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.

 

just let them believe in creationism

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


Agreed.

In fact, reviewing the idea, religion actually degrades the value of life and humanity.




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   


It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
www.trueorigin.org...



How much evidence exists for this view of life’s origin?” When Darwinists discuss “missing links” they often imply that relatively few links are missing in what is a rather complete chain which connects the putative chemical precursors of life that is theorized to have existed an estimated 3.5 billion years ago to all life forms existing today. Standen noted a half century ago that the term “missing link” is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing that it is not evident whether there was ever a chain (Standen, 1950, p. 106). This assertion now has been well documented by many creationists and others (see Bergman, 1998; Gish, 1995; Lubenow, 1994, 1992; Rodabaugh, 1976; and Moore, 1976).


Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical evolutionary chain (Shapiro, 1986). The first links— actually the first hundreds of thousands or more links that are required to produce life—still are missing (Behe, 1996, pp. 154–156)! Horgan concluded that if he were a creationist today he would focus on the origin of life because this

...is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (1996, p. 138).


This is the problem with inorganic to organic evolution.
There are so many missing links that the conclusion is that there never really ever was a chain.
So please explain how inorganic matter begets organic matter.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
My question is How can inorganic matter create organic living matter?
To continue to contend and pretend that it can is a tremendous leap of faith that is unsupported by science, math, biology, and other disciplines of study that render that line of thought delusional.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
My question is How can inorganic matter create organic living matter?
To continue to contend and pretend that it can is a tremendous leap of faith that is unsupported by science, math, biology, and other disciplines of study that render that line of thought delusional.


Unlike you religious types, we scientific types aren't claiming we have the whole, absolute, unchanging, intangible truth. We are just fact-mongers.

Thus, the further time goes on, the more advanced and informed science gets, whereas theology just stagnates and becomes less and less likely-an-answer.

Therefore:

WE DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW.

The difference between us is that we have the balls to say we don't know, whereas you're insistant that you are certain it was "God" even though you clearly don't know either.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
As long as the theories of organic life springing up from inorganic matter are both statistically and scientifically impossible, beyond the shadow of a doubt, because it appears the more science learns and knows the more it is being subducted into the position that there must be a "Creator" responsible for the event between inorganic and organic states of matter. So to show some intelligence and admit the evolution model is eventually going to have to merge with the universal truth that there is a creator.
And please spare me from the "aliens planted human seed here aeons ago."
As referenced in my previous post, the current state of "evolutionary science" is a circus for a science fiction writer. He could come up with some science fiction story which would seemingly become the most believable explaination of this impossible bridge between the two states of matter. Of course from your perspective "anything" to believe is better than the TRUTH, is it not?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
As long as the theories of organic life springing up from inorganic matter are both statistically and scientifically impossible, beyond the shadow of a doubt,


Not when you are talking in the type of time frame we are - 600 million years of a dead, blank earth before the first stirrings of life appeared.


Originally posted by fmcanarneybecause it appears the more science learns and knows the more it is being subducted into the position that there must be a "Creator" responsible for the event between inorganic and organic states of matter.


Erm, perhaps that is what you believe, but that's not the position of most scientists. You can't possibly think this is a solid, proven argument, as it is purely speculation on your part.


Originally posted by fmcanarneySo to show some intelligence and admit the evolution model is eventually going to have to merge with the universal truth that there is a creator.


How is submitting to religion "showing some intelligence"? And as for your laughably assertive statement: no, it never will, as it is not abiogenesis, it is evolution. The two are not the same, and neither one will ever accept a "creator god", frankly.




Originally posted by fmcanarneyAnd please spare me from the "aliens planted human seed here aeons ago."


I have never asserted that. Ever. As I do not believe that is what happened.

Even if I did, it isn't an answer. Just like the "it was a Creator" argument - even if you could prove "it" existed, you've still just given me the "it was aliens!" argument - how did the Creator come into existence? And it goes on...



