It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I don't understand evolution.

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Randyvs might have confessed to willful ignorance and continue to do so but we are here in hope that he will listen and learn. We are here to "deny ignorance" and educate other people who might read or post in this thread and other threads.




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TzarChasm

Randyvs might have confessed to willful ignorance and continue to do so but we are here in hope that he will listen and learn. We are here to "deny ignorance" and educate other people who might read or post in this thread and other threads.


the theme of this thread is "i will not listen and learn and you cant make me la la la".

again, a complete waste of time. nothing in this thread we didnt see in a dozen other threads over the past month, or a hundred threads over the past year, including the evidence in favor of evolution. how many times is this going to happen before the game gets old?

ETA: see the post below this one? utterly predictable. and thats why they play this game, because at least they can guarantee a stalemate this way. better than losing outright.

edit on 12-10-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
Well, technically, theology comes from the Latin "theologia" meaning "reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity". So I guess you could call it the science of God and the nature of religious thought, if you were so inclined. It isn't a physical "science" however, more like a kind of study of religious philosophy and teaching..


Your post describes Darwinism to a 'T'...


As said before, Darwinism is a tool of religious propaganda disguised as a scientific theory.

Evolution is just as "scientific" as intelligent design is.

The difference between the two is that ID does not have to resort to using fraud to prop up the facade.

Which is WHY so many no longer take it seriously, including 10,000+ scientists BTW.


originally posted by: spygeek
Evolutionary biology on the other hand is a physical science, based on observable and verifiable/falsifiable results... But it's not the theory of evolution they actually have a problem with, it's the evidence, the irrefutable proof in the world around us that we can clearly observe and examine...


That non-existent 'irrefutable proof' was the kicker for me as well...

Most see your 'irrefutable proof' for what it really is: undeniable fraud and pseudoscience.


Evolution does not fit the real definitions of science. It cannot be tested, repeated, observed, measured or falsified. It is a belief system about the past. Fundamentalist evolutionists have a great deal of faith.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list.

Evolution, a Pseudoscience

Thats not science, thats fairy tale stuff, thats Pseudo Science. Thats already been disproven by real science. ~ Carl Gallups

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events. The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".

• Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.

• Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.

• Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself. On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism. When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.

members.toast.net...



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



again, a complete waste of time. nothing in this thread we didnt see in a dozen other threads over the past month, or a hundred threads over the past year, including the evidence in favor of evolution. how many times is this going to happen before the game gets old?

Yeah I feel that way too sometimes. I've stopped replying to certain posters here on ATS. It's pointless sometimes. But I feel that randyvs secretly wants to learn. He just seems to be in denial and want to fight it.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



as opposed to the army of swiss cheese currently defending creationism?


Quite.

I never said I was a fan of either Creationism or ID.

I don't do blind faith, in anything.



its a complete mockery.


My friend, if you'd seen some of the absolute bollocks and utter tripe I've seen spouted on here over the years I think you'd understand why I'm perhaps a little more tolerant than you on this.
There seems to be no limit to the depths of ignorance some people can reach.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I think penguins pretty much prove that evolution by natural selection is real. Giraffes, eyeless fish. Darwin himself studied this, I'd recommend The Origin of Species. An appeal to authority will get you nowhere here because even IF natural selection is bogus, it doesn't mean Intelligent design wins by default.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

There is proof in formal sciences such as math.
edit on 12-10-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Why are threads like this even allowed to exist? It should at least get moved to the rant section or hoax bin.


The shear irony of that statement is incredible...


Evolution is probably the greatest hoax in all of history.

Fortunately, the eternal hoax bin will be it's final destination where it will remain forgotten where it belongs.


‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ ~ T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid



Evolution is probably the greatest hoax in all of history.

Yeah millions of scientists all over the world are in on it. Fossils are fake. Evolution is not observable. To quote Ken Ham "YOU WEREN'T THERE!"

BTW your avatar is appropriate for your post.

edit on 10/12/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
I think penguins pretty much prove that evolution by natural selection is real. Giraffes, eyeless fish. Darwin himself studied this, I'd recommend The Origin of Species. An appeal to authority will get you nowhere here because even IF natural selection is bogus, it doesn't mean Intelligent design wins by default.

I disagree, they both completely contradict one another.

This also exposes the stealth agenda behind Darwinism as well...

If reptiles gradually changed into birds we would see many transitional fossils but they don't exist.

