Anyone have a religion?

[Traitorfish]

Christian.

i believe in reancarnation (i don't know how to spell it! :rolleyes2 )
i also believe that everything has a soul
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.