# evolution or creation



## Vumerion (Jan 26, 2007)

[not furry question] You support evolution or creation?
I just want to know how many of furry ppl does support this...


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Jan 26, 2007)

*RE: [sorry, not furry question]*

I think everything just popped into existence when I was born.


----------



## quark (Jan 26, 2007)

*RE: [sorry, not furry question]*



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I think everything just popped into existence when I was born.



I think there needs to be an option for 'Don't know, don't care, most likely will never find out for sure'


----------



## Muse (Jan 26, 2007)

There should be more than two options, really.  What's with that whole us/them this or that obsessive duality thing anyway?  Two sides to every story, yet there's a dozen players in the play, it doesn't make any sense.  

My vote is 'it doesn't matter' and if apathy is unacceptable, then I go for 'both', believing that if anything was created, it was a long, long time ago (long enough ago that it doesn't matter, eh?) and that since then, evolution/adaptation/mutation, and selective breeding by lame folks who think dogs should be as small as rodents, took over and has been messing with the universe ever since.  

Additionally, if anything _was _created way back when, it was Coyote, and than _he _did all the rest.  Seriously.  And yes, he was a _he_, since I'm totally gender-biased towards male beings of supreme awesomeness.


----------



## Hanazawa (Jan 26, 2007)

I believe in the theory of evolution (there's a lot of compelling evidence, really!) but that doesn't mean I think there is no God or other supreme being. I believe this is considered Intelligent Design or something.


----------



## Aikon (Jan 26, 2007)

I haven't done my so-called homework, but I keep hearing we came from Algae and Apes.  That works for me.  I'll take evolution for $500 Alex.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Jan 26, 2007)

Muse said:
			
		

> There should be more than two options, really.Â Â What's with that whole us/them this or that obsessive duality thing anyway?Â Â Two sides to every story, yet there's a dozen players in the play, it doesn't make any sense.



That's obviously your fear speaking. 

Evolution, though I wish I could just vote "apathetic".


----------



## MacroKaiju (Jan 26, 2007)

Both

god made humans, humans evolved into furries my thery on Anthropology


----------



## JohnTheRonso (Jan 26, 2007)

Evolutionism is the truth... God created this fancy tool!


----------



## XianJaguar (Jan 26, 2007)

The poll is too black and white. I believe mostly in Creation, but not the way most people think of it. I believe that God exists, and He set everything into motion, and did create the groundwork, and that a lot of the creatures adapted and evolved over many years to become what they are today. Ie, maybe there were a couple small feline-type animals that were initially created, but later evolved/adapted into the many species of felines we see today. And there were things created in the beginning like a few small dinosaurs which evolved into the many species of dinosaurs, many of those which evolved into birds that we see today, etc. 

But I have a hard time believing that anything 'evolved' from a lifeless goo to a carbon-based complex living state (ie, lifeless goo turned into a living one-celled creature that turned into a many-celled creature that turned into complex living beings like mammals, all by random chance). That to me takes more faith to believe than believing in a divine being who has the power to set everything into motion. *Especially* since I'm an artist. Complex Renassaince-style paintings just don't happen by chance. When the paint supplies are thrown to the wind, so the speak, you wind up with Pollack-crap. Sorry, Pollack fans, I just don't see his work as art.

*shrugs* Anyways, that's just what I personally believe.


----------



## verix (Jan 26, 2007)

Uh, creation and evolution, contrary to popular belief, can coexist with one another. I mean let's say The Dude created birds, right? Like with Darwin's studies, the birds evolved to have longer beaks in order to live on-- hence, survival of the fittest, and their beaks evolved. The Dude could have still created those birds.

It's just when people start saying WELP EARTH'S ONLY 2000 YEARS OLD THEREFORE EVOLUTION = CRAP that things start to get out of hand.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm all for throwing a trillion-trillion marbles into a space and looking at the results (i.e. random chance).


----------



## Surgat (Jan 26, 2007)

An "Intelligent Design" theorist is like a puddle that examines it's surroundings and says "how could _I_ develop in _this_ little dip in the pavement _right here_; it's all suited perfectly to my existence and yet so improbable, it [my environment] must have been designed!" 

A 101 level biology and/or geology course can dispel most creationist or ID myths. There's a reason why virtually nobody in the biology or biochemistry fields hold to ID, and that's because we've come a long way towards producing a naturalistic explanation of how life arose given what we know of early Earth conditions, and how complex life evolved from that.


----------



## quark (Jan 26, 2007)

verix said:
			
		

> Uh, creation and evolution, contrary to popular belief, can coexist with one another. I mean let's say The Dude created birds, right? Like with Darwin's studies, the birds evolved to have longer beaks in order to live on-- hence, survival of the fittest, and their beaks evolved. The Dude could have still created those birds.
> 
> It's just when people start saying WELP EARTH'S ONLY 2000 YEARS OLD THEREFORE EVOLUTION = CRAP that things start to get out of hand.



I remember I once told a friend that for me personally, what made the most sense was that there was a God, who created life.  The life that was created then adapted and evolved over time.  For me, combining the two made the most sense.
He told me that I was wrong, and that I'm not allowed to believe that, because beliving in both makes no sense. It was like "Gee, it made perfect sense to me"
But like I said before, I'll never know for sure, and it really has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so I think I'll spend my time worrying about other things. Like zombies.


----------



## R5K (Jan 26, 2007)

[size=xx-small]Before the beginning was the Nonexistent Chao, balanced in Oblivion by the Perfect Counterpushpull of the Hodge and the Podge. Whereupon, by an Act of Happenstance, the Hodge began gradually to overpower the Podge, and the Primal Chaos thereby came to be. So in the beginning there was the Primal Chaos, balanced on the Edge of Oblivion by the Perfect Counterpullpush of the Podge and the Hodge. Whereupon, by the Law of Negative Reversal, the Podge swiftly underpowered the Hodge and Everything broke loose. And therein emerged the Active Force of Discord, the Subtle Manifestation of the Nonexistent Chao, to guide Everything along the Path back to Oblivion, that it might not become lost among Precepts of Order in the Region of Thud.[/size]

Thus, I'm all for Creation [size=xx-small]of the Nonexistent and Evolution of the Existent.[/size]


----------



## subakuryu (Jan 26, 2007)

I believe in creation. Partly because I'm Christian. And because I've questioned evolution. I've looked through books and such. And I find many contradictions within evolution itself. And for those of you who think I'm biased, I've questioned books on both sides of the argument. Any questions? I don't really retain all the facts, but I can try to answer. To put in one statement to start discussion: Do any of you out there really know how fossils are made? Cuz' with what evolution states the conditions were impossible to make fossils. there are other things. I doubt many people who've been taught evolution actually questioned it. Now, I'm not saying that evolution's questionable because the Bible says so, but from a scientific perspective their are quite a few screw ups in the theory. Dare I say it, but I just may add that the theory of evolution to me seems far from "scientific..."


----------



## Rhainor (Jan 26, 2007)

I voted "evolution", because I grok evolution (yes, grok.  It's a real word, google it or somethin').  I see no contradictions in it (not calling you out, Subakuryu, just stating my view).

On the other hand, this somewhat conflicts with some of my beliefs as an Otherkin.

However, I generally don't think about this issue either way, unless someone else brings it up.


----------



## ADF (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm with evolution, creation requires too much of a leap of faith for my tastes. At least with scientific theories like evolution they are updated as new discoveries are made, creation discourages progress by making it unquestionable and unchanging regardless of what we know.


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 26, 2007)

Evolution
cause it makes like sense...and explains stuff...and is visible


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 26, 2007)

Like verix said, to me it's always made sense to me it's a combination of both. I think the creation of Adam and Eve was more of an allegory for people to understand matters back then in terms people could understand before advancements in science.

But...that might be...crazy talk.... Â¬.Â¬;;;


----------



## DavidN (Jan 26, 2007)

I support the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## Rhainor (Jan 26, 2007)

DavidN said:
			
		

> I support the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Ehehe...Pastafarianism is fun...


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 26, 2007)

Regardless of what I think, nobody will ever be able to prove either side undisputed by _someone_. Ever. Unless God shows up and says "Ummm this is what happened", in which case people will be too busy screaming or undergoing revelations to be listening anyway.

However, people who can't say something backed by some sort of scientific proof (and the Institute for Creation Research does NOT count) are unreliable and I just don't listen to them.

