes, I think 3 billion years is enough time, as do tens of thousands of scientists.

I have more to say, but I just lost my motivation to continue. Either way, Creationism is based on an irrationality, so simple logic has no chance against it anyway.

[nik0tine]

I think everybody should just hold hands, stop bitching, and sing kumbaya

I DONT BELIEVE IN THAT SONG

Well your SOL go kill yourself

=Catholicism


Since I'm a Christian I'll hold hands with you. However, I'll still feel awkward if you're black, Jewish, Mexican, Islamic, Catholic, Atheist, Asian, Female, gay, or sober.

[The Man]

Since I'm a Christian I'll hold hands with you. However, I'll still feel awkward if you're black, Jewish, Mexican, Islamic, Catholic, Atheist, Asian, Female, gay, or sober.lmfao, you have made this thread hilarious.

I agree with Raistlin on most points. :monster:

[Samuraid]

This thread loses.

Farewell.

[Sasquatch]

If there's a magical seventh layer of the atmosphere composed entirely of water, then how did the space program get through it without any trouble? Or are you going to theorize that the satellites and moon landings don't really exist? And if it's possible for the entirety of this atmosphere to torrent down and hit Earth, why hasn't it happened again? Oh right. It's a miracle.
Because, genius, it isn't there anymore. It already came down. So there was nothing that the space program had to get through, and it won't come down again. I'm sorry, I didn't know you would have this much difficulty understanding it.


I thought you said Genesis never became any less true? Hmm?
It changed. That doesn't mean it became less true. Are history books any less true, because things have changed since they were written?

Actually, there isn't enough water in the ice-caps and the atmosphere for that. Even if all the water on earth was in liquid form, the sea levels would not rise by over half a dozen miles.
Besides, Everest fossils are due to continental shift. There is no way that the rock they are buried in could have floated up there.
First of all, as I said before, the earth wasn't as shapely then as it is now. The mountains weren't nearly as high, the seas weren't nearly as deep. The weight of the water during the Flood pushed down the sea bed and pushed up the mountains. And you can't honestly say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.


1. Evolution is a fact. Let's just get that out of the way first.
2. Evolution requires no faith; it merely requires eyes and a brain. Most Creationists are lacking the latter.
3. Intelligent Design is not a valid theory, unless you use the laymen's use of the word, which basically means "guess."
4. Evolution is a valid theory, which means it has so far been <i>proven</i> right.
5. Even though evolution is a fact, it is not a law, nor will it ever be.
6. There is no six.

I expected better from at least you, Raistlin.

1. Evolution is as fact as fact can be, while still being unproven, disproven, contradictory...and, well, even racist, and we all know how much the PC movement, while supporting Evolutionism, hates racism.
2. Since Evolutionism has not been proven, it requires faith to believe. Just like I have faith that my truck is still out in Lot Q since I parked it there twenty minutes ago. Unless I can see my truck, I don't know. Unless and until Evolution is proven -- which it will never be -- it requires faith to believe. But I guess that's hard for most anti-religion types to stomach.
3. Intelligent Design, while not supported (or, really, objected) by as much scientific evidence as Evolutionism, is still a valid theory in the same sense of the word. The problem is that most people are too set in their beliefs that nothing involves a god to listen to anything to the contrary -- just like they accuse Christians of being set in their beliefs. An even greater problem is that all too many people, in all beliefs, don't know why they believe what they do. Most Evolutionists believe it because it's what they were taught in school and doesn't involve god, and most Creationists believe it because it's what they were told to believe in church.
4. Evolution is a semi-valid theory. If it was so far proven right, there wouldn't be any evidence disproving it, or supporting any other theory.
5. If it was fact, it would be law. Or at least wouldn't have nearly as many arguments against it.

Creationists say "most parts of the evolutionary theory are unproven." Like what?
Like what? How about the link (or lack thereof) between micro- and macro-evolution? How about the "fact" that the earth is billions of years old?

"You can't prove macroevolution from microevolution." Why not?
You can't. Microevolution exists, yes, but would require much more time than the already outrageous amount of time some "scientists" say the earth has been able to sustain life. Not to mention, it's contradictory.

""Evolution requires faith." How?
I've already explained this.

I've got more to say, as I'm sure most of us do...but I've got more important things to do. G'night.

[Pharoh Amon Khan III]

Hi there, Pharoh Amon Khan... Yeah, that's right, the "EOFF-Anti-Christ" is back...

I have been mistaken by many to be Nigerian, Arabic, French, Jamacian, Latino, Native American, and East Indian... And people naturally think I am of that or another religion.

I don't really sway the way of religion anymore. My father is a travelling Christian Minister and he accepts me for my beliefs in faith.

I don't like religion too much. When people ask me what is my religion I reply with rehearsed ease, as it's been asked to me before...

"I don't believe in religion. I believe in faith. When I ask someone of another ethnic culture I ask them what is their faith, NOT their religion. Religion is a set order of the way of practicing belief or faith. As a child my father travelled with his family in tow to various churches preaching his open-minded way to Christian Churches. Black, White, Asian, poor and rich... In each of these churches, as a child I attended Sunday School and each varied, teaching the same gospel, but denouncing the ways of the former churches as if "their" way was right.

I was raised a Christan, but what if I went to church out of town that was Christian but Eposcial Christian? I was finding God, but not "Their" way.

Because when you get down to it; when one has lost everything, love, family, materials, all one has is faith. Be it in a high powerful deity, or just in one's self... We all need, and all we are left with is... faith.

Go with Faith, because no matter what way you do it, you worship with Faith, there is no instruction book except in your heart where the love of your faith is born.

"You don't have to understand it; you just have to have it." -Aquaman "Justice League"

[Del Murder]

Wow, it's the Pharoh.

I have faith in myself.

It's hard to <i>prove</i> anything that we didn't directly observe.

[Yuna Braska 19]

I am Christian and proud of it

So I'm I :)

[Doomie]

Power Catholic. I say I'm Catholic, I know moe about the religion than most, but I haven't been to church in about 6 years. I'm only Catholic by name. Am I proud? I really couldn't care less.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

BTW I do have a religion, it is right in my hand right now *holds a figment of his imagination* See I posses it ^_^. I will sell it for five bucks to the next person who comes by!