That fact combined with the laws of probability tell us that evolution is a complete mathematical impossibility.


originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why? He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it. One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.

The Emperor Penguin could never have evolved in the frigid and desolate Antarctica without dying before evolving... How could Emperor Penguins “evolve” to breed at the beginning of winter, totally different timing? The answer is that they didn’t, evolution is not a plausible explanation. How could they evolve such bones? Here’s another fact extremely hard to explain by evolution.

"Eventually, the female returns across the sea ice. This usually coincides with the hatching of the chick. Sometimes the chick will hatch before the female returns. If this happens, it will be fed with a secretion of protein and fat produced by the male from its esophagus, a sort of penguin 'milk'".[3]

Milk produced by the male of the species!!! All right, here’s one last one. Just exactly how could the following coordinated action of the group evolve over many generations? They would all have died before they were successful at it.

“As a defense against the cold, a colony of emperor penguins forms a compact huddle (also known as the turtle formation) ranging in size from ten to several hundred birds, with each bird leaning forward on a neighbor. As the wind chill is the least severe in the center of the colony, all the juveniles are usually huddled there. Those on the outside upwind tend to shuffle slowly around the edge of the formation and add themselves to its leeward edge, producing a slow churning action, and giving each bird a turn on the inside and on the outside.” [1]

101proofsforgod.blogspot.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

In a near death experience my grandfather had, he was welcomed into heaven by Jesus himself. The Lord told him it wasn't his time yet. My grandfather said he was sad that he had to go, but happy too, because he had his family. The Lord gave him a personal mission though, before returning him to his body. Interestingly enough, Jesus spoke of evolution. He said that it was not a hoax. He told my grandfather to spread the news. Now I'm sharing it with you. I know how much stock you put into NDEs. Now you have it from the Lords mouth. Evolution is legit.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Yeah millions of scientists all over the world are in on it.


FYI, actually it's perfectly appropriate considering what you just said...


If Scientist's were given the choice to choose whether or not to be 'in on it', there would be far more than the 10,000+ Scientists who currently refuse to go along with the charade.

Given the choice between working at McDonalds or Caltech the answer is quite obvious.


"...if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”

Updated List of Obviously Murdered Scientists


“Through interviews with representatives from both sides of the debate, Stein found out that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance, according to a news release.

In another case, Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian Theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over”

“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning” said Stein in a news release.

“Scientists are not even allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

Source



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
The Emperor Penguin could never have evolved in the frigid and desolate Antarctica without dying before evolving... How could Emperor Penguins “evolve” to breed at the beginning of winter, totally different timing? The answer is that they didn’t, evolution is not a plausible explanation. How could they evolve such bones? Here’s another fact extremely hard to explain by evolution.


Yes, true, they can't evolve in time you have in your mind, which is what - 6,000 years old earth thingy... just like uncle Ken said...

But give them million of years plus adaptation to climate change over time - and there you go, clear proof how evolution works. They just did not come to Antarctica and adopt over night, it took long time and we know that Antarctica had different climate back them.

All this stuff we learned by observing this little planet... for example this - www.space.com... and to my big surprise, your magic book nor your imaginary friend shred any light over this little issue with poles and rotation...

Let's face it... all you have to offer is C/P from Creationist / ID sites and you are well aware that all material is debunked over and over - but you don't care... more posts ... but this makes me wonder why...

So here, I will ask you openly - why?? What do you think you will accomplish??
edit on 12-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid



If Scientist's were given the choice to choose whether or not to be 'in on it', there would be far more than the 10,000+ Scientists who currently refuse to go along with the charade.

That's not how it works. Randyvs have posted a list of "hoaxes" that scientists have debunked. Creationism was a big thing back then. Did the scientists back down? No. If it's a obvious falsehood to everyone then no they would not back down. They were given a "choice" back then then according to you they'd choose creationism.

Again to bring up this gif:



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: spygeek
Well, technically, theology comes from the Latin "theologia" meaning "reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity". So I guess you could call it the science of God and the nature of religious thought, if you were so inclined. It isn't a physical "science" however, more like a kind of study of religious philosophy and teaching..


Your post describes Darwinism to a 'T'...


As said before, Darwinism is a tool of religious propaganda disguised as a scientific theory.

Evolution is just as "scientific" as intelligent design is.

The difference between the two is that ID does not have to resort to using fraud to prop up the facade.

Which is WHY so many no longer take it seriously, including 10,000+ scientists BTW.


