Anyone have a religion?

[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/sub...ontdrift.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.

[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.. 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/sub...ontdrift.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.

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.

[War Angel]

Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?

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

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

Why believe something that has absolutely no truth?

sentence is trying to point. An ignorant phrase that proves blindness flows in both the ways - of the fanatic believer, and the fanatic dis-believer. You try so hard to stray from the ways of religion, disbelieving itself becomes your faith, your religion.

[Traitorfish]

Damn man, just accept it...

I think your perspective is a little confused- scientists aren't unquestioningly supportive of a particular idea or theory, they support which ever they belive to be correct, and if evidence shows one theory to be wrong, they abandon it. It's happened before, even in terms of evolutionism. Just because you are unaware does not mean it hasn't happened.

Actually, most people -- scientists and not -- actually are "unquestioningly supportive of a particular idea or theory", whatever belief it may be. That's why most debates on religion and politics don't get too far for those involved -- it's a preference of beliefs. (Which I don't really have a problem with, until it becomes a case of "I don't know why, but I'm sticking to this".) However, these "scientists" have the benefit of manipulating evidence to support their theory when it's wrong, instead of abandoning it entirely.

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

Yet, somehwo, I never mentioned the rockies, nor used it as an argument, so what I have and haven't seen is irrelevant.

Let me slow this down. I haven't seen any mountains in Scotland. You haven't seen any mountains in America. You still following me? So it's pointless to bring out those topics, because only one of us has firsthand knowledge of them. It would be like me trying to talk about military topics to you, and you trying to talk...hell, rugby, or cricket, or whatever else you're into that I wouldn't have any experience with. Get it? Don't want to lose you any more than I already have, here.

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

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

I read that wrong -- thought you said it was more difficult for something to be fossilized in the sea that it was on land. My mistake. I really don't see how I "admitted defeat", but hey, you keep on thinking that. You also tried to say nobody looks for fossils underwater. Keep it up.

I didn't literally mean that you admited defeat... though I can't see how else I was supposed to mean that... I was just over-glorifying a slight, and now it seems non-existant, victory. Oh well.

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

Let's see... This is a fossilized leg, in a boot.. Yes, a human leg, in a cowboy boot. This poor guy's leg (someone named him "The Limestone Cowboy") was either torn or shot off, apparently, and was found in a dry creek bed near Iraan, Texas. The maker of the boot, M. L. Leddy boot company (founded in 1936) says the boot is their make, from about 1950. Which means...stay with me now...it doesn't take millions of years for something to fossilize. There are also pictures of a petrified dog in a tree, chopped wood, and an Icthyosaurus giving birth. As my brother put it, "Despite what my mother says, it doesn't take millions of years to give birth." I don't know where I found it, but a few years ago I ran across pictures of a petrified twinkie, I believe -- they told us twinkies had a long shelf life, didn't they?

OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.
And that twinky wasn't a fossil. Bones fossilise, pastry doesn't. Though, I suspect you already knew that, and are simply mocking me. Dam it, everyone always does...

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

Your point was about continental drift, in argument to a point about fossilization and fossil locations. Good one. And it's no surprise you don't have a source, really, don't worry about it.

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

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

Actually, no, wrong again, it was thought up as a way of proving an aspect of Evolutionism, that being the idea that the earth is billions of years old. And again, wrong, it hasn't been proven. What's more, the main "evidence" for the idea is the fact that similar fossils have been found in Africa and South America, which would make perfect sense with any other theory, not just that one.

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

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

Very good. Good start. Unfortunately, that's just information on the theoy, and not evidence supporting it, especially not against other possibilities. And yes, billions upon billions of gallons of water can (and did) work to shape the earth's crust.

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

I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.

Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.

Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'

Firstly, 'we all evolved from black people' is a gross misinterpretation. We evolved from earlier humans, who's appearance may have been similar to modern africans. As each human group spread across the globe, they all eveolved to fit their new envirnoment. The differences between races are, evolutionary theory says, simply to do with environment, and are no cause for rascism.

That's not the way they taught it in my school...the three different school systems I was in that taught it.

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

And if you want to see how creationism leads to rascism, look at the Klu Klux Klan- they believed that white men had been created 'better' than other races. A misinterpretation, I know, but the point is it still happens.

I like this. "You want a good example, here, look at this rare group of extremists." Try again. Better yet, let me point this out. You refer to the idea that Evolutionism is racist as being "a gross misinterpretation", then turn around and recognize that your one and only example of Creationism (which, according to you, "leaves more room for rascism [sic] than evolution") is racist is another misinterpretation.

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

By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.

Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?

No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.

I admit few things have been definitely proven, but nothing that one has not personally witnessed can be true to one's self. And, you can't witness evoultion- it takes too long.

Weren't you just telling me that we've witnessed evolution, so we know it's real? I could be wrong about that. Besides, there's always periods of "accelerated evolution", right?

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

No, no, no. Scientists believe what they do based on facts and evidence. You beleive what you do based on things far less substantial (I do not mean this offensively- I simply mean 'spiritual' or 'immaterial').

Substantiated, you mean? Here's a tip. Don't tell me why I believe what I do. You don't even know why you believe what you do, there's no way you can see that for somebody else.
Everybody has their own evidence for believing what they believe. What they see, what they feel, and their interpretations of it.

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

Well, there you go. We both excerised our freedoms of beleif! Hurrah and huzzah for us! Only, I was fed creationism in school and church, so you may well have picked up your ideas from church, and not indpendent study.

Once again. Don't try to figure out where I picked up my ideas. I might have been taught to believe Creation in church, but they certainly don't go in depth with the evidence. I went on my own and looked into things for myself -- I didn't believe everything I was fed, like most others, on both sides.

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

Err... you just explained genetics, the idea you are putting down... And, if there were no genetic defects to start with, how did they occur. Evolution, perhaps?
Also, I apologise for 'freaky mutie kids'. That may have been offensive or insensitive to you or someone else. I'm sorry.

Defects happen -- it's simply a variation in a gene or two, some wires get crossed, and BAM, something's wrong. But while these crossed wires are passed down though generations, the first generation was created without fault, so there wasn't any defect to pass down, was there?

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

Then they're just dumb... how could someone masquerading as a man (or woman) of science possbly revert to such simplistic, unproven ideas? Science is meant to explain things we don't know, not defend what we think we do... That's religions job.

Right. Anybody who disagrees with you is "just dumb". Great way to look at things, you'll go far.
I'm gonna do something more worth my time.

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

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

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

[Sasquatch]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.

Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.

Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'

If evidence supports it, that's quite possible.

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

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

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

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

By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.

Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?

No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hold up on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.

[War Angel]

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

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

[CaZ!]

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