[ThroneofDravaris]

<s>Haha, God bless the person who didn’t post this in EoEO. This was SO hilarious to read. I like the way people can be complete and utter jerks here and no one can stop them (no sarcasm intended here, for those who seem to have an inability to pick it up…) .

I mean seriously, how the f@#$ did things get so out of hand? It started with one comment by Autumn Rain (who, it would seem, as since left this thread) and ended up with like….like this. </s>

I still can’t believe that people haven’t work out yet that no matter how much people debate this topic, NO ONE is going to change their stance.

<s>Anyway, don’t let me disturb you, go back to verbally abusing each other for no reason. Don’t worry; I’ll still be here, laughing at you all.

Now, back to debating serious topics, like how hot Tifa is in Advent Children….

EDIT:The people who came here just to post sarcastic comments are the intelligent ones…</s>

<B>EDIT: Is what you're doing much better than what they are? Nobody cares whether or not you are lauging at them, so next time please keep those comments to yourself. You actually posted something vaguely on topic, so I guess this post isn't completely worthless. Next time please just stick to the topic at hand. -Murder</b>

EDIT: Oh, alright then.

ON TOPIC:I am/am not religious, and that makes me better than everybody else. I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with me being a complete jerk who is intolerant of others beliefs.

Or at least that's the gist of what I would have posted...

[-N-]

I have been mistaken by many to be ... East Indian... You're not an electronics engineer or a doctor! You can't be brown.

[Primus Inter Pares]

I don't really like the idea of organised religion, it eventually harbors corruption, one should be able to believe what one wants without an athority figure there to tell you how to believe.

[loza]

i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul :p
it's wierd but that is what i believe!!!!

[bipper]

Christian.


i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul :p
it's weird but that is what i believe!!!!

Budhism?

[Traitorfish]

Christian.


i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul :p
it's weird but that is what i believe!!!!

Budhism?
Hinduism and Shintoism also have the beleifs of reincarnation and souls, not just Buddhism. Not to mention many smaller, less well known religions. In fact, so did the ancient greeks, to some extent.

EDIT:


If there's a magical seventh layer of the atmosphere composed entirely of water, then how did the space program get through it without any trouble? Or are you going to theorize that the satellites and moon landings don't really exist? And if it's possible for the entirety of this atmosphere to torrent down and hit Earth, why hasn't it happened again? Oh right. It's a miracle.
Because, genius, it isn't there anymore. It already came down. So there was nothing that the space program had to get through, and it won't come down again. I'm sorry, I didn't know you would have this much difficulty understanding it.
Absolute nonsense. There may indeed have been this 'seventh layer' you talk about, but it was millions, if not billions, of years before the first man-ape walked around on his furry little legs. i.e. Pre-dates any human activity.




I thought you said Genesis never became any less true? Hmm?
It changed. That doesn't mean it became less true. Are history books any less true, because things have changed since they were written?

Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.



Actually, there isn't enough water in the ice-caps and the atmosphere for that. Even if all the water on earth was in liquid form, the sea levels would not rise by over half a dozen miles.
Besides, Everest fossils are due to continental shift. There is no way that the rock they are buried in could have floated up there.
First of all, as I said before, the earth wasn't as shapely then as it is now. The mountains weren't nearly as high, the seas weren't nearly as deep. The weight of the water during the Flood pushed down the sea bed and pushed up the mountains. And you can't honestly say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.
Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down. I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.
The sub-continent of India is part of the Australian-Indian continetal plate. This plate is quickly (by geological standards) moving into the eurasian plate, creating the himalayas. Fossils, which once lay at the bottom of the indian ocean, are dragged up with the rocks. Simple.
The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.




1. Evolution is a fact. Let's just get that out of the way first.
2. Evolution requires no faith; it merely requires eyes and a brain. Most Creationists are lacking the latter.
3. Intelligent Design is not a valid theory, unless you use the laymen's use of the word, which basically means "guess."
4. Evolution is a valid theory, which means it has so far been <i>proven</i> right.
5. Even though evolution is a fact, it is not a law, nor will it ever be.
6. There is no six.

I expected better from at least you, Raistlin.

1. Evolution is as fact as fact can be, while still being unproven, disproven, contradictory...and, well, even racist, and we all know how much the PC movement, while supporting Evolutionism, hates racism.
2. Since Evolutionism has not been proven, it requires faith to believe. Just like I have faith that my truck is still out in Lot Q since I parked it there twenty minutes ago. Unless I can see my truck, I don't know. Unless and until Evolution is proven -- which it will never be -- it requires faith to believe. But I guess that's hard for most anti-religion types to stomach.
3. Intelligent Design, while not supported (or, really, objected) by as much scientific evidence as Evolutionism, is still a valid theory in the same sense of the word. The problem is that most people are too set in their beliefs that nothing involves a god to listen to anything to the contrary -- just like they accuse Christians of being set in their beliefs. An even greater problem is that all too many people, in all beliefs, don't know why they believe what they do. Most Evolutionists believe it because it's what they were taught in school and doesn't involve god, and most Creationists believe it because it's what they were told to believe in church.
4. Evolution is a semi-valid theory. If it was so far proven right, there wouldn't be any evidence disproving it, or supporting any other theory.
5. If it was fact, it would be law. Or at least wouldn't have nearly as many arguments against it.

Creationists say "most parts of the evolutionary theory are unproven." Like what?
Like what? How about the link (or lack thereof) between micro- and macro-evolution? How about the "fact" that the earth is billions of years old?
1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.
2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant ot explain what science can.
3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).
4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.
5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.




"You can't prove macroevolution from microevolution." Why not?
You can't. Microevolution exists, yes, but would require much more time than the already outrageous amount of time some "scientists" say the earth has been able to sustain life. Not to mention, it's contradictory.
What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.


<
ON TOPIC:I am/am not religious, and that makes me better than everybody else. I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with me being a complete jerk who is intolerant of others beliefs.

I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts. I have nothing against people's religion, but sometimes they need to think about what they're saying.

[ThroneofDravaris]

That was mainly to the one that started it all, and just commentary on the basic undertone of this thread.