I do find the Deist idea of the Clockmaker a quite entertaining happy medium.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Jan 26, 2007)

I believe things are to complex to have simply bumbled into existence over a few million years. I can't rule out that evolution probably played some part. But I'm not going to pretend I know the answer and say one or the other. Evolution is only a theory and is unproven. While it makes sense, there's no reason that creation couldn't have happened as well as evolution. Also, string theory allows for different physics in different space, so it's science's way of saying 'shit can happen' and allow for magic or godlike beings. It also is a theory. Basically, no one knows, we are all just picking either what makes more sense, or what we want to be true. So why bother, let's crack open a bottle of Baileys and have some fun instead.


----------



## Selunca (Jan 26, 2007)

I beleive in creationary evolution. 

God created us, and everythign around us; but over time, we have evolved to suit our ever changeing world.


----------



## R5K (Jan 26, 2007)

Epsereth said:
			
		

> I do find the Deist idea of the Clockmaker a quite entertaining happy medium.



_Warning! Approaching thread length multiplying troll quote detected!_
But what made the Clockmaker?  (No, I don't expect an answer )


----------



## sasaki (Jan 26, 2007)

Whoa! Hold it right there! Thats pretty black and white. What if a creator used Evolution as a medium to create? I believe that Evolution/Science can coexist with Creation/Religion. Then again, there's a fear that if [for example] Christians allowed such a theory to coexist with their belief, they may change other things. Then again, a substantial amount of the Gospel had been changed over time, to make Jesus appear less human and more of a divine being. Not many realize that his brothers and sisters were with him the whole way and were the founders of the Christian Church.

[edit] going back to read other replied, I said a lot of what others said. :/


----------



## subakuryu (Jan 26, 2007)

sasaki said:
			
		

> Whoa! Hold it right there! Thats pretty black and white. What if a creator used Evolution as a medium to create? I believe that Evolution/Science can coexist with Creation/Religion. Then again, there's a fear that if [for example] Christians allowed such a theory to coexist with their belief, they may change other things. Then again, a substantial amount of the Gospel had been changed over time, to make Jesus appear less human and more of a divine being. Not many realize that his brothers and sisters were with him the whole way and were the founders of the Christian Church.
> 
> [edit] going back to read other replied, I said a lot of what others said. :/



Curious... Just where did you get this thought the Gospel had changed over time? Research or media/entertainment?


----------



## FuzzWolf (Jan 27, 2007)

It's like Pokemon, "Evolution's the solution if ya wanna win!" 8)

Fuzzy


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 27, 2007)

subakuryu said:
			
		

> sasaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many different versions of the Bible are there? Also, how many different sects of religions that have similar roots, but disagree on the interpretation of the events. Also there are different sects of Christianity, which goes to show there isn't solid agreement.


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 27, 2007)

one problem is that a lot of people won't take your serious anymore if you believe in some sort of guided evolution or day-age-creationism thanks to people taking the bible literally and not open to interpretation. Ironic thing, since Darwinian Evolution is somewhat based on a theological problem to begin with. There are more then enough scientists finding that evolution is infact a greater form of creation (what is better, assembling something or making something that assembles itself?). I can personally accept these views, i can however not accept those other, dogmatic ones.Evolutionary sciences are the opposite: they are full of dispute, disagreement and oposing opinions..only natural given the complexity of the fact. "Whoops god did it 6000 years ago by magic" is an insult to the universe and intellect.


----------



## Vgm22 (Jan 27, 2007)

I believe strongly in evolution, but am not opposed to the though of being created. Who knows, I guess you could ask god when you die what one is right, if you believe in him or heaven.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 27, 2007)

I dont belive in evolution, evolution says that something as intelegent as the universe is just a big coincendence.
Once in geography our young teacher was explaining the theory and I put my hand up and asked "Sir. What if one day they dig up skeletons of like retarded people and think 'Wow! Everyone in the 21st centuary MUST have looked like this!'?" And he just laughed and continued teaching us.


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 27, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> I dont belive in evolution, evolution says that something as intelegent as the universe is just a big coincendence.
> Once in geography our young teacher was explaining the theory and I put my hand up and asked "Sir. What if one day they dig up skeletons of like retarded people and think 'Wow! Everyone in the 21st centuary MUST have looked like this!'?" And he just laughed and continued teaching us.


That's so like "Doctor" Kent Hovind with his *insert annoying accent here* "All you can tell from these bones is that something died"
yeah rite
Coincidentally, during some period in time only old people seem to have died (because neanderthals soooo looked like old people, who grew 800 years old btw). What a coincidence. And that the fossils in the stratas all get exceedingly more complex the newer they are is just a coincidence too.
Believing in things you can see and touch is so stupid. Foolish myriads of scientists from the most different fields of research.


----------



## uncia2000 (Jan 27, 2007)

_*munches on a pangene*_

Chewy...!


----------



## diarmaidhuthence (Jan 27, 2007)

Evolution, which is a separate issue from that of God's existence.

Trust me, I'm a scientist.


----------



## Xax (Jan 27, 2007)

If I recall correctly, in most countries there wasn't much of a correlation between religious attitude and belief in the Theory of Evolution, but in America there's a strong correlation, presumably due in part to the idea that you can't think the Theory of Evolution is correct _and_ be Christian running rampant around here.

At any rate: Evolution. duh.


----------



## K-Red (Jan 27, 2007)

I don't believe in either god or the supernatural, so evolution makes sense to me.


----------



## uncia2000 (Jan 27, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly, in most countries there wasn't much of a correlation between religious attitude and belief in the Theory of Evolution, but in America there's a strong correlation, presumably due in part to the idea that you can't think the Theory of Evolution is correct _and_ be Christian running rampant around here.



Not couched in quite those terms, but there is a middling negative correlation between "belief in God" and "belief in human evolution" per the country data on http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm ... albeit that's a somewhat limited survey and there are interesting data such as for the Philippines c/w the US.

cf. also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
(Comments such as "If you talk to a fellow scientist, Darwin's theory of evolution is treated like gospel" on the sidebar are not exactly helpful, though, since you'll find very few scientists who believe in _Darwinian_ evolution in _all_ its gradualistic pseudo-Lamarckian glory as a catch-all solution to everything... even if they _haven't_ read up on Horizontal Gene Transfer ^^).


----------



## Xax (Jan 27, 2007)

I think what I was referring to was this: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html (I love del.icio.us). Scroll down to the graph at the end if you don't actually want to, uh, read.

Also: Man, I think Lamarckism was pretty neat. That's kind of how I'd /like/ evolution to work.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 27, 2007)

MYTH-BUSTED!


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 27, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> Also: Man, I think Lamarckism was pretty neat. That's kind of how I'd /like/ evolution to work.



Lamarckisms is actually kinda indirectly valid: in some cases aquired traits won't be passed on of course, yet the ability to aquire them anew is


----------



## ADF (Jan 27, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> MYTH-BUSTED!


I wonder if the person who made that is the same guy who made the DND suicide comic, I love the bit at the end where the student gives his teacher some good old fashioned hell fear mongering that can only be avoided by complete subservience to his religion.

Of course if it was that easy to prove evolution wrong they would have done it by now, then we would all be good god fearing Christians spreading fear of hellfire and conveniently forbidding any knowledge that may make us question the good book. Why progress in any area at all when the goal of life is to get into heaven? Anything that gets in the way of this must be... dealt with. Lest risk your place in eternal paradise.

It makes me glad that the people who do know what they are talking about are actively involved in debates with religious groups to ensure the theory stays sound against their criticism. Like the incident were a religious group targeted a American school, replaced their teachers over time and then tried to replace their science classes with bible readings. Scientific organizations will be there to defend real education against archaic ramblings that should stay inside churches where they belong.


----------



## Surgat (Jan 27, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Get-dancing said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, it's the same guy.


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 27, 2007)

R5K said:
			
		

> Epsereth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not a troll. I just somehow manage to say things that piss people off and have a stunning knack for detecting idiocy.  And I think my icon just makes people think I'm a troll, even though I'm quite certain I spent more money on it than you spent on yours, heheheh. 

Anyway, the short of it is that Deists, while loathe to say they believed in this or that god specifically, were reluctant to reject the idea of god entirely. They saw too much beauty and complexity in the universe for it to have simply burst spontaneously into existence, and felt that god was like a clockmaker - a master craftsman with an eye for the beautiful, who invested all his skill and love into creating a work of art, wound it up, and let it run as it would. So basically, in modern terms, the Clockmaker Theory would be similar to Evolutionary Creationism, only a bit more detached and mystical. 