Originally posted by fmcanarneyAs referenced in my previous post, the current state of "evolutionary science" is a circus for a science fiction writer. He could come up with some science fiction story which would seemingly become the most believable explaination of this impossible bridge between the two states of matter. Of course from your perspective "anything" to believe is better than the TRUTH, is it not?


Look, you do not have the "TRUTH". You have the myths and astrological knowledge of ancient Mesopotamia, rehashed and edited down the millennia until now. All written by men, I'm afraid.

The evidence is completely clear about what has happened. It doesn't disprove God, but us science-types are just being a bit more grown-up about it, rather than believing in fairytales from the past. Hell, as a species, haven't we learnt a bit more than these people? After all, we know there isn't water above the firmament, we know the Earth is more than 6000/12,000 years old...and it goes on. The list of errors is simply staggering.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
As long as the theories of organic life springing up from inorganic matter are both statistically and scientifically impossible, beyond the shadow of a doubt, because it appears the more science learns and knows the more it is being subducted into the position that there must be a "Creator" responsible for the event between inorganic and organic states of matter.


Actually, quite the opposite is true. The more we learn about science, the less likely a deity becomes. People who read the Bible and believed the Earth was flat. Guess what? It's round. People who read the Bible and believed the Earth was 6,000 years old. Guess what? It's much older. People who read the Bible and think the Earth was formed in 7 days. Guess what? The more we learn about our origines, the more we discover that it was a process that developed over millions of years. Science is becoming more and more distant from the Bible, not closer.



Originally posted by fmcanarney
And please spare me from the "aliens planted human seed here aeons ago."


Isn't that a rehash of your belief? God could be called an alien by us humans as he is not a human. And he planted us here according to you. However, when you take those blinders off, you're able to see how silly that sounds. Just as the idea of God planting us here 6000 years ago is silly.



Originally posted by fmcanarney
As referenced in my previous post, the current state of "evolutionary science" is a circus for a science fiction writer. He could come up with some science fiction story which would seemingly become the most believable explaination of this impossible bridge between the two states of matter.


This tells me you have no idea what evolution is. This tells me that the only articles you have read about evolution have been by creationists. We already know that life forms adapt (Tanning, exercise, sight to the blind, etc), so why is it hard to believe that life forms adapt over a long period of time? You would rather say that God zapped us here, yet even with this 'solution' of yours, you create more questions than answers. If it is so impossible for us to have come into existence on our own, then how much more impossible for a being who is infinitely more complex than us?


Originally posted by fmcanarney
Of course from your perspective "anything" to believe is better than the TRUTH, is it not?


I believe this is your stance, not an atheists. An atheist has nothing to lose by admitting that we don't know the answers. You, however, have everything to lose by admitting you don't have the answers, which is why you will never do it. God is your pacifier, and you are still a baby compared to most who use logic, and not blind speculation, as a focal point for their beliefs.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Atheists are usually very intelligent people, their largest problem is an inability to admit there is an intelligence greater than themselves.
Add to that narcissistic tendencies and they end up worshiping the reflection of the creator, in their limited understanding of him, in what he has created.
It requires a greater amount of faith in a multitude of intangibles and slippery postulations to carry the torch for evolution than it does for creation. One day your faith will be placed in its rightful recipient and you will achieve a level of spiritual insight and understanding that you only dream about at this moment.
So keep your strong faith in evolution, bolster it with the guesses and suppositions offered you by its scientists and magicians. The theories will turn to dust and ashes in their hands. In due time.
One of the main reasons evolutionists like to engage creationists in discussion and dialogue is in their soul they yearn deeply to be proven wrong. One day that will occur, hopefully in the here and not the hereafter.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Atheists are usually very intelligent people, their largest problem is an inability to admit there is an intelligence greater than themselves.