[Big D]

Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down. I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.
The sub-continent of India is part of the Australian-Indian continetal plate. This plate is quickly (by geological standards) moving into the eurasian plate, creating the himalayas. Fossils, which once lay at the bottom of the indian ocean, are dragged up with the rocks. Simple.
The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.Bill Bryson mentioned this point in The Short History of Nearly Everything (a fantastic book, but a general overview rather than a deep analysis). As he put it simply, "no amount of water will make boulders float."
Also worth noting: If not for tectonic forces pushing land higher and higher, then the entire surface of the globe would've been eroded smooth by now. Our world would be a marble-like sphere covered all over with 4 km of water.

[Swordicanus]

I'm a self confessed atheist and I can tell you I live my life perfectly fine It does'nt make me a bad person.......there are a lot of people who say they believe in god and never even pray or think of him... I am not pretentious .......I have the most respect for people who really and honestly believe in their faith not hypocrites who go on like they do and never even mention God or go to church :mad:

[Winter Nights]

I mean seriously, how the f@#$ did things get so out of hand? It started with one comment by Autumn Rain (who, it would seem, as since left this thread) and ended up with like….like this.

I stopped caring, really. That and I went out of town yesterday. This thread was never about arguing beliefs, it was just stating what you believed. I follow no religion. But through years of following Christianity and studying the Bible, it has too many contradictions and I found some of the basis of their beliefs to be apalling IMHO. I'm not going into details on this or how I feel about Christians that don't research their beliefs, lest anyone claim that I'm oppressing them or their faith.

Ahem. Anyway... Reading through most of the posts, I see why I didn't want to be apart of such an argument to begin with. No side could possibly when in such an argument as facts has no room for faith and vice-versa. It's pointless and pety. No one can win such an argument, as you both will refuse to see the other's side. Such an argument serves no purpose, but to piss each other off. Except those members who can find the humor in it, of course. nik0tine cracks me up. :p


I am/am not religious, and that makes me better than everybody else. I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with me being a complete jerk who is intolerant of others beliefs.
You hater person, you. ;)

[Traitorfish]

Bill Bryson mentioned this point in The Short History of Nearly Everything (a fantastic book, but a general overview rather than a deep analysis). As he put it simply, "no amount of water will make boulders float."
Also worth noting: If not for tectonic forces pushing land higher and higher, then the entire surface of the globe would've been eroded smooth by now. Our world would be a marble-like sphere covered all over with 4 km of water.
Yeah, I've read A Short History of Nearly Everything. Brilliant book.
I recommend that all creationists should read it. In fact, everyone should read it. It's brilliant.

[crono_logical]

Isn't the Pharoh the IV'th yet? :p

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

Bill Bryson mentioned this point in The Short History of Nearly Everything (a fantastic book, but a general overview rather than a deep analysis). As he put it simply, "no amount of water will make boulders float."
Also worth noting: If not for tectonic forces pushing land higher and higher, then the entire surface of the globe would've been eroded smooth by now. Our world would be a marble-like sphere covered all over with 4 km of water.
Yeah, I've read A Short History of Nearly Everything. Brilliant book.
I recommend that all creationists should read it. In fact, everyone should read it. It's brilliant.

I read a good part of it, but then stopped...

[Sasquatch]

Absolute nonsense. There may indeed have been this 'seventh layer' you talk about, but it was millions, if not billions, of years before the first man-ape walked around on his furry little legs. i.e. Pre-dates any human activity.

According to some, sure. Of course, it would be perfectly convenient for it to have been there only thousands of years ago...but that would support Creationism, so we can't have that now, can we?


Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.

Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.


Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down.

If that were true, there would be fossils of land animals -- especially those that dwell in higher altitudes -- deep into the sea. Which there's not. Also, if they were extremely high and only erosion has "shrunk" them, they would have steeper sides and duller peaks.


I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.

Because for one thing, the fossils are of sea creatures that supposedly hadn't "evolved" yet at the time some "scientists" would have estimated the area they're in would have still been underwater. As in, if bass evolved a million years ago, you're only going to find fossilized bass in places that there could have been bass a million years ago -- not places that have been out of water for many million years. Unless, of course, they were carried high out of the water by some type of freak "flood", deposited, and fossilized since.


The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.

So you're saying water doesn't change terrain. Nice. Try again.

Water has more than enough weight to form bowls and push up peaks. They're called seas/oceans and mountains. Here's to hoping you can't be so ignorant as to deny this.


1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.

All of Evolution is unproven, what's so special about "parallel evolution"? From quite a bit of what I've heard, racism fits right in -- sure, most people won't come out and describe it (hell, most people don't realize it's racist), but it's in there, alright. Even from what they teach in public schools.


2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant to explain what science can.

And since science can't yet explain how we got here, what is so wrong with a religious belief in the same subject? Faith is faith -- whether it's having faith that there is a god, or having faith that we evolved from lesser primates (and them, from multi-cellular organisms, from single-celled organisms, from "primordial ooze", whatever), or having faith that this world is not the Matrix. What you may think requires little faith -- say, Evolutionism, or the idea that we're not in the Matrix -- another may see it as a belief that requires just as much faith as theirs do/does.


3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).

Again. Just because you haven't seen much evidence for Intelligent Design (because you haven't been fed it like you have Evolutionism, and of course you can't go research anything contradictory to your own preset beliefs) doesn't mean it's not a credible theory.

Adam lived 800 years, and had many more children than only Cain and Abel. It's extremely likely that Cain married one of his sisters. The laws forbidding "incest" weren't given for another two thousand years, and they wouldn't have had to worry about any of the genetic disorders we have today.


4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.

Again, wrong. There is plenty of evidence that goes against Evolutionism. And most of the evidence that can be interpreted(/manipulated) to support Evolutionism could just as easily (with a little more knowledge and background) be interpreted to support Creation. In fact, much of the evidence used to support Evolution has been discredited (can we say Nebraska Man?), and is still being used, as a precedent if nothing else.


5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat. The Bible includes nothing contradicting the idea that the world is round. That was the Catholic Church -- and let's face it, most Christians don't take pride in the Catholic Church. Whereas it does indeed have an alternate theory to Evolutionism.


What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.

When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.


I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.

...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?

[bipper]

This debate is pointless, Just ask GOD.

[Del Murder]

I did, and strangely enough, he said Buddhism was the closest anyone has come.