It's _basically_ what I believe, only my idea of "god" is a little more abstract than most peoples' in the Western world. The concept of a guy with a big fuzzy beard doesn't appeal to me, heheheh, although I don't condemn those to whom it does appeal. I believe in a more Eastern idea of god, something more universal, transcendent, and detached from the world as we see it. If you know the Hindu idea of _brahman_ you'll know what I'm talking about, but I've got to go to work and don't have time to elaborate. XD 

Anyway, I toy with the idea that some abstract metaphysical force is the origin of the universe and just lets it go its course, but I'm not invested enough in it to bicker with people about the whole thing. Science is awesome anyway.


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 27, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> MYTH-BUSTED!


oh your god, Chick? are you serious

you want that pathetic pamphlet ripped apart ? fine then 

1:there are no different kinds of evolution, what is liseted is abiogenesis, astrophysics and stuff. Only "Micro and Macroevolution" are, both terms coined by creationists (since you obviously can't dismiss "microevolution"

2:The exact position of Lucy is a little bit vague , though it certainly was not a chimp (or an unusual chimp..only the unusual creatures died apparently :3)
his "source" for the claim is a commercial product by his co-author "Dr." Kent Hovind

3:misunderstanding of science: dating methods of strata are mainly dating by radioactive decay. THEN you can tell what cretures lived there to quickly date other stratas, since the most predominant marine critters of those times died out ( trillobites,ammonites, and now clamps)

4:Haeckel did overexagerate or misinterprete his drawings. Which is the reason they NEVER show up in any real biologyteytbook out of historic context. Seen any of his other work? He was a master at classifying and drawing invertebrates! Embryos DO have gill-slits (which is just a name, cause they look and are positioned like gills and in fish become those, though in humans they form jaws and such

5: vestigial does NOT mean crippled it means  "lost or changed the original function". Penguins have vestigial wings that make excellent flippers

6: gluons have nothing to do whatsoever with the subject. They are merely a "particle" concept to describe the strong nuclear bonding powers afaik ( good luck at looking that up and finding out how simplified out models are)

7:typical Chick ending + buy our stuff k thx bye (c) Mr. "i do not have to pay taxes for my fake museum and adventure park cause it's god's money" and Mr "the pope is the antichrist and did the holocaust/communists/911" (sorry for this ad hominem attack)

8:





Evolution 101 did one on his crap too i think


----------



## Wakboth (Jan 27, 2007)

Evolution is a fact; it has been observed in real time. At this point, denying evolution means denying literal mountains of uncontroversial evidence; it is about the equal of denying that the Earth is round, or that it orbits the Sun.

That said, evolution by itself says nothing of the existence of a creator, and is quite easily combined with theistic beliefs (Christian or otherwise).

For everyone interested, I heartily recommend the Talk.Origins archive; it's quite simply the best online source for information about this "controversy".


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 27, 2007)

XeNoX said:
			
		

> oh your god, Chick? are you serious



Jack Chick is DnD-killing, gay-hating, evolutionist-loathing LOL-love.

I think he should get a medal from people he hates for being such a wonderful source of Friday-night entertainment.


----------



## facek (Jan 27, 2007)

I believe in both.

The way I picture it is the Universe is a gigantic Rube Goldberg Machine, all set off by a single touch of a finger that started the universe. If you ask me setting everyting in the universe to fall into place precisely ahead of time is more awesome than just building it in 7 days. I believe, yes evolution is happening on earth, but I think evolution on earth is just part of that machine that God made a long time ago. Honestly a lot of other christians read too much into the bible like it is entirely literal, a vast majority of the old testament is figurative litterature/poetry telling a story of how things in the past happened so every Hebrew could understand it.


----------



## Surgat (Jan 27, 2007)

*[To no one in particular]*


----------



## tigermist (Jan 27, 2007)

I've never been able to solidify my thoughts on either. I'm biased really because I'm agnostic. Though I feel a stronger pull toward the scientific view on the world. Having had some bad experiences with religon and those of certain religous groups I tend to not agree with much of anything they do. However to me religon should be personal and not something your spoon fed and told is the only way. So I guess I fall into the middle category whatever it may be, I want desprately to know the truth I just haven't found a religon that presents itself in a way to make me believe whole heartedly in it.


----------



## uncia2000 (Jan 28, 2007)

*RE: [To no one in particular]*



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

>



Heh, heh... A pretty graphic, but still focused on the wrong "debate", phps?

As discussed w/ratty & noted elsewhere, the poll is couched in somewhat incomparable terms... "Evolution" or "_continual_ creation" (per Cuvier) would be more germane in the context of a bipolar poll, IMHO.

d.


----------



## uncia2000 (Jan 28, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> I think what I was referring to was this: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html (I love del.icio.us). Scroll down to the graph at the end if you don't actually want to, uh, read.



Thanks, Xax. Mhmm... the US looks to be even more of an outlier on that dataset, whereas on the other link it at least has Poland for company.


----------



## The Ancient Mariner (Jan 28, 2007)

Ehh. 

Maybe one, maybe the other. Maybe both. Either way, it already happened, so it's not like there's anything _we_ can do about it.


----------



## kitetsu (Jan 28, 2007)

This is a trick poll. :|


----------



## badkittyamy (Jan 28, 2007)

i didn;t vote because i believe that god started life and then we evolved from there so i believe in both.


----------



## soundhound (Jan 28, 2007)

i love the fact that a bunch of furries probably voted for evolution because it makes us OMGZ CLOSER TO OUR INNER ANIMALZ!!!!!!!11
anyways, i think its a little bit of both.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 28, 2007)

*RE: [To no one in particular]*



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

>



So tell me boy Surgat. If we where lets say walking in a field together and we came across a watch. And I would be all "Wow! Look at this! Its so well desighned! I _must_ have had a creator! Therefor it must also have a purpose inwhich the creator made it!" You would say "No dont be ridiculous! Theres no such thing as your superstitious watchmaker! The watch was clearly made either by chance or its always just been there really!"?


----------



## blueroo (Jan 28, 2007)

*RE: [To no one in particular]*



			
				Get-dancing said:
			
		

> So tell me boy Surgat. If we where lets say walking in a field together and we came across a watch. And I would be all "Wow! Look at this! Its so well desighned! I _must_ have had a creator! Therefor it must also have a purpose inwhich the creator made it!" You would say "No dont be ridiculous! Theres no such thing as your superstitious watchmaker! The watch was clearly made either by chance or its always just been there really!"?



From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

*"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."*

_There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.) _


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 28, 2007)

*RE: [To no one in particular]*

So tell me boy Get-Dancing. If we where lets say walking in a field together and we came across a manual looking like this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 clearly showing a superflous complexity based on restrictions by laws of nature on one hand and totally nonsentual steps on the other, what would that tell us about the creator? Nothing to flattening I suppose


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 28, 2007)

So if the theory of evolution is true. Does that mean if I jump off a building, and my son jumps off a building, and then his son jumps off a building and so on forever. Does that mean that eventually they'll grow wings?


----------



## blueroo (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> So if the theory of evolution is true. Does that mean if I jump off a building, and my son jumps off a building, and then his son jumps off a building and so on forever. Does that mean that eventually they'll grow wings?



No. It means you die, he dies, and all his progeny from then on die.

Here is a more relevant example. Every once in a while, a random number of men in a river valley are hunted by a creature that finds them by smell. They are taken to a top of a building and pushed off by the creature. They die, never fulfilling their breeding potential and passing their genes on. They are unsuccessful in the propagation of their species. However, one child is born with a genetic mutation which causes his  smell to be altered. It causes his body to not create a protein that is essential in the "man smell". When the creatures come around, this man is not hunted, is not pushed off the building, and lives to have many sons. His many sons also carry this mutation, leaving them without the "man smell" protein. They all are not hunted, and breed successfully. In a few generations, the only men left in the river valley all share this trait.

This is natural selection and genetic mutation in action, and only encompasses a smaller part of the larger corpus of information known as Evolution.


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> So if the theory of evolution is true. Does that mean if I jump off a building, and my son jumps off a building, and then his son jumps off a building and so on forever. Does that mean that eventually they'll grow wings?