Christians can be intelligent people. Their largest problem is that they assume things and call them fact when they are not. The difference between you and me is that you would state with 100% certainty that God exists. I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure that evolution is true. I'm simply saying that it's the most likely scenario. I'm probably about 99.9% sure at the time. One thing I AM sure about is that God doesn't exist, at the very least as written in the Bible, as the idea of that particular God is extremely contradictory even ignoring the contradictions of the Bible.


Originally posted by fmcanarney
Add to that narcissistic tendencies and they end up worshiping the reflection of the creator, in their limited understanding of him, in what he has created.
It requires a greater amount of faith in a multitude of intangibles and slippery postulations to carry the torch for evolution than it does for creation. One day your faith will be placed in its rightful recipient and you will achieve a level of spiritual insight and understanding that you only dream about at this moment.


Again, more assumptions based on belief and not fact.


Originally posted by fmcanarney
So keep your strong faith in evolution, bolster it with the guesses and suppositions offered you by its scientists and magicians. The theories will turn to dust and ashes in their hands. In due time.


It's not faith. It's a logical conclusion. Do you have a logical counter argument that hasn't been covered by evolutionists? If so, bring it to the table and if it's good then I will reassess my belief.


Originally posted by fmcanarney
One of the main reasons evolutionists like to engage creationists in discussion and dialogue is in their soul they yearn deeply to be proven wrong. One day that will occur, hopefully in the here and not the hereafter.


More assumptions. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster will boil you in a variation of sauces as punishment for your disbelief in him. It doesn't make it true.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Both evolutionists and creationists are plagued with an overwhelming drive to "know" for certain.
What is the meaning of life and why am I here.
How did I come to BE?
What is the purpose of my existence?

Your theory is not providing you with that resolution that my theory is providing me.

The difference is in the knowing.

Like this: A dog knows that he is hungry.
A monkey knows he is hurt.

I on the other hand I KNOW that I know that I am hungry.
And I KNOW that I know I am hurt.

A proverb to this effect:
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not:
he is a fool - shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not:
he is simple - teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows:
he is asleep - wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows:
he is wise - follow him.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Both evolutionists and creationists are plagued with an overwhelming drive to "know" for certain.
What is the meaning of life and why am I here.
How did I come to BE?
What is the purpose of my existence?

Your theory is not providing you with that resolution that my theory is providing me.

The difference is in the knowing.


You think you know, and in that regard, religion has a purpose. One of the hardest things for a human to do is to admit he/she doesn't know for certain. It is hard, given the ego of humans, but it also opens the door to knowledge. My pride does not blind me like many people. If I am wrong about something, and someone else shows me I am wrong, then I let go of my previous belief and adopt the correct one. Most people enter a state of denial. Because of this, those that claim not to know but are dedicated to the truth will eventually grasp it once it becomes visible. People like you who hold so tightly to your belief will not let it go, and when future discoveries are made (like evolution), you will chalk them up to hogwash as well, even though much smarter men than you and I have done the research and have evidence to back it up. You will not look at the evidence, but rather, you will look to continue your belief. That is your purpose. Not to learn, but to continue the status quo. My purpose is to grow and evolve.


Originally posted by fmcanarney
A proverb to this effect:
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not:
he is a fool - shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not:
he is simple - teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows:
he is asleep - wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows:
he is wise - follow him.


You are described in the first line. Because you think you know but you do not. You are willing to shun evidence in order to continue your beliefs. I am willing to shun my beliefs if there is compelling evidence.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Not all answers are the same. Just because the one you hear voiced most loudly - "God did it" - appears to answer everything doesn't mean it does so. How do you know God did it? Is there any evidence? Nope. Now Evolution has a metric assload of evidence supporting it, from the fossils we've found to DNA, to observed speciation in laboratories, etc.

You clearly don't want to believe in evolution for reasons other than it has no support or is illogical - as it is neither.