[RPJesus]

Really? You got a word in with God.
'Course, we can't all have that privelage, God's a bit far off, so why not ask your closer-to-home Jesus! ...that's me. I'm very wise. Oaple is a market gland. You see?

[War Angel]

1. Evolution is a fact. Let's just get that out of the way first.
Evolution is a scientific theory - not a fact. Claiming evolution to be a fact would be like making it your religion - a pointless act for one who seeks asking questions and answering them. Science is ever changing, composed of many theories and many facts - but in science, unlike religion, facts can be challanged.

Not to say evolution doesn't make sense - it does, at least to me. I consider it to be 99% certain, and that's really good enough to base other theories upon.

As for me... I'm Jewish. I don't believe in God (from that aspect, I'm agnostic, not eliminating the possibility of God's existence, but not believing it either, for lack of proof), but I celebrate the holidays and try to follow the teachings, out of respect for tradition, and the acknowledgment of the good it brings. Through my eyes I see great wisdom in Judaism, and I don't need a God to accept it.

[Seymour_Guado_Goth]

1. Evolution is a fact. Let's just get that out of the way first.
Evolution is a scientific theory - not a fact. Claiming evolution to be a fact would be like making it your religion - a pointless act for one who seeks asking questions and answering them. Science is ever changing, composed of many theories and many facts - but in science, unlike religion, facts can be challanged.

Not to say evolution doesn't make sense - it does, at least to me. I consider it to be 99% certain, and that's really good enough to base other theories upon.

As for me... I'm Jewish. I don't believe in God (from that aspect, I'm agnostic, not eliminating the possibility of God's existence, but not believing it either, for lack of proof), but I celebrate the holidays and try to follow the teachings, out of respect for tradition, and the acknowledgment of the good it brings. Through my eyes I see great wisdom in Judaism, and I don't need a God to accept it.
You can't be a Jew then O_o

[Giga Guess]

Agnostic....I know and trust science, but I believe there are things science just can't explain.

[DMKA]

I have been mistaken by many to be ... East Indian... You're not an electronics engineer or a doctor! You can't be brown.
You forgot convinence store manager.

[Twisted Tinkerbell]

I'm pagan, I have been for nearly eight years now.

[loza]

Christian.


i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul :p
it's weird but that is what i believe!!!!

Budhism?

what's that?

[ShivaBlizzard8]

I am a believer of Jessism. It's a religion I named after myself, since I invented it. I think religion should be a personal thing, and my personal beliefs disagree with all organized religious groups which currently exist. It's tennants are somewhat of a mix between Congregationalism, Buddhism, Confucianism, current hard science, and my own experience. It serves me well.

[Shlup]

I wish I still had a link to the site we used in my World Religions class in college... It had every religion you could possibly want to learn about explained in a way that made it an easy read.

Well, this site at least appears to have a good grasp of the major religions, for those who keep asking questions about what a religion is: http://wri.leaderu.com/

[Reine]

I don't really like the idea of organised religion, it eventually harbors corruption, one should be able to believe what one wants without an athority figure there to tell you how to believe.

Damn Right

[kratos_GoS]

i would like a religion between Budda, Jebus and Starbucks

[Mokona]

No, I don't have a religion... I guess I used to be... hmm... Catholic, not because of my family and friends, but because of my school. It was a Catholic-school-thingy... not that different, but we went to church once a month and all that. And of course we learned about different religions... Anyway, I don't believe in anything now.

[Lyde Lyde]

Well yes I do, I am Catholic,but I need to be more intouch and repent for my sins. I have recently have been having sex with people when I'm supposed to be waiting until I am married.

[tastetherainbow]

im christian

[Traitorfish]

Absolute nonsense. There may indeed have been this 'seventh layer' you talk about, but it was millions, if not billions, of years before the first man-ape walked around on his furry little legs. i.e. Pre-dates any human activity.

According to some, sure. Of course, it would be perfectly convenient for it to have been there only thousands of years ago...but that would support Creationism, so we can't have that now, can we?
Science isn't about convenience. You can't just back an idea because it enforces what you already believe.




Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.

Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.
Well, yes, it has, repeatedly. That's why they dig up dinosaur bones, and neandethals, and trylobites and stuff. That's why geologists have dated the earth to 4billion years old. Creationism has, rather definitely, been proven wrong. Maybe not Intelligent Design, but certainly creationism.




Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down.

If that were true, there would be fossils of land animals -- especially those that dwell in higher altitudes -- deep into the sea. Which there's not. Also, if they were extremely high and only erosion has "shrunk" them, they would have steeper sides and duller peaks.
They don't dig deep in the sea. Cause of the water. Plus, there's layers of dirt and silt between the sea-bed and any fossils. Whatsmore, fossiles are less likely to occur on land than on sea- wrong kind of soil.
And have you actually seen Scottish mountains? They're peaks are incredibly dull. Benn McDuigh, for example, has a flat peak about 40 feet across, and rather steep sides.




I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.

Because for one thing, the fossils are of sea creatures that supposedly hadn't "evolved" yet at the time some "scientists" would have estimated the area they're in would have still been underwater. As in, if bass evolved a million years ago, you're only going to find fossilized bass in places that there could have been bass a million years ago -- not places that have been out of water for many million years. Unless, of course, they were carried high out of the water by some type of freak "flood", deposited, and fossilized since.
You don't understand the concept, do you? you're analysis of the bass, although I realise hypothetical, is completely unapplicable to reality. That's why they've found two halves of the same bird in Brazil and Africa- not just the top and bottom, either. Split vertically, so the knew the bones were definitely the same. That could only be cause by continental drift, not a flood.




The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.

So you're saying water doesn't change terrain. Nice. Try again.

Water has more than enough weight to form bowls and push up peaks. They're called seas/oceans and mountains. Here's to hoping you can't be so ignorant as to deny this.
OK, I admit that it sounded like I denied that water alters terrain. What I meant was, water has no effect on terrain the size of a continent. Seas, mountains and oceans are caused by continetal drift, as I have explained. You can't say that the evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist- if that worked, you could use anything to prove anything.
Water is rather incredibly light compared to, say, the Alps. Water couldn't push up the Alps, no matter how much you got. Besides, as I've said, there isn't enough water in the whole planet for that to work- water is not going to distort a huge, trillion ton lava-ball. In fact, if there actually was enough, the world would be underwater to the distance about 300,000,000 miles. Which it, rather patently, isn't.
Anyway, the crust is at least 4km thick, in some places over 20km, and half a dozen kilometers of rock is too tough to be bent out of shape by just water. You'd need some kind of SuperWater!
Is it a volcano? Is it continetal drift? No, it's Superwater, come to distort scenery, and reality, in one watery swoop!




