Originally posted by silQ

y the hell would god need all this? if he was "divine" he could just do it with the snap of his fingers.

Well, if he had sound recognition on the thingy which made him divine, his computer, it might have happened by a snap. Or if he had voice recognition, he might simply say: "Let's make humans in our own likeness!" or "Light On" or similar. Or maybe he had a mouse. Would the click of a mouse be divine enough for you?

im not talking about fossils. i'm talking about the real experiments done by real scientists. such as those little salamanders for example.

But without a source to those statements your entire proofing turns to ashes. Come with some referances. You claim to have observed something which noone else has witnessed. Comeon! Your story sounds like alot of fun!

those guys were soooo cute. and it's pretty hypocritical for u to tell me not to regurgitate what i've learned in school when ur regurgitating something that u've learned by an uneducated, ignorant priest and a 1000 year old book that was written by humans and passed on for generations which probably caused the stories in that book to change many times making it invalid as a source of truth.

Firstly. I have not learned what I have learned from uneducated people. You, however seem to be dancing steps I have never seen before, have you been taught by the Old Master? For instance. The Bible is quite alot older than 1000 years. Besides, believe it or not, the OT part of the Bible is very well preserved as of accuracy due to historical evolution. Archaeological evidence shows that the Old Testament (the part we are talking about here) has stayed just about unedited through 3000 years.

o ho! who's rude and stupid now, bitch!

Yes [piiiip!] (a censored word. prolly having to do with how someone's head for instance may resemble, let's say, some extremities on the female body), just look at me, read my lips: Evolve!

geologically speaking we are actually still in an ongoing ice age. Mind you.

WTF?!!?!!? the global temperature is rising, ice caps are melting, and unless u see some glaciers in ur backyard i'd believe u.

Hehe, yes, I guess. But ask someone who is actually educated within the fields you are discussing and you will find pretty soon that, yes, we are currently living in an ice age. Things like icecaps by the poles indicate this, [Piiiip!](The Censorion: Some times people in the 20th and 21st centuries feels need for calling people stuff, like for instance "You Hormon!" or "take this you Wingeling Puppeteer!" or similar. This is concidered rude behaviour, and any such things can be reported as bad internet behaviour, the I felt a strong need to edit this).

this has actually been a proven fact (Macro evolution. giraffe comment). it works with mice, rats, bacteria, viruses, and yes....bugs.

Interresting. Can you give a couple of referances to such radical research. It would change whole fields of science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
creationism on the other hand would claim that a false god created the new salamanders. pffft.....BULL #!
DENY IGNORANCE, BITCH!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that above would be what I was refering to a couple of incher upwards. See you!

if you can read this, i'm still here!

Maybe because myself refused to join the banning campaign which is currently happening behind you. My estimates say that you have probably about a dozen complaints waiting to be processed right now. What if I changed my mind? That would be a dozen+1 hey: 13. What cool! My lucky number. Get lost, [Piiiiip!] (The famoose last word pip, often styled as a sarcastic remark connected to the very position of the pip itself, being last, not being accepted etc.).

This Post has been read and edited to better fit the netiqette of this particular place.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
BEHAVE!
If you can't debate without insults, this thread will be removed.

All agreed. I take back that I called the guy a [piiip!], a [piiip!] who's both [piiiip!]and [piiip!]. It won't happen again. I'll behave.

Edited by sensorion

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]

For those interested, there seems to be some confusion about the word 'theory'. When related to science, the meaning of the word is somewhat different to when you use it regularly.

Most of the time when we have a 'theory' of our own, it is actually technically a hypothesis. A theory only becomes a scientific theory after extensive testing and checking. Don't be fooled by the name, theory is basically the strongest form of scientific 'status' for an idea.

The Theory of Evolution is tested and has held up under massive scientific study. More intense study than most due to the large push from creationist types wanting it to fail.

Don't confuse Abiogenesis (the origins of life) with Evolution. Don't make the mistake of thinking Creation is a legitimate theory for how we came about. Creation is a non-testable hypothesis. Scientifically, evolution stands on its own with no serious competing explanations. Much the same as with theories relating to Gravity, or Electricity.

Religion is based on belief. Creation is a belief, it is not meant to be tested or analysed by Science. The very reason for religion is belief. Creation can never be backed up by science, if you wish to bring Science into an Evolution/Creation debate, there will always only be one solution. But that is not what Religion is about. I suggest the people who need to try and justify their Beliefs have a deeper problem with their faith. Something that subjective pseudoscience can not solve.

Originally posted by Kano
Don't make the mistake of thinking Creation is a legitimate theory for how we came about. Creation is a non-testable hypothesis.