Maybe you just don't understand it?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I would like to see the evidence of all the missing links between the families. I would love to see the brilliant scientists change inorganic matter into organic matter in the laboratory. I would also propose that a lot of the investigation into evolution is done at taxpayers expense. I am not irrational, stupid, and have looked into evolution versus creation. Religion has been around centuries longer than science. To think that science in its relative infantcy has better or more reasonable explainations of life on earth does not compute to me.

Can you show me the thousands of links between the states of matter, can a scientist reproduce them in a lab.

Until then I remain steadfast in my insistence that creation holds all the cards. Calling me ignorant, illogical, backward, retarded, dumb, fearful, or other derogatory words does more for disproving evolution that otherwise.
The dumb, ignorant uneducated people of the centuries of the dark ages, and even up to the 1920's, had a more superb evolutionary development of language that I have seen demonstrated by some of the pro-evolution posters. What happened to the evolution in your particular case, because I would surmise that some of your ancestors were among the bright intelligent persons of yester-century.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Try asking s creationist what the next mutation will be. The best that (s)he can hope for is random, unless they are in need of psychiatric medication. Try science's model for future events, they are also random. Try science needing to be able to predict, it's random, for both sides. Try telling creationists that the previous mutations were random, but try them allowing scientists to model it as such. Mutations are random to science, but are an article of faith to believers. Is this even worth a fight? I would abort up to 24 weeks by the way.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
I would like to see the evidence of all the missing links between the families. I would love to see the brilliant scientists change inorganic matter into organic matter in the laboratory.


I would like to see your God create a planet.
I would like to see your God create a life form from the dust of the Earth.
Actually, I would just like to see your God, or any sign from him. Anything that let's us know he's there.
Yah...
Why is it that you require evidence for everything that ISN'T your religion?
Yet when it comes to God, you require none.


Originally posted by fmcanarney
Religion has been around centuries longer than science. To think that science in its relative infantcy has better or more reasonable explainations of life on earth does not compute to me.


You're comparing the beliefs of those that had no understanding of the Universe to those that have a far greater understanding of the Universe. Just because the mythology of Zeus has been around for ages, does that make it more ligitimate than Christianity? Again, you use supposed logic to support God, yet throw logic out the window when it doesn't support God. This has all the ear markings of blind faith my friend.


Originally posted by fmcanarney
Can you show me the thousands of links between the states of matter, can a scientist reproduce them in a lab.


The difference between science and religion is that science is always growing. We have a greater understanding of things the more we learn. There is evidence out there, but you aren't really interested in that are you? All that researching and reading of evidence sounds rather boring doesn't it? Trying to understand the nature of things, well that's just crazy talk. What you are really looking for is not evidence for evolution, but a lack of evidence which you somehow believe would then point to God as the only other option. In short, you don't want to look at the evidence that exists, you simply want to point out the evidence that does not yet exist. Go ahead, no one's going to stop you. Just know that you can't come on a forum with intelligent people that DO know what they are talking about, and hope to change their mind.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The core or essence of a human is spirit, it is the vital function of life.
From this core all available energy to that person radiates.
Spirit is life. Spirit is vital. Prove that spirit exists? Science has not advanced enough to create instruments that see and detect a persons spirit. Will science evolve to that level of perception some day, perhaps yes. This spirit is the vital energy of a human in that it transcends the physical being and exists in union with it yet apart from it.
Use caution how this energy is spent and directed by the will. The will is the layer of being that immediately surrounding the spirit and chooses how that energy will be directed and spent. Emotions and feelings layer surrounds the will or volitional aspect of a human. Feelings require consumption of energy and a feeling or emotion is relative pure energy and is born with no reason than to be expressed. Should this emotion be born and not expressed it will dictate future thoughts and actions. Oftentimes much to the consternation of the person. So simply put, emotion is the grandfather of action or feelings dictate behavior. With as much emotion and feeling that you espouse in your thoughts you mistake them to be pure reason but they are not. They are resentments that dictate your thoughts and actions. They are disguising themselves to you as rational and reasonable but in your shallowness you do not identify the resentment and grudge, underlying these thoughts and actions of yours.
The new religion is evolution as it disconnects the person from an external accountability. It deludes them into believing that humans will evolve to create a perfect world. But remember that basic human nature is evil.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
The core or essence of a human is spirit, it is the vital function of life.
From this core all available energy to that person radiates.
Spirit is life. Spirit is vital. Prove that spirit exists? Science has not advanced enough to create instruments that see and detect a persons spirit.