1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.

All of Evolution is unproven, what's so special about "parallel evolution"? From quite a bit of what I've heard, racism fits right in -- sure, most people won't come out and describe it (hell, most people don't realize it's racist), but it's in there, alright. Even from what they teach in public schools.
Actually, creationism leaves more room for rascism than evolution. Besides, parallel evolution is hideously out of date, and has lost all credit as a sensible theory long ago. Anyway, just because something could be interpreated in a rascist fashion, does not change scientific fact. It's just some people getting things wrong.




2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant to explain what science can.

And since science can't yet explain how we got here, what is so wrong with a religious belief in the same subject? Faith is faith -- whether it's having faith that there is a god, or having faith that we evolved from lesser primates (and them, from multi-cellular organisms, from single-celled organisms, from "primordial ooze", whatever), or having faith that this world is not the Matrix. What you may think requires little faith -- say, Evolutionism, or the idea that we're not in the Matrix -- another may see it as a belief that requires just as much faith as theirs do/does.

Science can and does explain how we got here. Scientists don't have faith- they believe whatever seems most plausible, and makes the most sense. Faith, in the sense you use, has absolutely nothing to do with it.




3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).

Again. Just because you haven't seen much evidence for Intelligent Design (because you haven't been fed it like you have Evolutionism, and of course you can't go research anything contradictory to your own preset beliefs) doesn't mean it's not a credible theory.

Adam lived 800 years, and had many more children than only Cain and Abel. It's extremely likely that Cain married one of his sisters. The laws forbidding "incest" weren't given for another two thousand years, and they wouldn't have had to worry about any of the genetic disorders we have today.
Actually, I went to a catholic school, and was fed a butt-load of creationist junk, but I didn't believe it, because it made no sense.
I never said 'How did Cain and Able breed?'. I'm not stupid. I have actually read the damn creation story. Besides, genetic flaws don't give a damn about the date, or if the 10 commanddments have been given yet- incest leads to freaky mutie kids, end of story. And what about my question- where did the people of Nod come from?
Oh, and Adam didn't live 800 years, No one has. Ever.




4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.

Again, wrong. There is plenty of evidence that goes against Evolutionism. And most of the evidence that can be interpreted(/manipulated) to support Evolutionism could just as easily (with a little more knowledge and background) be interpreted to support Creation. In fact, much of the evidence used to support Evolution has been discredited (can we say Nebraska Man?), and is still being used, as a precedent if nothing else.
Just because Jeff Holybob on the Zealot channel claims that Evolution is discredited, doens't mean every (or any) actual scientists do. Because they look at evidence. They think. They, slowly but surely, work things out. Besides, more creationist evidence has been disproved (can you say 'Round planet?' 'Earth orbits sun?' 'Neanderthals, homo habbilis, homo erectus, etc?'




5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat. The Bible includes nothing contradicting the idea that the world is round. That was the Catholic Church -- and let's face it, most Christians don't take pride in the Catholic Church. Whereas it does indeed have an alternate theory to Evolutionism.
Yep, you're right, the bible never says the world is flat, except at the beggining. In fact, it rather definitely says it is a tabernacle. That's a flat bottom, and a big curved sky.
And, as for your comments on the catholic church, catholics make up more than half of the world's Christian population -952 million catholics, but only 337 protestants, 162 Orthodox, 70 Anglicans, and 148 million from other churches. That's 952M out of 1669M. That's 57%.




What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.

When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.
That statement makes less than no sense. You can't prove that. (After all, it's never happened, has it?) Besides, Earth's had a bit of a dangerous history, what with all the earthquakes and volcanos and ice-ages and so on, so there could have been some periods of 'accelerated evoultion', as it were.




I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.

...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?
No. Evolutionism isn't nonsensical. The idea that a giant, all powerful being made the world in under a week, and made humans the all-powerful ruler (oh, actually, just men. Women are, of course, inferior to men in the bible, that's why they were created second, wasn't it?)
Besides, I'm perfectly tolerant. If you want to beleive pure weirdness, be my guest, just keep it to yourself.
Oh, and if you want to enter a serious, proper argument, you have to actually disprove your opponents claims, not just deny them.

[DMKA]

You can't be a Jew then O_o
Being a Jew doesn't mean you have to follow the Jewish faith.

[War Angel]

You can't be a Jew then O_o
I was born to a Jewish mother, and that alone makes me Jewish, according to Jewish law. Add to that the fact I celebrate the holidays, study the philosophy, books and lore and try my best follow its teachings, know the history, speak the Hebrew language, live in Israel, serve in the Israeli army and have a refined, snide sense of humour... and you'll get the Jewish archi-type. All I need is a kipa, and a belief in God, and I'm set. :)

[Sasquatch]

Science isn't about convenience. You can't just back an idea because it enforces what you already believe.
Actuallyit's quite often convenience that leads to any evidence supporting Evolutionism -- that's why most of it is interpreted (read: manipulated ... or even fabricated) to do so.


Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.Well, yes, it has, repeatedly. That's why they dig up dinosaur bones, and neandethals, and trylobites and stuff. That's why geologists have dated the earth to 4billion years old. Creationism has, rather definitely, been proven wrong. Maybe not Intelligent Design, but certainly creationism.Actually, no, it hasn't, ever. Dinosaur bones, neanderthals, and trylobites don't disprove Creation any more than they "prove" Evolutionism. And the earth can be dated to anywhere from thousands to trillions of years old, depending on what methods are used.
They don't dig deep in the sea. Cause of the water. Plus, there's layers of dirt and silt between the sea-bed and any fossils. Whatsmore, fossiles are less likely to occur on land than on sea- wrong kind of soil.
And have you actually seen Scottish mountains? They're peaks are incredibly dull. Benn McDuigh, for example, has a flat peak about 40 feet across, and rather steep sides.So nobody looks for fossils underwater? You sure about that? And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way. Oh yeah, and forty feet across is not a huge flat peak for a large mountain. No, I've never seen anything in Scotland, just like I highly doubt you've seen the Rockies.
You don't understand the concept, do you? you're analysis of the bass, although I realise hypothetical, is completely unapplicable to reality. That's why they've found two halves of the same bird in Brazil and Africa- not just the top and bottom, either. Split vertically, so the knew the bones were definitely the same. That could only be cause by continental drift, not a flood.I understand it all too well. You're trying to compare the supposed fossilized halves of the exact same bird to the fact that the age of the fossils on Everest is not congruent with the supppsed age of the fossilized creatures. Seems you don't quite understand.
Do you have a source for that claim? I'm sure it would be well documented, so it wouldn't take much to back it up, right?
OK, I admit that it sounded like I denied that water alters terrain. What I meant was, water has no effect on terrain the size of a continent. Seas, mountains and oceans are caused by continetal drift, as I have explained. You can't say that the evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist- if that worked, you could use anything to prove anything.Just like you're trying to do with Continental Drift. You're saying evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist -- just like you accuse me of doing. Except, that would prettymuch require all seas to contain their own seperate tectonic plates, and all mountains to be at a junction of plates.
Water is rather incredibly light compared to, say, the Alps. Water couldn't push up the Alps, no matter how much you got.Actually, with a few hundred billions of gallons of water, yes, there'd be more than enough weight to push up the Alps, or any other mountain range. And more than enough weight to push down the seas.

Besides, as I've said, there isn't enough water in the whole planet for that to work- water is not going to distort a huge, trillion ton lava-ball. In fact, if there actually was enough, the world would be underwater to the distance about 300,000,000 miles. Which it, rather patently, isn't.How many more figures can you pull out of your ass? That was a good one, but I'm sure there's more up there. Ah, don't worry about it, I'm almost positive some more will come out later.
Anyway, the crust is at least 4km thick, in some places over 20km, and half a dozen kilometers of rock is too tough to be bent out of shape by just water.You're still trying to say water isn't powerful or heavy enough to change the balance of plates...which is wrong. There's not much else to it.
Actually, creationism leaves more room for rascism than evolution. Besides, parallel evolution is hideously out of date, and has lost all credit as a sensible theory long ago. Anyway, just because something could be interpreated in a rascist fashion, does not change scientific fact. It's just some people getting things wrong.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"?
Science can and does explain how we got here.Science offers possibilities. None of which have been proven.
Scientists don't have faith- they believe whatever seems most plausible, and makes the most sense. Faith, in the sense you use, has absolutely nothing to do with it."Scientists don't have faith- they believe..." Sounds a hellovalot like faith to me. One could use the same "logic", or lack thereof, to say "I don't have faith in God, it's just that the idea of God seems very plausible and makes the most sense to me." Faith is the belief in something unproven. Something like a religion. Something like Evolutionism.
Actually, I went to a catholic school, and was fed a butt-load of creationist junk, but I didn't believe it, because it made no sense.And I went to a public school, "and was fed a butt-load of [Evolutionist] junk, but I don't believe it, because it made no sense." Congratulations.
I never said 'How did Cain and Able breed?'. I'm not stupid. I have actually read the damn creation story. Besides, genetic flaws don't give a damn about the date, or if the 10 commanddments have been given yet- incest leads to freaky mutie kids, end of story.Wrong again. The "freaky mutie kids", as you put them, are the result of genetic defects becoming much more probable in incest than in normal relationships. As in, if I'm a carrier of some type of genetic defect, chances are so is everybody in my family, and while it would be extremely rare for me to have a relationship with a non-related person that carried the same defect, another family member would be much more likely to be a carrier, and thus greatly increase the chances of our offspring having that defect. Or, for a better grasp of genetics -- if everybody in my family for generations has been blonde, and I'm blonde, and my sister's blonde, we're probably going to have a blonde kid...whereas if I go out and have a kid with a brunette, it'll be less likely that we'll have a blonde kid. And since way back then, there probably were no genetic defects (as they were only the second generation of humans, the first being created with no defects), they could inbreed all they wanted to and probably still end up fine.

And what about my question- where did the people of Nod come from?Cain.
Oh, and Adam didn't live 800 years, No one has. Ever.It would be quite possible to live for hundreds of years if the environment was a type of hyperbaric chamber -- the type created by a 7th layer of the atmosphere, a layer made of water. Studies have been done that have shown such environments to produce larger, longer-living plants, and people have been shown to heal much faster in controlled high-pressure conditions.
Just because Jeff Holybob on the Zealot channel claims that Evolution is discredited, doens't mean every (or any) actual scientists do. Because they look at evidence. They think. They, slowly but surely, work things out. Besides, more creationist evidence has been disproved (can you say 'Round planet?' 'Earth orbits sun?' 'Neanderthals, homo habbilis, homo erectus, etc?'You're on a roll, here. Nothing in Creationism says the earth is flat, or that the sun orbits the earth. Plenty of scientists -- more and more, actually, and quite a few who have set out to prove Evolutionism -- have "converted", if you will, to supporting Creationism.
Yep, you're right, the bible never says the world is flat, except at the beggining. In fact, it rather definitely says it is a tabernacle. That's a flat bottom, and a big curved sky.Where? And if it refers to earth as a "tabernacle", it doesn't mean it's got the exact dimensions, or even that it was a physical reference. The Bible says your body is a temple, does that mean you've got pillars, a dome, marble, or anything else commonly thought of to apply to a temple? No.

When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.That statement makes less than no sense. You can't prove that. (After all, it's never happened, has it?) Besides, Earth's had a bit of a dangerous history, what with all the earthquakes and volcanos and ice-ages and so on, so there could have been some periods of 'accelerated evoultion', as it were.Convenient, isn't it? Come up with a timetable, and when nothing fits, say oh it's not standard, things change. It's like looking at a huge tree and saying it was planted last year, there was just "a period of accelerated growth". As it were. Right.


I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts....which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?No. Evolutionism isn't nonsensical. The idea that a giant, all powerful being made the world in under a week, and made humans the all-powerful ruler (oh, actually, just men. Women are, of course, inferior to men in the bible, that's why they were created second, wasn't it?)So the way you think, or don't, the idea that an omnipotent being created us is more "nonsensical" than the idea that we came from absolutely nothing, and, well, another omnipotent being (nature, time, etc.) created us? I think you're nonsensical. I won't even comment on the blatant ignorance of the latter part of that quote.