So when did The idea that someone most like ourselves once came from the stars, seeded this ecosystem and this colony, created whatever is there, even keeping it as Paradise for a while. Using scienific methods discribed thousands of years ago, which we are only first now able to start looking into. Things like creating athmosphere on Mars will soon be a subject in these boards. The idea of creating water on Mars, and use it as a testing ground for new species, created by us, just like these star travellers were supposed to have done thousands of years ago. What is so non-testable with this? Give me the technology I need, and off we go.

Originally posted by silQ
o! so it's easy? just chip of a piece of the mountain, take one step, and place it on the ground. there! u just moved the mountain!

Now I understand your reasoning better.

and hey! it's easier to sneeze and move the earth out of its orbit than to prove creationism too.

No, it would be incredibly easy to disprove. You're inside an athmosphere. Not even an atomic explotion would have an impact on the orbital course of this planet.

besides....creationism is created only by 1 religion: christianity.

Plus, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, all the old Mesopotamian religions, Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian for instance, most African Religions, Norse, the and probably the Maya, Azteks and the different Aborigine tribes, I know the North American tribes knew about the Creator too, every religion together with the rest of the religions, they all believe in a Creator. Infact the idea of a creator god who is above all and below all, who is everywhere, is one of the oldest pieces of written knowledge that exists. It's the whole idea of the Whole, the Universe, everything which is and Everyone, intellect, capacity, intelligence, humans can in theory end up conquering the whole galaxy, maybe the whole universe, our minds are quite powerful, and we are good mechanics and teachers too: "God Made All This! This Universe Was Once Like A Grain Of Sand In The Hands Of The Creator!!!" Well done. Now you're making me start writing like the Black Death too. Thank you!

therefore, ur advocating this religion and "subtly" saying that this religion is superior to others. according to that site invaderzoch posted, it said evolution is racists and used to promote ethnic cleansing
well isn't that what christianity is trying to do by sending missionaries all over the world?

Yes, ok, so if I understand you correctly it is now ok for me to give you the blame for whatever man has done in the name of science, is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by browha

Originally posted by flyby
ow does the mississippi river have ANYTHING to do with evolution?
...
Evolution is, by common sense, true.
Background radiation etc affect/ionize our DNA which causes mutation in our genes which in turn affect our body. Then survival of the fittest comes into play, if you have a better mutation than someone else, you'll survive. If you have a bad mutation, you'll die
However, you have to consider how many mutations we've lost just because the animal died of an illness, or being hunted or something. But, in terms of laws of probability, survival of the fittest does apply. And this is how evolution occurs. It is not some crazy-azz theory, it's just completely logical once you think about it. It's completely natural, if it wasnt for radiation then there would be no evolution (well, not true, there are other things, such as dodgy sperm/eggs/etc)

Compleetly logical, once you use curuclar thinking:
The

I think therefore I am, and since I am, I must think; If I stop thinking, I will stopp existing, therfore, since ther are times of the day that I do not think, I must not exist at that point

syndrome.
Look, Carbon dating has not been used on EVERYTHING OUT THERE BEING COMPILED. They have this thing where they check for specific fossils used to tagg the layer they came from as certain ages, then they use the date for that layer to state the approximate age of that certain fossil that they cannot place. Let's put it in layman's terms: We use the SPECIAL fossil to date the layer, then use the layer to date the fossils. CIRCULAR THINKING! To make matters worse, those special fossils ar supposed to have lived and died ONLY IN THAT LAYER to be accurate testers of that time! Yet I know of at least one of those layer testers to be still living--it's that blasted fish that's very sturgon like that they found in "waterin' holes" in Nebraska--ALIVE . That means it has the chance of being found in every rock layer between the one it is used to date the layer and NOW, giving it the chance of confusing layers from here to, oh, let's say--THE JURRASIC LAYER. Now, this is certainly NOT THE ONLY SUPPOSEDLY EXTINCT ANIMAL STILL FOUND ALIVE, so we cannot be sure that ANY OF THOSE USED IN THE CIRCULAR THINKING ARE RIGHT BY ANY MEANS. (YET ANOTER LIE FOUND IN GEOLOGY BOOKS AT NICHOLLS , during the 2002 school year!

For Evolution to happen, it takes MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years. One thing that Evolutionists use to support that claim is to point out natural structures and say SSSSEEEEEEE HOW OLD IT ISSSS? Some textbooks use the GRAND CANYON'S AGE as further evidence that the earth is old.
Most creationists say that the earth is around 7,000 years old, and so couldn't have supported the EVOLUTION THINGY.