But it has advanced enough to allow us to see subatomic particles, detect that light itself is actually made up of particles and that particles themselves are actually waves of energy...but we can't detect the "spirit".

Could it be because there is simply nothing there to detect?

See, what you are doing is passing off completely natural processes as the "spirit" - the function of the brain, the beating of the heart, etc. All these are readily explained, and yet you ascribe some mystical "spirit" to explain them instead. Why is this? Why can't you accept the evidence of your (or someone else's) research and empirical testing? Why even bother with faith - it is not necessary!



Originally posted by fmcanarneyWill science evolve to that level of perception some day, perhaps yes.


It will evolve pretty impressively, I'm sure, but it will never find or quantify something that isn't there.


Originally posted by fmcanarneyThis spirit is the vital energy of a human in that it transcends the physical being and exists in union with it yet apart from it.


Another assertion made with zero proof. Here's my assertion: No, it isn't. I won't even go to the trouble of finding proof, I can just say it and instantly it becomes as valid as your own as they are based on exactly the same thing: nothing.

The only difference is, I have science on my side.


Originally posted by fmcanarneyUse caution how this energy is spent and directed by the will. The will is the layer of being that immediately surrounding the spirit and chooses how that energy will be directed and spent.


If you mean "the things you do affect other people" then I completely agree. IF you think there is some mystic rubbish that affects us all, then I completely disagree.


Originally posted by fmcanarneyEmotions and feelings layer surrounds the will or volitional aspect of a human. Feelings require consumption of energy and a feeling or emotion is relative pure energy and is born with no reason than to be expressed. Should this emotion be born and not expressed it will dictate future thoughts and actions. Oftentimes much to the consternation of the person.


This is true, but obvious. Nothing mystic about the chemical balance of your brain.



Originally posted by fmcanarneySo simply put, emotion is the grandfather of action or feelings dictate behavior. With as much emotion and feeling that you espouse in your thoughts you mistake them to be pure reason but they are not. They are resentments that dictate your thoughts and actions.


Your emotions might direct your immediate thoughts and actions, but I'm lucky as I can filter mine through my rational, concious mind. Thus, when I get the urge to stab a creationist in the face with an ice pick, I rarely ever do it because my rational mind stops me.



Originally posted by fmcanarneyThey are disguising themselves to you as rational and reasonable but in your shallowness you do not identify the resentment and grudge, underlying these thoughts and actions of yours.


What exactly is your point here? I completed have a grudge, and resentment, against religion. For too long it has held mankind down, like a cruel parent preventing their child from learning to walk, and just as we are freeing ourselves from it and really learning to sprint, you come along and try to pin us down again because we are in new worlds now and it scares you.


Originally posted by fmcanarneyThe new religion is evolution


Perhaps you mean "people are becoming irreligious because of evolution", because, and this is an old argument, evolution is not, in any way, a religion. It doesn't permit faith, and religion exists on nothing else.



Originally posted by fmcanarneyas it disconnects the person from an external accountability.


W-w-w-whaaat? It disconnects a person from external accountability, you say? Not at all like saying "it's God's will"/"part of God's ineffable plan" etc?

If anything, evolution demands you take entire responsiblity for your actions because it implies that the only life is here and now, and that there is nothing else, no greater motivating force, so the only ONLY thing that is important is what we do in this life.

Just because it isn't threatening you with eternal punishment doesn't mean you are suddenly off the hook - human morality still makes it's own demands, and they are a product of evolution in a social group.