Besides, I'm perfectly tolerant. If you want to beleive pure weirdness, be my guest, just keep it to yourself.I completely agree. You want to believe Evolutionism, that's up to you. Just don't try to brainwash it into our kids.
Oh, and if you want to enter a serious, proper argument, you have to actually disprove your opponents claims, not just deny them.Speak for yourself. I've inferred requests for sources for two pieces of your argument in this post, let's see if you can find them. Not the requests, I mean the sources.

[Traitorfish]

Science isn't about convenience. You can't just back an idea because it enforces what you already believe.
Actuallyit's quite often convenience that leads to any evidence supporting Evolutionism -- that's why most of it is interpreted (read: manipulated ... or even fabricated) to do so.
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.





Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.Well, yes, it has, repeatedly. That's why they dig up dinosaur bones, and neandethals, and trylobites and stuff. That's why geologists have dated the earth to 4billion years old. Creationism has, rather definitely, been proven wrong. Maybe not Intelligent Design, but certainly creationism.Actually, no, it hasn't, ever. Dinosaur bones, neanderthals, and trylobites don't disprove Creation any more than they "prove" Evolutionism. And the earth can be dated to anywhere from thousands to trillions of years old, depending on what methods are used.
They don't dig deep in the sea. Cause of the water. Plus, there's layers of dirt and silt between the sea-bed and any fossils. Whatsmore, fossiles are less likely to occur on land than on sea- wrong kind of soil.
And have you actually seen Scottish mountains? They're peaks are incredibly dull. Benn McDuigh, for example, has a flat peak about 40 feet across, and rather steep sides.So nobody looks for fossils underwater? You sure about that? And things can fossilize very well in a sea bed, by the way. Oh yeah, and forty feet across is not a huge flat peak for a large mountain. No, I've never seen anything in Scotland, just like I highly doubt you've seen the Rockies.
Yet, somehwo, I never mentioned the rockies, nor used it as an argument, so what I have and haven't seen is irrelevant.
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.' 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.




You don't understand the concept, do you? you're analysis of the bass, although I realise hypothetical, is completely unapplicable to reality. That's why they've found two halves of the same bird in Brazil and Africa- not just the top and bottom, either. Split vertically, so the knew the bones were definitely the same. That could only be cause by continental drift, not a flood.I understand it all too well. You're trying to compare the supposed fossilized halves of the exact same bird to the fact that the age of the fossils on Everest is not congruent with the supppsed age of the fossilized creatures. Seems you don't quite understand.
Do you have a source for that claim? I'm sure it would be well documented, so it wouldn't take much to back it up, right?

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.




OK, I admit that it sounded like I denied that water alters terrain. What I meant was, water has no effect on terrain the size of a continent. Seas, mountains and oceans are caused by continetal drift, as I have explained. You can't say that the evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist- if that worked, you could use anything to prove anything.Just like you're trying to do with Continental Drift. You're saying evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist -- just like you accuse me of doing. Except, that would prettymuch require all seas to contain their own seperate tectonic plates, and all mountains to be at a junction of plates.
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.




Water is rather incredibly light compared to, say, the Alps. Water couldn't push up the Alps, no matter how much you got.Actually, with a few hundred billions of gallons of water, yes, there'd be more than enough weight to push up the Alps, or any other mountain range. And more than enough weight to push down the seas.

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




Besides, as I've said, there isn't enough water in the whole planet for that to work- water is not going to distort a huge, trillion ton lava-ball. In fact, if there actually was enough, the world would be underwater to the distance about 300,000,000 miles. Which it, rather patently, isn't.How many more figures can you pull out of your ass? That was a good one, but I'm sure there's more up there. Ah, don't worry about it, I'm almost positive some more will come out later.
I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.




Anyway, the crust is at least 4km thick, in some places over 20km, and half a dozen kilometers of rock is too tough to be bent out of shape by just water.You're still trying to say water isn't powerful or heavy enough to change the balance of plates...which is wrong. There's not much else to it.
Actually, creationism leaves more room for rascism than evolution. Besides, parallel evolution is hideously out of date, and has lost all credit as a sensible theory long ago. Anyway, just because something could be interpreated in a rascist fashion, does not change scientific fact. It's just some people getting things wrong.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"?
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.
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.




Science can and does explain how we got here.Science offers possibilities. None of which have been proven.By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification. How do you even know the world is real? Wake up! Wake up, Neo! You're in the Matrix! Fight the agents! Kappppppoooow!
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.



Scientists don't have faith- they believe whatever seems most plausible, and makes the most sense. Faith, in the sense you use, has absolutely nothing to do with it."Scientists don't have faith- they believe..." Sounds a hellovalot like faith to me. One could use the same "logic", or lack thereof, to say "I don't have faith in God, it's just that the idea of God seems very plausible and makes the most sense to me." Faith is the belief in something unproven. Something like a religion. Something like Evolutionism.
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').



Actually, I went to a catholic school, and was fed a butt-load of creationist junk, but I didn't believe it, because it made no sense.And I went to a public school, "and was fed a butt-load of [Evolutionist] junk, but I don't believe it, because it made no sense." Congratulations.
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.



I never said 'How did Cain and Able breed?'. I'm not stupid. I have actually read the damn creation story. Besides, genetic flaws don't give a damn about the date, or if the 10 commanddments have been given yet- incest leads to freaky mutie kids, end of story.Wrong again. The "freaky mutie kids", as you put them, are the result of genetic defects becoming much more probable in incest than in normal relationships. As in, if I'm a carrier of some type of genetic defect, chances are so is everybody in my family, and while it would be extremely rare for me to have a relationship with a non-related person that carried the same defect, another family member would be much more likely to be a carrier, and thus greatly increase the chances of our offspring having that defect. Or, for a better grasp of genetics -- if everybody in my family for generations has been blonde, and I'm blonde, and my sister's blonde, we're probably going to have a blonde kid...whereas if I go out and have a kid with a brunette, it'll be less likely that we'll have a blonde kid. And since way back then, there probably were no genetic defects (as they were only the second generation of humans, the first being created with no defects), they could inbreed all they wanted to and probably still end up fine.
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.