Yeah, to relate it to your example, if one person jumps off the building and accidentally has wings already, and only he survives, only he will pass on his traits so the likelihood of having wings is greater.

Evolution isn't magic. It's a slow series of accidents that just happen to work. That's why extinctions happen - because the right mutations don't occur.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 28, 2007)

Evolution does not affirm nor deny the existence of a god or supreme deity. It merely explains a theory on how humans came to be from the creation of the Earth (be it by guided hands or random chance). Just because evolution contradicts certain parts of the bible does not make it an argument against God.

Trying to use evolution as an argument pertinent to God is similar to using a hammer to turn a screw. Sure you can do it, it just won't look very nice...or function properly.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 28, 2007)

Xipoid said:
			
		

> Evolution does not affirm nor deny the existence of a god or supreme deity. It merely explains a theory on how humans came to be from the creation of the Earth (be it by guided hands or random chance). Just because evolution contradicts certain parts of the bible does not make it an argument against God.
> 
> Trying to use evolution as an argument pertinent to God is similar to using a hammer to turn a screw. Sure you can do it, it just won't look very nice...or function properly.



Actually if Im not mistaken the theory evolution teachs that the first cells formed from dust/dirt. Either life means something (creationism) or it dosn't (evolution), theres no inbetween.


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Actually if Im not mistaken the theory evolution teachs that the first cells formed from dust/dirt. Either life means something (creationism) or it dosn't (evolution), theres no inbetween.



Actually, no, you are mistaken, and continuing to make a fool out of yourself by not knowing what you are talking about. You are talking abiogenesis, which is sort of related to evolution, yet not really a part of it, since evolution is a BIOLOGICAL concept. There is however something that tells us we are DIRECTLY made out of dust/dirt, it is called the Bible

time+dirt = human vs God+dirt = human


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 28, 2007)

Besides. I choose to belive in god regardless of what happens in life pointing otherwise.
If I live my life as if god exists but I turn out to be wrong then I just die and thats that, if I live my life as if he dosn't exist but it turns out I was wrong then I suffer the consequences of denying his glory when I die.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Actually if Im not mistaken the theory evolution teachs that the first cells formed from dust/dirt. Either life means something (creationism) or it dosn't (evolution), theres no inbetween.



Evolution merely says that most life evolved from simpler origins (or less-mutated if that's how you want to take it). You, unfortunately, have used incorrect semantics while trying to evaluate evolution. It has nothing to do with the creation of the planets or stars. That is a different realm of science.


----------



## ADF (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Besides. I choose to belive in god regardless of what happens in life pointing otherwise.
> If I live my life as if god exists but I turn out to be wrong then I just die and thats that, if I live my life as if he dosn't exist but it turns out I was wrong then I suffer the consequences of denying his glory when I die.


There you go again, fear mongering :roll: One has to wonder if your loyality is to your god of the rewards promised for following him.

I have heard this exact same recruitment tactic before, they honestly don't care if you believe or not as long as they have one more drone to do the churches bidding. This is why I view democracy as being flawed, how can you have the true opinions of the nation when they are being controlled by the religious right? Earning brownie points with their god by agreeing with whatever their church says... Control through fear is the essence of religions based around Jesus after all, I have never seen a Buddhist or a Pagen tell me I'll suffer eternal damnation for not following their faith and doing as they say.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 28, 2007)

Way to interpretate "morals" ADF! Im saying athieism holds no benifets but plenty of negatives if it turns out god does actually exist, whereas thieism holds no benifets but plenty of posatives if it turns out that god does actually exist.
Anyone thinking straight would choose having a possible ticket to rewards than die empty handed.


----------



## Surgat (Jan 28, 2007)

*RE: [To no one in particular]*



			
				Get-dancing said:
			
		

> So tell me boy Surgat. If we where lets say walking in a field together and we came across a watch. And I would be all "Wow! Look at this! Its so well desighned! [sic] I _must_ have had a creator! Therefor it must also have a purpose inwhich [sic]the creator made it!" You would say "No dont be ridiculous! Theres no such thing as your superstitious watchmaker! The watch was clearly made either by chance or its always just been there really!"?



Well, since watches and other inorganic devices can't reproduce (a necessary component of evolution), we have no watches on fossil records, watches and other inorganic devices have nothing like a genetic code, and since components of such inorganic devices do not self assemble and were  not present in abundance on early Earth conditions (necessary components of abiogenesis), I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to hold both that life evolved and watches have watchmakers.   



			
				Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Actually if Im [sic]not mistaken the theory evolution teachs [sic] that the first cells formed from dust/dirt. Either life means something (creationism) or it dosn't [sic] (evolution), theres [sic] no inbetween.



[theist]Evolution was made/directed by God, and what God makes/directs has meaning; ergo evolution has meaning.[/theist] 



			
				Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Besides. I choose to belive [sic] in god regardless of what happens in life pointing otherwise.
> If I live my life as if god exists but I turn out to be wrong then I just die and thats that, if I live my life as if he dosn't [sic] exist but it turns out I was wrong then I suffer the consequences of denying his glory when I die.



What happens if you die and find out that god is not who you think he is, and sends theists to hell and atheists to heaven?


----------



## Surgat (Jan 28, 2007)

_Emphasis mine._


			
				Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Way to interpretate [sic] "morals" ADF! Im [sic] saying athieism [sic] holds no benifets [sic] but plenty of negatives if it turns out god does actually exist, * whereas thieism [sic] holds no benifets [sic] but plenty of posatives [sic] if it turns out that god does actually exist.*
> ...




Huh?


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 28, 2007)

*RE: [To no one in particular]*



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> What happens if you die and find out that god is not who you think he is, and sends theists to hell and atheists to heaven?



*Meanwhile, in the real world.*


----------



## ADF (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Way to interpretate "morals" ADF! Im saying athieism holds no benifets but plenty of negatives if it turns out god does actually exist, whereas thieism holds no benifets but plenty of posatives if it turns out that god does actually exist.
> Anyone thinking straight would choose having a possible ticket to rewards than die empty handed.


Morals? What does religion know of morals? Do this and you will go to hell, do this and you will go to heaven. Forget about the why, its vision is black and white and cares not for the morals as long as a place in heaven is ensured.

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18) 

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6) 

"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10) 

There are your morals, follow them well and maybe you will be rewarded in the afterlife. In the eyes of religion whether something is good or evil it does not matter, as long as you do as your told heaven will be waiting for you with open arms. If heaven is full of such people, people who would willfully give up their free will and common decency in their lust for paradise, I want no place in it. 

Should the Christian religion turn out to be true, which quite frankly is a terrifying thought, then I have little to worry about. As a Christian you should know there is more to it than just heaven and hell, there are multiple levels between. It is said there is a level just like earth you go to if your not Christian but still led a good life, they are aware of the existence of god but cannot reach him. Knowing god but not being able to be with him is supposed to be a horrible feeling. That said a world just like earth where there is no death doesn't sound like such a bad place.

As for there being no perks to not following god. What about free will? The freedom to dictate your own lifestyle, to have your own opinions instead of regurgitating those of others, to help others out of the goodness of your heart instead of the lust of a afterlife, to truly know right from wrong instead of it being whatever is dictated by a archaic deity who committed genocide of the human race on several occasions. If there is a god and he is truly all loving and forgiving, he would not send such a person to hell. Rather the fanatical, violent and intolerant masses that do evil in this name.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 28, 2007)

ADF. Religion is about following certain morals for guidence to make you into a better person, only a tiny minority of all creeds take every last word from there holy book 100% literaly.


----------



## Surgat (Jan 28, 2007)

*RE: [To no one in particular]*



			
				Get-dancing said:
			
		

> *Meanwhile, in the real world.*



How is that an adequate response? 

Pascal's Wager leaves out the possibility of any god other than the Christian one. However, I can think of many different gods (such as those of other religions, or even that I just made up), one of which punishes theists and rewards atheists. 

I can't prove or disprove the existence of a god which sends theists to hell and sends atheists to heaven; however, if I do believe in a god, and no god exists, I've gained nothing. If I don't believe in a god and no god exists, I gain a more naturalistic worldview. If I do believe in a god, and the god that I previously described exists, I suffer infinite loss (hell); however, if I don't believe in god and it exists, I receive infinite gain (heaven).  

It's no _less_ rational in this sense to be an atheist than to be a theist.


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Religion is about following certain morals for guidence to make you into a better person, only a tiny minority of all creeds take every last word from there holy book 100% literaly.