Originally posted by fmcanarneyIt deludes them into believing that humans will evolve to create a perfect world. But remember that basic human nature is evil.


Ever heard the phrase "we often accuse in others what is worst about ourselves"?

Nothing in evolutionary theory makes reference to a utopia. Everything in religious scripture, however, does. A perfect one, that lasts forever and ever and everyone gets to go to as long as they just simply accept the #ing religion. If you can't see how this is an ancient fairytale, I don't think there's any hope for you.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
A + millions of years = B

Is that the best you guys can come up with?


You have animal A. Millions of years later it produces animal B, C and D. You have fossils of A, B, C and D, but due to the fact that fossil-forming is not a simple process (and predators only eat transitional forms) you have not found fossils of A1 through A2000 which is necessary for A to evolve to B, C and D.

Evolutionist: How did it all come about? The Bible and Christianity is a load of hockadoody so that certainly can't be it, but what are the alternatives. Evolution is the only alternative? Then Evolution is the answer! I will fight to protect my god Evolution because the only other alternative is creation and that is just a load of hockadoody! I don't care that there's only 5% of proof for evolution. Us scientists just have to scratch at it for long enough (millions of millions of years) and we'll get the other 95%.

What is more preposterous?
A. Take organism A, add millions of years and you will get organism B, never mind that we have proof of A and B, but ZERO proof of what happened in those millions of years. This is not just for A and B but at least thousands of other organisms.
B. An entity of some sort brought it into existence.

There's also:
C. We don't know how it all came about, we will never know and does it really matter?

EDIT: Oops! My millions of years somehow disappeared from my formula so I put it back in.


[edit on 12-9-2008 by Lannock]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
The core or essence of a human is spirit, it is the vital function of life.
From this core all available energy to that person radiates.
Spirit is life. Spirit is vital. Prove that spirit exists? Science has not advanced enough to create instruments that see and detect a persons spirit. Will science evolve to that level of perception some day, perhaps yes.


You just proved my point for me. As I said, you require evidence from evolution, yet you believe in the spirit and say that science is not advanced enough to know about it. How convenient.


Originally posted by fmcanarney
This spirit is the vital energy of a human in that it transcends the physical being and exists in union with it yet apart from it.
Use caution how this energy is spent and directed by the will. The will is the layer of being that immediately surrounding the spirit and chooses how that energy will be directed and spent. Emotions and feelings layer surrounds the will or volitional aspect of a human. Feelings require consumption of energy and a feeling or emotion is relative pure energy and is born with no reason than to be expressed. Should this emotion be born and not expressed it will dictate future thoughts and actions. Oftentimes much to the consternation of the person. So simply put, emotion is the grandfather of action or feelings dictate behavior.


More assumptions. Yawn...


Originally posted by fmcanarney
With as much emotion and feeling that you espouse in your thoughts you mistake them to be pure reason but they are not. They are resentments that dictate your thoughts and actions. They are disguising themselves to you as rational and reasonable but in your shallowness you do not identify the resentment and grudge, underlying these thoughts and actions of yours.


Ok, first of all, if my logic is flawed then argue against it with logic and not assumption. Not only do you assume when it comes to your beliefs, but you also assume when it comes to how my mind works, which I guarantee is more complex than what you could write in a few sentences.

Also, you call ME shallow?
You said that you must have concrete scientific evidence for evolution before you believe.
After that, you state that the spirit exists, but that it can't be confirmed by science.
You are very inconsistent. I know that my logic is not flawed, because I am consistent with it.



Originally posted by fmcanarney
But remember that basic human nature is evil.


Basic human nature is selfish. Not good. Not evil. Good and evil are words invented by humans in an attempt to understand the human psyche.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock
I don't care that there's only 5% of proof for evolution.


First: Can you tell me where you got 5%?
Second: 5% is better than 0% (creationism)
Third: You fail to mention that whatever the percent is, it's constantly growing.

Nice try though, you may have convinced some of the weak minded.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join