And what about my question- where did the people of Nod come from?Cain.
BEEP. INCORRECT HUMANOID. THE NODLINGS PRE-DATED THE HUMANOID YOU CALL 'CAIN'. I SUGGEST YOU READ YOUR BIBLE MORE CLOSELY. BEEP.




Oh, and Adam didn't live 800 years, No one has. Ever.It would be quite possible to live for hundreds of years if the environment was a type of hyperbaric chamber -- the type created by a 7th layer of the atmosphere, a layer made of water. Studies have been done that have shown such environments to produce larger, longer-living plants, and people have been shown to heal much faster in controlled high-pressure conditions.
Wrong, just... just wrong... the materials in the heart and brain wear out, and are irreplacable. Even if Adam did live for 800 years, he would be a mindless vegetable by the end! Anyway, how long plants live, and how long people live, are two rather different things.



Just because Jeff Holybob on the Zealot channel claims that Evolution is discredited, doens't mean every (or any) actual scientists do. Because they look at evidence. They think. They, slowly but surely, work things out. Besides, more creationist evidence has been disproved (can you say 'Round planet?' 'Earth orbits sun?' 'Neanderthals, homo habbilis, homo erectus, etc?'You're on a roll, here. Nothing in Creationism says the earth is flat, or that the sun orbits the earth. Plenty of scientists -- more and more, actually, and quite a few who have set out to prove Evolutionism -- have "converted", if you will, to supporting Creationism.
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.




Yep, you're right, the bible never says the world is flat, except at the beggining. In fact, it rather definitely says it is a tabernacle. That's a flat bottom, and a big curved sky.Where? And if it refers to earth as a "tabernacle", it doesn't mean it's got the exact dimensions, or even that it was a physical reference. The Bible says your body is a temple, does that mean you've got pillars, a dome, marble, or anything else commonly thought of to apply to a temple? No.

Firstly, Jesus himslef said that temples or churches do not have to be buildings- it means wherever people are gathered in the name of God. Besides, 'temple' is clearly a metaphor, as is 'tabernacle'. As is 'Eden', 'Adam and Eve', the 'Snake' and the rest of it.
Besides, I do have pillars. You're just jealous.




When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.That statement makes less than no sense. You can't prove that. (After all, it's never happened, has it?) Besides, Earth's had a bit of a dangerous history, what with all the earthquakes and volcanos and ice-ages and so on, so there could have been some periods of 'accelerated evoultion', as it were.Convenient, isn't it? Come up with a timetable, and when nothing fits, say oh it's not standard, things change. It's like looking at a huge tree and saying it was planted last year, there was just "a period of accelerated growth". As it were. Right.[/quote]
Well, no, it's not. It's like looking at a tree that's 50 years old, but looks 60, and saying... hmm, this may be accelearted growth.
Anyway, all your stuff about heavy water and 7th layers of atmosphere falls pretty neatly into the 'attmepting to explain something' category.






I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts....which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?No. Evolutionism isn't nonsensical. The idea that a giant, all powerful being made the world in under a week, and made humans the all-powerful ruler (oh, actually, just men. Women are, of course, inferior to men in the bible, that's why they were created second, wasn't it?)So the way you think, or don't, the idea that an omnipotent being created us is more "nonsensical" than the idea that we came from absolutely nothing, and, well, another omnipotent being (nature, time, etc.) created us? I think you're nonsensical. I won't even comment on the blatant ignorance of the latter part of that quote.
OK, don't bother explaining my blatantly accurate ignorance. I'll do the same for you.


Besides, I'm perfectly tolerant. If you want to beleive pure weirdness, be my guest, just keep it to yourself.I completely agree. You want to believe Evolutionism, that's up to you. Just don't try to brainwash it into our kids.[/quote]
Just try and stop me.
Besides, why don't you stop trying to brainwash 'our' kids. Or brainwash it 'into', whatever that means. Creationism walks hand in hand with 'brainwashing', because creationists are so absurdly sure that they're right, they don't take anything else into account. Scientists, on the other hand, are constanly examing and studying existing theories, to try and find flaws. Admittedly, some don't, but they're the exceptions.
No one ever said 'On the Origin of the Species' was a sacred and unchangable text. In fact, because of this, it's already been proven wrong in some ways. Because it's 160 years old. And the Bibles over 400 years old. I've nothing against you keeping your own faith but try to update it from time to time.



Oh, and if you want to enter a serious, proper argument, you have to actually disprove your opponents claims, not just deny them.Speak for yourself. I've inferred requests for sources for two pieces of your argument in this post, let's see if you can find them. Not the requests, I mean the sources.
OK, you're right there, I haven't been sufficiently backing uo my sources. Here's a few links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
It contains various explanations and investigations into evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
This give general information about evolution.
http://www.origins.org/pjohnson/whatis.html
This is a short essay explaiming Darwinism.
I particularly like this exert:

Our fifth and final term is truth. Truth as such is not a particularly important concept in naturalistic philosophy. The reason for this is that "truth" suggests an unchanging absolute, whereas scientific knowledge is a dynamic concept. Like life, knowledge evolves and grows into superior forms. What was knowledge in the past is not knowledge today, and the knowledge of the future will surely be far superior to what we have now. Only naturalism itself and the unique validity of science as the path to knowledge are absolutes. There can be no criterion for truth outside of scientific knowledge, no mind of God to which we have access.
Hmm... Interesting, no?

[DarkLadyNyara]

Millitant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either. :D

[Sasquatch]

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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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, 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.


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.


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?


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.

[Winter Nights]

Millitant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either. :D
I like this answer. :)

[Jebus]

I have no religion. Faith is irrational.

Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?

*posts his favorite quote from Alpha Centauri again*

"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist." [/Russian Accent]

That quote sums up my view of religion. It's a childish desire to want some sort of universal parent figure that always watches over us and corrects our mistakes.

Humanity has been around for around 3 million years or so (at least homo sapiens sapiens has) I think it's about time we grew up, and left our parents protection. God's not going to fix our problems, nor is he going to punish us for our misdeeds. Notice a distinct lack of divine interaction? If /she/they ever existed, then I'm sure they feel the same way. We're being "kicked out of the house" so to speak. It is time we grew up and accepted our own responsibility.