*holds a mirror up to you*


I actually find the idea that the creator touched the universe and set all these wonderful things, such as evolution, in motion, very astonishing. That we are the current culmination of billions of years of evolutionary buildup is quite incredible, don't you think?

But at the very least, if you're going to insult something, know what it is you're insulting and how it works. Your "jumping off a building to grow wings" example only proves you don't have the first idea, and your lack of acknowledgement of people who maturely tried to engage that with you indicates that not only do you not know, but you don't care either.

I propose we stop this, everyone, because clearly *get-dancing *isn't going to listen to anyone and it's only going to implode.


----------



## ADF (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> ADF. Religion is about following certain morals for guidence to make you into a better person, only a tiny minority of all creeds take every last word from there holy book 100% literaly.


What is with this universal attitude that religion is needed to have morals? If you need threats and rewards to keep you in line then you don't have any morals; morals should stand on their own, if they are enforced in any way then they might as well be laws. 

Even Albert Einstein said:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." 

Plus the Christian religion isn't exactly the best source for a moral basis. Kill gays, burn witches and convert the heathens. Don't tell me only fanatics do this because every Christian, even the church itself, are influenced by these teachings. They look down on gays, they burn harry potter books and they harass none Christians to convert on every continent on the planet! Without Christian teachings would there be any need to do this?

Remove the threat of hell and what is left? If you cannot have decent morals without it then even if you follow a religion faithfully you still belong in hell, a bad person who follows good teachings is still a bad person.


----------



## Sereryth (Jan 28, 2007)

*It's all very clichÃ©.*


----------



## Hanazawa (Jan 28, 2007)

"ashes to ashes, dust to dust, we now lay Ed Bighead into the earth's crust"


----------



## nobuyuki (Jan 28, 2007)

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutethics/Ethics_Morality_Reasoning_about_Morality_Ethics_Ethical_Behavior.htm

quick edit:  Relevant to the discussion of ethics and morality in atheism.  I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic), but if you are an atheist it's just as important for you to back up your claim to having morals as it is for a theist to back up why he believes in the morals he has.  Unless, of course, you don't believe the world needs that stuff.  Then you can just go ahead and be as unethical as you please and see what society thinks of that :B


----------



## ADF (Jan 28, 2007)

While interesting to quick read through I have to say it is difficult to put down on paper the exact justifications for godless morality. Unlike religious beliefs that have a group mentality the views of atheists vary from person to person, there is no set standard written in a book that they have to conform to.

This is why I said being godless is a form of freedom, a absolute expression of ones individuality without religious beliefs restricting their opinions and values.  This makes it easier to differ the good from the bad as they have no religious restraints on their behavior. 

Religious people however could very well be a murderer or a pedophile, but the fear of hell always kept them in check until they couldn't take it anymore. This could be why we see good people suddenly doing something drastically out of character one day. That said you may wonder what the difference between a open bad person and a closet bad person is, well lets just say I'd rather be able to see a bomb and run then sit next to the rubbish bin it is hiding in.


----------



## Sylvine (Jan 28, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Way to interpretate "morals" ADF! Im saying athieism holds no benifets but plenty of negatives if it turns out god does actually exist, whereas thieism holds no benifets but plenty of posatives if it turns out that god does actually exist.
> Anyone thinking straight would choose having a possible ticket to rewards than die empty handed.



Do You know Terry Pratchett? Great man, wrote many a good book, really. I'll quote, although not literally ( since I read it in german ), from one of his books: 

"One of the famous philosophers of the Discworld said: >Maybe Gods exist, and maybe they don't. Who knows? But why not believe in them, just in case? If You do, and they do not exist, You have lost nothing. If they do exist, You end up in a nice place when You die.<

After his death, he woke up in a dark room, surrounded by angry Gods holding _painfully_ hard-looking Clubs. One of them bent forward and spoke: >And now we'll show You what we think of smart-asses!< " 

Quite reminds me of the situation. You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, who is powerful and wise enough to create the universe in six days... And You expect to get away with _opportunism_? Woe onto You, and anyone who behaves like You! 

If You follow Your own logic, You also have to believe in Allah, YHWH, Hindu gods and follow the Buddhist guidelines, 'cause hey, You might miss out a reward! 

Believing in God is by no way a shame. Sometimes, I envy people who are capable of strong belief. But not using reason and intelect given to You by Your Creator is a great shame indeed. 

On topic: 'Been said. I miss the option: God AND Evolution, hence I didn't vote. I can neither ignore the overwhelming evidence of Evolution, nor can I ignore my gut feeling and, well, good reasoning of some of the more reasonable believers, as well as my own thoughts on the matter... I'd describe those, but they're rather complex, and prone to misconception if delivered in the right fashion...which I am, sadly, not quite capable of, I'm afraid. 

~Sylv


----------



## Surgat (Jan 28, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutethics/Ethics_Morality_Reasoning_about_Morality_Ethics_Ethical_Behavior.htm
> 
> quick edit:  Relevant to the discussion of ethics and morality in atheism.  I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic), but if you are an atheist it's just as important for you to back up your claim to having morals as it is for a theist to back up why he believes in the morals he has.  Unless, of course, you don't believe the world needs that stuff.  Then you can just go ahead and be as unethical as you please and see what society thinks of that :B



http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals_by_Agreement
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/#Repeat


----------



## Wakboth (Jan 29, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Besides. I choose to belive in god regardless of what happens in life pointing otherwise.


Please, try to understand that evolution is perfectly compatible with belief in God. Denying evolution is the exact equivalent of denying a round Earth, or that Earth orbits the Sun instead of the other way around; it is simply against all the evidence we have.

Also, don't use Pascal's Wager; it only works if you implicitly assume there is just one possible God, as described by traditional Christian beliefs. Remove this assumption, and the wager collapses into rubbish.


----------



## Icarus (Jan 29, 2007)

God created things.
(not days of 24 hours of course)

Then he gave them evolution to adapt and change. 
that's what I believe.

wait...what's that about the Scope's Monkey Trial?

I'm not a monkey!!! :angry: Monkeys are stupid, we are not, there isn't even a missing link...its almost as though as if two species mated and produced or created.  Hybrids I guess.  But I guess according to most of these things I'm just a stupid monkey.


----------



## FuzzWolf (Jan 29, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Besides. I choose to belive in god regardless of what happens in life pointing otherwise.
> If I live my life as if god exists but I turn out to be wrong then I just die and thats that, if I live my life as if he dosn't exist but it turns out I was wrong then I suffer the consequences of denying his glory when I die.


So what happens if it turns out the Greeks or Romans had it right all along?  You die and Zeus shoves a lightning bolt up your ass for not believing in him.  Insert any other god in place of Zeus and you'll get the same end result.  The problem with religion is there's no proof that one is right and the others are wrong so you might be going to hell anyway because maybe the Muslims are right.  You'll never know, till you die.

At least being an Atheist I'm not offending anyone by believing in someone else.  Seems the Judeo/Christian God is might jealous if nothing else.

Fuzzy


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 29, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> I'm not a monkey!!! :angry: Monkeys are stupid, we are not, there isn't even a missing link...its almost as though as if two species mated and produced or created.Â Â Hybrids I guess.Â Â But I guess according to most of these things I'm just a stupid monkey.



We didn't evolve from monkeys - just a common protoprimate ancestor.

~Epsereth <3 Evolution Research~


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 29, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Quite reminds me of the situation. You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, who is powerful and wise enough to create the universe in six days... And You expect to get away with opportunism? Woe onto You, and anyone who behaves like You!



God has no concept of time. A day could mean millions of years.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 29, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Plus the Christian religion isn't exactly the best source for a moral basis. Kill gays, burn witches and convert the heathens. Don't tell me only fanatics do this because every Christian, even the church itself, are influenced by these teachings. They look down on gays, they burn harry potter books and they harass none Christians to convert on every continent on the planet! Without Christian teachings would there be any need to do this?



Of coarse! Wilst we're at it lets just stop using the 10 comandments as the backbone for our law too! I mean "Thy shall not comit adultery!?" That was like 6000 years ago! Times change! Lets stop using this work of fiction as something we should use to tell right from wrong with!


----------



## shy (Jan 29, 2007)

If I could have, I would have voted "Both."


----------



## DruoxTheFurrinator (Jan 29, 2007)

We evolved from bacteria.....I mean, how else can a creature be as vile as me?