Clearly you do not understand scientific method. Darwinism does not exist, it is a term used by evolution detractors in an attempt to undermine its findings. I would be interested to know who these 10,000 scientists are and what scientific fields they are educated in. I have never met or even heard of a legitimate biologist for instance, not taking evolution seriously.



original poste by: spygeek
Evolutionary biology on the other hand is a physical science, based on observable and verifiable/falsifiable results... But it's not the theory of evolution they actually have a problem with, it's the evidence, the irrefutable proof in the world around us that we can clearly observe and examine...


That non-existent 'irrefutable proof' was the kicker for me as well...

Most see your 'irrefutable proof' for what it really is: undeniable fraud and pseudoscience.


Evolution does not fit the real definitions of science. It cannot be tested, repeated, observed, measured or falsified. It is a belief system about the past. Fundamentalist evolutionists have a great deal of faith.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list.

Evolution, a Pseudoscience

Thats not science, thats fairy tale stuff, thats Pseudo Science. Thats already been disproven by real science. ~ Carl Gallups

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events. The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".

• Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.

And on and on and on......



Interesting that you claim irrefutable proof does not exist, a five minute search finds a plethora of concrete scientific evidence in support of evolution. Instead of attempting to make a scientific argument against any part of the theory or the evidence, you have resorted to linking conspiracy propaganda. In my first post in this thread I asked people to stop posting this nonsense and make an informed scientific argument against evolution.

As usual, this has been ignored, because there is no scientific argument against the theory of evolution. The only way to attack it is to turn it into "the cult of darwinism" and make the ridiculous arguments found above.

I like this story from wakeupbeer:

In a near death experience my grandfather had, he was welcomed into heaven by Jesus himself. The Lord told him it wasn't his time yet. My grandfather said he was sad that he had to go, but happy too, because he had his family. The Lord gave him a personal mission though, before returning him to his body. Interestingly enough, Jesus spoke of evolution. He said that it was not a hoax. He told my grandfather to spread the news. Now I'm sharing it with you. I know how much stock you put into NDEs. Now you have it from the Lords mouth. Evolution is legit.


For all the dogmatic religious resistance to evolution, it is actually pretty harmonious with a theological perspective. Even the pope agrees that evolution is correct and encourages people to understand and accept it:

"In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." -Pope John Paul II

"Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth." -Pope Benedict XVI


edit on 12-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

To each their own I would say. I do have a question for you though. You seem very devout in your religion and your belief in creation by God as proposed in the bible. So are you a Bible "Literalist" on all stories? Or is Creation the only story you take at it's word? As an example, do you believe in the story of the Tower of Babel? That all people gathered in one city to build a tower to the heavens and God scattered them and made them all speak different languages? Do you believe people lived over 400 years?

I am just wondering where your literal belief limits are and where science or folklore have to take over.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm genuinely curious; as you don't believe the Theory of Evolution is scientifically accurate exactly what is your own personal take on things?

Same question is directed towards the OP as well.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
The Emperor Penguin could never have evolved in the frigid and desolate Antarctica without dying before evolving... How could Emperor Penguins “evolve” to breed at the beginning of winter, totally different timing? The answer is that they didn’t, evolution is not a plausible explanation. How could they evolve such bones?


i had to chuckle when i read this childish, ill informed argument.. especially this next bit..


Here’s another fact extremely hard to explain by evolution."Eventually, the female returns across the sea ice. This usually coincides with the hatching of the chick. Sometimes the chick will hatch before the female returns. If this happens, it will be fed with a secretion of protein and fat produced by the male from its esophagus, a sort of penguin 'milk'".[3]

Milk produced by the male of the species!!!


you are providing quotes from opinion pieces written by uneducated, immature evolution detractors grasping at straws.

what do you actually know about penguin evolution?


Penguins are very interesting birds, and the have a long history behind them that is more than 60 million years old. They are believed to be decedents of early birds that roamed the Earth. Over the course of time they adapted to their new environment and spent more time in the water than on land. The theories about penguin evolution are the result of careful research. The remains that have been located tell us quite a story of what took place then that shaped penguins that we see today.

It is believed that the penguins are derived from a type of bird that is able to fly. Yet they needed to be able to adapt to the waters if they were going to be able to survive. As a result their wings changed over time to what we call flippers. They were no longer able to fly but they didn’t need to. Instead they were able to feed from the water and they were also able to walk upright on land.