----------



## ADF (Jan 29, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Sylvine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You didn't really answerer what was said.


			
				Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Of coarse! Wilst we're at it lets just stop using the 10 comandments as the backbone for our law too! I mean "Thy shall not comit adultery!?" That was like 6000 years ago! Times change! Lets stop using this work of fiction as something we should use to tell right from wrong with!


Your sarcasm is not appreciated... Backbone of society? Created 6000 years ago? The church ruled society once, it was called the dark ages for a reason. Before Christians came they had drains, they had mathematics, philosophy and even the basics of science. The moment Christians stepped into power through Emperor Constantine's leadership they destroyed all knowledge acquired by civilization in the many wars they started, dumbing down progress to the point that people were living in mud huts. It took hundreds of years to recover from the loss, so don't you dare even speak about Christians bringing anything worth while to civilization.

The Christian religion is only just over 2000 years old and here you are acting like it is the single supreme influence on good modern values. You know there are religions that are over 6000 years old, but Christians killed them and built churches on top of theirs in a effort to remove them from history. Do a little research and you will find most of the values and traditions held dear by Christians were in fact stolen from other religions in a further effort to make them disappear by merging into their religion, so much for you being the source when you are a jigsaw of stolen pieces.

Yet again you are ignoring what is said in here and acting like religion is the only source of morals, you really think without religious dogma striking fear into everyone society would crumble don't you? Sad thing is I have to agree with you there; you have forgotten what real morals are to the point that you cannot fathom their existence without religious reenforcement, without heaven and hell you have no reason to live good lives which quite frankly is disturbing.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 29, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Get-dancing said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I was refering to judaism, hence the 6000 years. But judging from the fact your a liberal-athiest your gonna shut-up bout that because your type takes a bash at those who stop you in the streets to tell you about a great guy who lived a couple thosand years ago but will die standing up for the fuckers who killed him, or those who sacrifice goats in the room above your apartment or nutters who strap bombs to themselfs.


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 29, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Of coarse! Wilst we're at it lets just stop using the 10 comandments as the backbone for our law too! I mean "Thy shall not comit adultery!?" That was like 6000 years ago! Times change! Lets stop using this work of fiction as something we should use to tell right from wrong with!



this is OT as hell but since you like to so eloquently dodge all answers towards what this thread is about:
You may have noticed basic rules that are very similiar exist all over the world, in cultures of the most diverse religions. Heck even in most social animals. You may also notice that your country was explicitly founded as one not dedicated to any special religion.

Maybe you should read your book for once and tell me if you would get away with the stuff in any modern country? Sacrificing your children? ok Exposing your daughter to rape? ok Genocides with rape ? ok picking up sticks at sabbath day? punishable by death


----------



## ADF (Jan 29, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Actually I was refering to judaism, hence the 6000 years. But judging from the fact your a liberal-athiest your gonna shut-up bout that because your type takes a bash at those who stop you in the streets to tell you about a great guy who lived a couple thosand years ago but will die standing up for the fuckers who killed him, or those who sacrifice goats in the room above your apartment or nutters who strap bombs to themselfs.


So I am being shoved in political groups now am I? Being accused of living near satanists too, there is that good old 'with us or against us' Christian attitude I have grown to love. Just like I said, black and white vision.

I am quite tolerant of that loud mouthed, red jumper wearing git in Chester city central who shoves a bible in my face every day I go out for lunch. A less patient person would have ranted at him by now for chasing people down the street yelling â€œWhy are you doing this? What has Jesus done to you? Why are you denying your saviour? Why do you deny salvation? Are your sins so great you can not repent?â€ before then going after the next nearest person -.=.-

I don't hate religions and I have already stated I don't regurgitate other peoples political opinions on this forum before. If they don't bother me I don't bother them, but as we all know thanks to Jesus ordering his followers to spread the word of god before leaving they have made it their duty to harass every living thing on this planet to convert to Christ. 

They harass you on the streets, they smother walls with their hell fearing propaganda, they invade other countries with food in one hand and a bible in the other, they force the poor to listen to bible readings in order to eat at their homeless shelters, they influence MY life through their numbers allowing them to get voting power and more recently they are now trying to put god in our science books!

Religions based on Jesus are the only ones I dislike, the reasons why should be pretty obvious by now.


----------



## Litre (Jan 29, 2007)

Holy SHIT get a BRAIN GET-DANCING.

STOP BEING A RELIGIOUS SHEEP.

holy.shit.

Religion does not define what is morally right or wrong. Go back to school.


ADF, Christianity isn't the only religion that goes on crusades, or have absolute fanatics. All religions do this to an extent. Holy Hell. Stop stereotyping. Saying that about people is like saying all furries are perverted little fucks who jack off to yiffy murty porn all the time. GG.


----------



## wut (Jan 29, 2007)

ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€,. -â”€ ''ã€€"âŒ’'' ï½°- ï½¤ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ __,,. -â”€â”€- ï½¤.
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€.ï¼ã€€,r' Â´ ï¿£ï¿£ `'' â€-r--ï½¤ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€r=ï¾†ï¾ŒÂ´ã€€ï¿£ï¿£ ~ï½€` â€ï½¤ ï¼¼
    ã€€ã€€ ï¼ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ ,r--â€''â€ ï½¤.._,,äºŒï¾Œ-ï½¤ã€€ ,. -â€ï¾žï½°-â€ ''ï½¤'ï½°--''-_ï½¤ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ ï¼¼
    ã€€ï¼ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ ã€€ /ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ , 'Â´ã€€ã€€ã€€ ,.ï½²ï¼¶ãƒ½__ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€}ãƒŽÂ´äºŒ -â€ãƒ½._ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ï¼¼
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€{ ã€€ ã€€ ã€€ iã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€>âˆ´âˆ´âˆ´Lã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€,'ï½° 'ãƒ¼ ''Â´ï¿£}
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ ã€€ ï¾„ã€ã€€ã€€ ã€€ !.ã€€ã€€ ã€€ ã€ˆâˆ´âˆ´âˆ´/ }ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€/ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ ,.ï½²
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ ãƒ½ï½¤ï¼¿ï¼¿_ãƒ½ã€ã€€ .ï¼ï¼¼âˆ´ /ã€€ã€€ã€€ï¿£ãƒ¬'ã€€ã€€ã€€ï¼¿, â€'
    ã€€ã€€ã€ ã€€ ã€€ ã€€ ã€€ ã€€ ã€€ "ã€€ï½€,äºŒãƒ½!ã€€ /âˆ´ .|ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ r''äºŒ ï¿£
    ã€€ ã€€ ` â€- ï½¤..ï¼¿ï¼¿,. -â€â”€â”´â”€'ã€€ /âˆ´âˆ´| ã€€ã€€ ã€€ã€€ ï¾žâ”€â€'--''â”€- ï½¤..ï¼¿ï¼¿_ ,. ã€€
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€/âˆ´âˆ´ ï¼¼
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ï¼âˆµâˆ´âˆµâˆ´ï¼¼
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ /âˆµâˆ´âˆµâˆ´âˆµâˆ´ï¼¼
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€/âˆµâˆ´(ï½¥)âˆ´âˆ´.(ï½¥)|
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€|âˆµâˆµâˆµï¼ â—‹ï¼¼âˆµ |
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€|âˆµâˆµ /ä¸‰ã€€|ã€€ä¸‰| |ã€€ã€€
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€|âˆµâˆµ |ï¼¿_|ï¼¿_|ã€€|ã€€ã€€ã€€tanasinn
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ ï¼¼âˆµ |ã€€===.| ï¼
    ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ï¼¼|ï¼¿ï¼¿ï¼¿ï¼ã€€ã€€


----------



## Xax (Jan 29, 2007)

Ten commandments, backbone of our society? What?

FIRST COMMANDMENT:
 No other Gods before me.

considering it's quite legal to not be a Christian, that's one commandment not followed.

SECOND COMMANDMENT:
 No false idols and/or graven images.

see above.

THIRD COMMANDMENT:
 Don't use the Lord's name in vain.

We do have a list of offensive/obscene words, but none of the following: God, YHWH, Yehova, Adonai, etc are on that list. So that's a third commandment not followed by United States laws.

FOURTH COMMANDMENT:
 No work on the Sabbath.

Working weekends is quite legal. Four of four not followed so far!

FIFTH COMMANDMENT:
 Honor your parents.

While it is encouraged in the society, it's certainly not a law. Also, Chinese society has this to a /much/ greater degree than the US, and they're all, uh, filthy heathens over there.

SIXTH COMMANDMENT:
 Don't murder people.

Our first hit! Yes, murder is pretty much dispised worldwide-- this isn't a specifically Christian virtue.

SEVENTH COMMANDMENT:
 Don't commit adultery.

And a second hit! And yeah, in societies that have marriage, adultury was pretty much universally distained. Not specific to Christianity.

EIGHTH COMMANDMENT:
 Don't steal.

And the third. But, once again, a fairly universal trait among heathens and Christians alike.

NINTH COMMANDMENT:
 Don't bear false witness.

And kind-of a fourth. Lying isn't a crime, and some kinds of lies are in fact encouraged. Nevertheless, a major lie is a criminal offense. But once again, this isn't something specifically Christian.

TENTH COMMANDMENT:
 Don't covet your neighbor's wife or house, or property.

There are no laws about coveting things. So, another miss.

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED HERE?

Well, that only four out of ten of the commandments have any sort of legal weight in the United States system, and of those four all of them are fairly universal traits and not specific to Christianity. But thanks for playing!

Get-Dancing: Please, read some theology before you try to debate theology. Please. I'm quite fond of C.S. Lewis' religious texts, you might want to try them out.

[EDIT]: oh yeah, and ADF please try to be a less generic heathen jerk. It's like the battle of religious stereotypes over here.


----------



## Litre (Jan 29, 2007)

GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND READ YOUR GOVERNMENT BOOK.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 29, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Actually I was refering to judaism, hence the 6000 years. But judging from the fact your a liberal-athiest your gonna shut-up bout that because your type takes a bash at those who stop you in the streets to tell you about a great guy who lived a couple thosand years ago but will die standing up for the fuckers who killed him, or those who sacrifice goats in the room above your apartment or nutters who strap bombs to themselfs.



...You are so terribly, horribly bigoted. 

Go learn some things before you start arguments, and while you're at it,go get a refund on your "morality," because I think it's broken.

/sickened


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 29, 2007)

Litre said:
			
		

> GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND READ YOUR GOVERNMENT BOOK.
> 
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.



Umm ... *waves a little* Actually, there _was_ a great deal of Judeo-Christian influence during the creation of the US and its laws, both from the Commandments themselves and from Christian cultural law. It really doesn't have anything to do with the separation clause. :3

Mind, I'm not saying claiming the validity of a religion based on it is really justified. Just thought I'd put it out there.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 29, 2007)

I think I remember capturing a few of his threads that were rather intolerant.


----------



## Surgat (Jan 29, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Of coarse! Wilst [sic] we're at it lets just stop using the 10 comandments [sic] as the backbone for our law too! I mean "Thy shall not comit [sic]adultery!?" That was like 6000 years ago! Times change! Lets stop using this work of fiction as something we should use to tell right from wrong with!



FYI: Roman Law was the basis of [British] Common Law, which was the basis of American Law. American law is _not_ based on Christianity [See Article 11].

Do you think that since the religion of other cultures didn't include the 10 Commandments, they had no law?


----------



## Litre (Jan 29, 2007)

a surgat has arrived.

^^^


----------



## Caution_Cat (Jan 29, 2007)

WE CAME FROM SPACE.
YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Epsereth (Jan 29, 2007)

Caution_Cat said:
			
		

> WE CAME FROM SPACE.
> YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!



Yep, Stonehenge were our spaceships and the pyramids were our space-lavatories.


----------



## FuzzWolf (Jan 29, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> Ten commandments, backbone of our society? What?
> 
> \snipped for space\
> 
> ...


Thank you Xax for making an excellent post.  I just got home from work and thought of making a similiar post, glad I scrolled down before doubling the work.  Thanks again, too many people seem to think all 10 commandments are relevant to our law and government, but as can clearly be seen by anyone who has read them very few of them are actually of any practical value.

Fuzzy


----------



## blueroo (Jan 30, 2007)

OK, that's enough of the Off Topic religious wankery. Guys, I want to see clean respectful debate here. Appropriate warnings will be dispensed.

Let's get back to evolution and creation folks.


----------



## Icarus (Jan 30, 2007)

why does this always happen when these topics get started D: .



			
				Caution_Cat said:
			
		

> WE CAME FROM SPACE.
> YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!



can I be a lizard alien? 

...wit wings? ^.=.^


----------



## Suzienymph (Jan 30, 2007)

At the risk of exposing what a geek I am, I will say that my view of the argument is summed up in the lyrics of a song from the late 70's.

"God made man, but a monkey supplied the glue."


----------



## Xax (Jan 30, 2007)

blueroo said:
			
		

> OK, that's enough of the Off Topic religious wankery. Guys, I want to see clean respectful debate here. Appropriate warnings will be dispensed.
> 
> Let's get back to evolution and creation folks.



Despite that _several people_ (yeah, myself included) have noted that there's a connection between religion and 'creationism vs. evolution', especially seeing as creationism _is a religious belief_?


----------



## blueroo (Jan 30, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> blueroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The ten commandments, state religion, street sermons, and discussion of these are not relevant to this particular debate.


----------



## diarmaidhuthence (Jan 30, 2007)

Evolution exists, and it works. To take a large example, you can clearly see how all cats are related to a common ancestor. The basic shape of the head,the paws, the teeth, even similar hunting and grooming habits.
  The discrepancy in size is explained by evolution. Smaller cats evolved in areas in which prey was either small, scarce or hard to catch. As such, large bodies which require more energy to run would be at a disadvantage here, since their food needs would also have been greatly increased, so cats remained small. 
  Why did they remain small? Having become adapted to make the most of a scarce food supply, there is little need, or indeed point, to become large when which would quickly necessitate a reduction in the population of prey to below survival rates for the predator.
 The large cats grew to such size in areas where food was relatively abundant. This is how the big cats find themselves in danger of extinction. Development has lowered the prey population, of which the big cat needs a large number to stave off hunger. Bigger animals eat more, need more, which is why they're largely the first ones to be hit by a lack of food, space and habitat.
  And now my head hurts from such a sustained and prolonged bout of seriousness. I've probably just confused you all but go ahead then and tear it/me to shreds if you want


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 30, 2007)

Caution_Cat said:
			
		

> WE CAME FROM SPACE.
> YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!



might as well be possible to, doesn't even need to be a a fully formed organism, a few junks of organic matter or  a few chiral molecules in an asteroid can make all the difference in the world. 
Irony that concepts like these even were around before Creationism was even around


----------



## ADF (Jan 30, 2007)

If people choose to believe religion and evolution are compatible I have no problem with that, just don't try to force said belief on others by trying to get the Christian god taught along side evolution like some creationist groups have attempted. I honestly think those groups don't care whether their beliefs are true or not; if you control the education you control the future generations, a concept that I am sure has Christian recruiters are foaming at the mouth at the possible numbers that will be raised into their religion through the school system.

If we start having religious mythological characters taught in science class then to be fair you have to include all the other religions as well. Then what? Perhaps dentists can do a few chapters on a the tooth fairy? Border patrol briefed on Santa Clause? You have to draw the line between belief and science, just because you think they are compatible doesn't mean they should be applied in the scientific curriculum.


----------



## yak (Jan 30, 2007)

this thread lacked something *rolls eyes*


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2007)

I thought this thread was supposed to be like a survey about what people supported/believed in. You can't really debate anything even slightly religious. If you could, then it wouldn't be called a system of _beliefs_. I guess that's just my inner agnostic talking to me.


----------



## kitetsu (Jan 30, 2007)

blueroo said:
			
		

> Xax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*On what grounds?*


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 30, 2007)

Litre said:
			
		

> GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND READ YOUR GOVERNMENT BOOK.
> 
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.



That dose not aply to any country in the world. If it did they would not be allowed to print "In god we trust", "God save the queen", ect. on our currency.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2007)

Uh... they *aren't* allowed to do that, but no one really wants to recall our entire currency and possibly spend billions just to take a phrase off a piece of paper and some metal coins. You could say to the effort greatly outweighs the reward.


----------



## Lobo Roo (Jan 30, 2007)

Hop in, say evolution, hop out.


----------



## Sylvine (Jan 30, 2007)

Try the french, Get-Dancing. _Strict_ separation of church and state. There was this guy called Napoleon... 