It is through such changes that they were able to adapt to the environment that they were in. Some were in very cold regions while others were where it was warmer. Regardless, the penguin species were able to take their environment and use it to their own benefit. This was necessary for them to survive. It is believed that the layers of fat that many species of penguins have is due to evolution. They may have been forced to remain in locations where there was cold and ice. In the past such birds may have migrated to warmer areas during such times of the year. However, with changes to their environment they may have felt the need to stay where they were. Being able to survive such cold would only be possible with additional layers of insulation.

It is believed that the evolution of being flightless occurred very slowly. As their bodies needed the flippers to be able to swim well, the joints formed differently and fused the wrist to the elbow. While this formation does help in the water, it isn’t one that will allow a penguin to fly. It is believed that such evolution though is definitely a huge part of what allowed these types of birds to survive instead of to become extinct.

Some feel that the changes have been so dramatic that penguins shouldn’t be classified as birds. The fact that they can’t fly isn’t enough for them to be given their own category or moved into another one. Not everyone is convinced of the information out there relating to penguin evolution. Yet the science that is behind plenty of it is quite credible.
There is still plenty more to be learned about penguin evolution. Scientists continue to search for answers and to find new clues. This way they can offer information that is very credible. DNA testing from early bird remains is a very strong indicator that this scenario of penguin evolution is exactly what took place. Such evidence also indicates that there once were at least 40 more species of penguins. Yet they weren’t able to survive due to their environment or a lack of evolutionary adaptation on their part.

There are plenty of scientific articles and even books that detail what has been learned in regards to penguin evolution. That topic is one that is very interesting so make sure you explore such materials if you are interested in learning more. There are plenty of these resources online, in bookstores, and even at your local library.


That little article came from www.penguins-world.com.... Notice that nowhere in the article is it claimed God did not create penguins. Nowhere did it refer to the ongoing plot to undermine and destroy christianity. You claim there is a conspiracy, that evolution is just a mind controlling tool of a "Darwinist" agenda.

Research, research, research. Where is your research? Where is your SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT?

You're welcome to be ignorant of scientific method and believe in wild conspiracy theories, that is your choice and noone is going to take that freedom away from you. Just don't come here and expect to be taken seriously when you tell us, who have taken the time to investigate the subject and understand the science, that it is a lie.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." -Marcello Truzzi
edit on 12-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Ya know...honestly I am a bit baffled as to why this argument even matters. So what if we were created? What does that mean? Is this the hinge that the world is hanging by to see of the rest of the Bible is right?

So what if we evolved? Is that the hinge the rest of the world is waiting on to prove the Bible is just a book of folklore passed down from generation to generation?

Who cares? If Creation were PROVEN I would still not believe in God or Christianity. Religion is a farce in general in my opinion. There are too many of them in the world for one to be correct. To believe yours IS correct and others are not is as silly as saying creation is correct and evolution is not. Micro-evolution, as creationists like to call it, happens. If that happens then why is macro-evolution over a long period of time so hard to conceive? Is it that the bible says the earth is younger than science says it is and therefore evolution could not have occurred in that amount of time?

I personally don't believe in magic. I have never seen nor heard of anyone that can actually perform magic without being illusion, except for stories in religious texts. Magic simply does not exist, yet religion tells us we should believe in the magic that is taught in the religious texts and all other magic is trickery? WTF?

I have always hated it when religious folk pick and choose what they believe was real in the bible and what was just a story to learn from......just funny to me. If you believe then you should believe it all.....why wouldn't you?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Ya know...honestly I am a bit baffled as to why this argument even matters.


Well that's certainly my take on things.

Being agnostic I think far too much time is spent on matters religious.
The question of 'God's' existence is unprovable - either way.
Both Theists and Atheists rely on blind faith, something I personally put absolutely no store in.

I don't need no man written book allegedly detailing how 'God' deems I should live my life.
I live by a moral code I set myself.
I don't need any 'god' to tell me its wrong to kill someone.
I don't need any 'god' to tell me its wrong to steal.

I try my best to live by my moral code and not to harm anyone who hasn't done me harm.
Of course I fail at times, all too frequently if the truth is to be told.

If there is to be some final day of reckoning I don't for one minute think any omniscient, omnipotent being would give a toss about whether I've followed or believed in any man written dogmatic creed.
And if he does then I personally think 'he' must be remarkably petty and vindictive.

I think the quest for knowledge is admirable and desirable.
But it shouldn't be constrained by dogma.

Yet those who do have faith in a supreme being should not be denied the opportunity to express and debate their beliefs.




top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join