Anyway. ADF brought up an interesting point. Beyound the discussion of whether evolution or creationism is right ( Poll still does not feature "Both" - sadly ), the other question is: Shouldn't we separate science from belief? Not by any objective standards, since all science ultimately is based on some sort of belief or another; but simply by a common agreement? 

I for myself actually support the notion of reminding people that scientific theories may not be 100% accurate. I am, however, against the Idea of presenting a religious alternative _in science classes_. Thoughts? 

~Sylv


----------



## Xax (Jan 30, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> If people choose to believe religion and evolution are compatible I have no problem with that, just don't try to force said belief on others by trying to get the Christian god taught along side evolution like some creationist groups have attempted. I honestly think those groups don't care whether their beliefs are true or not; if you control the education you control the future generations, a concept that I am sure has Christian recruiters are foaming at the mouth at the possible numbers that will be raised into their religion through the school system.



So... you think they don't really care about the tenets of Christianity, they just want to use that as an excuse to take control of the education system so they can... raise kids to be Christians? ...Because they totally don't care about faith itself?



			
				Get-Dancing said:
			
		

> That dose not aply to any country in the world. If it did they would not be allowed to print "In god we trust", "God save the queen", ect. on our currency.



"In the case of MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR et al. v. W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al. (462 F. Supp. 19 -- W.D. Tex 1978), the court opined: "Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of religious exercise." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in the 1970 case ARONOW v. UNITED STATES."

Once again, nice try but no dice.


----------



## Xax (Jan 30, 2007)

blueroo said:
			
		

> The ten commandments, state religion, street sermons, and discussion of these are not relevant to this particular debate.



I would disagree. The thread is about (among other things) religious claims, and it's hard, if not impossible, to try and discuss any sort of religious claim without referencing it to _other_ religious claims.


----------



## ADF (Jan 30, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> So... you think they don't really care about the tenets of Christianity, they just want to use that as an excuse to take control of the education system so they can... raise kids to be Christians? ...Because they totally don't care about faith itself?


Perhaps the way I said it was misleading. What I mean is they don't care if the beliefs of the 'students' are true or not, just as long as they become another member to increase their influence. The recruitment tactic mentioned earlier in this thread was an example of this.

At a young age students rarely question their teachings, areas such as the theory of evolution and the laws of gravity are just accepted till a later age when the students truly understand it. Imagine the damage that would be done if the stories in the bible were taught as facts and theories in classes instead of in normal RE? Even if taught along side science; people will go for whatever sounds better to them, so if God is treated as a theory and not faith do you really think they will choose evolution when following creationism leads to heaven?

Because of this creationism will have much greater influence than it does today, not because it is more wildly accepted but because it was introduced to the next generation at a highly suggestible age. Just look at the number of people who are religious not because of choice but simply because they were raised that way for example.

What would happen then? We would have modern day equivalents of this guy slowing down the progress of humanity -.=.- we really don't need *more* people attacking scientific knowlege because of what is said in the bible.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine


----------



## Surgat (Jan 30, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> Litre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[Excluding the Civil War] They only started printing "In God We Trust" on currency in 1956, to set America apart from communist governments. It's arguably a violation of the First Amendment, as it gives preference to monotheistic religions (and only some of them; some religions, such as gnosticism, teach that god is evil). 

There are plenty of examples of secular governments by the way, i.e. France, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, etc. 



			
				Xax said:
			
		

> I would disagree. The thread is about (among other things) religious claims, and it's hard, if not impossible, to try and discuss any sort of religious claim without referencing it to _other_ religious claims.



IAWTC 



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> If people choose to believe religion and evolution are compatible I have no problem with that, just don't try to force said belief on others by trying to get the Christian god taught along side evolution like some creationist groups have attempted. I honestly think those groups don't care whether their beliefs are true or not; if you control the education you control the future generations, a concept that I am sure has Christian recruiters are foaming at the mouth at the possible numbers that will be raised into their religion through the school system.
> ...



They care whether their beliefs are true or not, they just don't see it as possible that they may be wrong; they don't care about _science_.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy


----------



## ADF (Jan 30, 2007)

If they truly cared they would gain followers through example, not fear & guilt tactics in their message and underhanded mischief to barge their way into schools. I can't help but think they are trying to exploit the voting system by recruiting in mass to force their vision of a all Christian America; if you wanted to do something like that getting voting power and controlling the education system are good areas to start.

I remember watching a documentary on creationist activist past activities, I recall one incident where a school in the US started teaching it without the consent of the education board. I cannot remember the name of the school and the time of the incident however so perhaps someone else can help there. 

If creationism wasn't just another form of religious control and encouragement of scientific ignorance I wouldn't have a problem with it. Believing in evolution requires nothing from you; creationism the relinquish of your morals, your opinions, even your freedom to learn to the church. Once you accept that god did everything there is no need to learn anything else or even ask anymore questions; god created it all, end of story. Once you reach that point all you can do is reject new ideas and discoveries since they do not comply with what the bibles says happened. If you want to believe in a god do so, but when you let it stunt your growth all that is left is for you to rot.

This of course is in reference to true creationists, those who believe in god but still recognize humanities discoveries such as evolution are not in such a bad place. I suppose in their eyes they are learning how god made the world instead of rejecting what their eyes see and keeping their nose in a 2000 year old book written by people who knew very little about the world.


----------



## verix (Jan 30, 2007)

blueroo said:
			
		

> Guys, I want to see clean respectful debate here.


That's not going to happen in an evolution vs. creation thread.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 30, 2007)

verix said:
			
		

> blueroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's ok we got the abortion thread too. What other topics are missing?


----------



## wut (Jan 30, 2007)

a general _science vs religion_ thread.


----------



## Caution_Cat (Jan 30, 2007)

Hur hur hur :B


----------



## kitetsu (Jan 30, 2007)

wut said:
			
		

> a general _science vs religion_ thread.



Don't forget a _science vs scientology_ thread.

Oops, b&


----------



## Alchera (Feb 5, 2007)

I didn't want to step into this, but seeing as people are making huge-ass misconception about this, I'm going to say something.


Evolution is a Theory - There is a reason why it is called a theory. Anyone want to tell me why? Its because it is not proven fact, and has contradictory terms that keep it from being one. Sure, tell someone to see the sciences, but what if what these people are reporting are nothing but a lie like the little hoaxes such as Piltdown Man? Instead of relying on these "scientists" research it yourself.

Creation is a Theory - There is a reason why it is called a theory. While most evolutionists want to point out there is no evidence, what they forget is Darwin himself REJECTED the Evolutionary Theory (not including Natural Selection) because of a lack of evidence...oh, and let's not forget, Charlie-boy did not come up with it. His grandfather, Erasmus, was pulling the same theory before he sucked on his momma's tit. Furthermore to this, just because one says "Creation" does not mean "Christianity" or some other gung-ho Creationism-hellbent religion. People take this side too far, and a true creation theory will NEVER rely on the Bible, NEVER point at which God is the real God, and...one thing others forget, is that it MIGHT NOT EVEN POINT AT A GOD AT ALL. (If you can't figure out what I mean by this, then it sucks to be you.) Instead of relying on religious bigotry which makes this theory look like nothing but Bible-Thumping madness, research it yourself.

I don't know about you, but I was taught the pros and cons, scientifically, of each theory in a classroom that never mentioned the damn Bible or any other religious text. Why don't you all do the same instead of just saying, "OH THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!"

Its about time all you bickering brats wisened up to this.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 5, 2007)

Yeah cuz like debates like this, our opinion matters so much. I'm so glad this will be resolved on FA forums.


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 5, 2007)

Alchera said:
			
		

> Evolution is a Theory - There is a reason why it is called a theory. Anyone want to tell me why? Its because it is not proven fact, and has contradictory terms that keep it from being one. Sure, tell someone to see the sciences, but what if what these people are reporting are nothing but a lie like the little hoaxes such as Piltdown Man? Instead of relying on these "scientists" research it yourself.



"There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

That will clear a lot of things up.



> I don't know about you, but I was taught the pros and cons, scientifically, of each theory in a classroom that never mentioned the damn Bible or any other religious text. Why don't you all do the same instead of just saying, "OH THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!"



But creationism is a non-falsefiable belief so there never can be any evidence.


----------



## blueroo (Feb 5, 2007)

Thread closed! This topic has exceeded both the thread size limit and the reasonable discussion threshold.


----------