The gradient of the Coloraod River does move downwards, but the mountaous region above it becomes more elevated than the source. If this is so, since it is the nature of water to be affected by gravity, the OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS they say it takes to carve a riverbed would have gone towards the MISSISSIPPI LONG BEFORE IT WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGH TO CUT THROUGH THE ROCKIES. Since this cannot be, but seems so, we need to look at another "logical" explanation. Another explanation is that a cataclysmic even created it, virtually overnight in the space of time and two come to mind, an earth covering-flood or a comet.

Now, since this is SO UNLIKLY TO EVER SUPPORT THE MILLIONS OF YEARS, how many of the other things that they use to test the age of the earth are WRONG?

Hell, if any one of the sections that believe whatever can prove beyond reasonable doubt that either is true, I'll be ALL for them.

BUT IN THE CASE OF HOW OLD THE GRAND CANYON IS, THERE IS MORE THAN REASONABLE DOUBT TO SUPPORT THAT IT IS NOT AS ANCIENT ANCIENT AS MOST TEXTBOOKS CRAM DOWN OUR THROAT.

Go look into apologetics for the creationist defense to evolution...
sigh, I don't have time for this, but I will be back...

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by jlc163]

Originally posted by Kano
Religion is based on belief. Creation is a belief, it is not meant to be tested or analysed by Science. The very reason for religion is belief. Creation can never be backed up by science, if you wish to bring Science into an Evolution/Creation debate, there will always only be one solution. But that is not what Religion is about. I suggest the people who need to try and justify their Beliefs have a deeper problem with their faith. Something that subjective pseudoscience can not solve.

Thank you for your opinion, sweetie, but that's not all there is to it, for some of us.

I don't defend evolution, as is pretty noticeable, but I don't do it because I hate being lied to with a passion , and there are people perpetuating outright lies in our school textbooks .
A. Lucy has been debunked sometime in the mid-70s, and the debunking is supported by BY THE EVOLUTIONISTS (a husband/wife team) WHO FOUND IT--who by the way converted to creationism not long after that
B. In 2001, at Nicholls State University, in the Town of Thibodaux, Louisiana, a biology book was used as the main education textbook for BIOL 105-106 HAD LUCY AS A HUMAN ANCESTOR in a BRAND NEW TEXTBOOK--is EVOLUTION SO DEFUNCT THAT THEY MUST RETELL THINGS DISPRIVEN TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE? If the theory is not reasonably faulty, then why use 20+ years defunct proof? Get more evidence in the books and quitt lying to the chiddies and chuddies

As for the specifically religous: we have more than one reason:

The New Testament is littered with verses that tell us that we are supposed to be spreading the word that God allowed himself to die to save us all. It also states, fairly often that if we don't those we don't try for's blood will be on our hands. Some of us, strong in our beliefs, will pst here, often with no heat in our voices, offering logical reasonings because a.) it's our duty, b.) we genuinely love people, c.) we're trying to serve God and don't give a flying # what anyone else thinks.

There is more than on reason than just that we are weak.

And I warn you, there are dangers to being overconfidant.

oh, hell I can't even keep that up for too long

Originally posted by jlc163


I don't defend evolution, as is pretty noticeable, but I don't do it because I hate being lied to with a passion , and there are people perpetuating outright lies in our school textbooks .

To think that God created this whole Earth for us as a proving ground to show our "holiness" and "worthiness to go to Heaven" is beyond arrogant.

We are part of the animal kingdom.

We are part of Nature.

The only thing that separates us from other life-forms on this Earth is self-awareness. Nothing else.

And that is not enough of a case to dismiss "evolution" to me.

.

Well to me God is actually outside and inside the All. He can sit from his office outside this universe and hook up to the cat beside you or even yourself. He can whenever he wants tap your mind at any time in life. He can change the coarse of time just by doing something simple as breathing or saying something. God is the one controlling creating reshaping guiding playing with Creation. He's my Hero!

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
Well to me God is actually outside and inside the All. He can sit from his office outside this universe and hook up to the cat beside you or even yourself. He can whenever he wants tap your mind at any time in life. He can change the coarse of time just by doing something simple as breathing or saying something. God is the one controlling creating reshaping guiding playing with Creation. He's my Hero!

That is an opinion. If that is what you believe, fine. More power to you.

I still have yet to see Darwin's theories shot down.

That being said, I know that theories are just theories until proven.



[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Facefirst]

if somebody doesnt believe in the fact that there is a creator is simply ignoring too much fact.

1. fact-animals have feelings.
2. fact-science depends on many things which were created by a divine being.
3. fact-the big bang theory (if you believe in such a thing happening!) supports the fact that there is a god.

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
if somebody doesnt believe in the fact that there is a creator is simply ignoring too much fact.

1. fact-animals have feelings.
2. fact-science depends on many things which were created by a divine being.
3. fact-the big bang theory (if you believe in such a thing happening!) supports the fact that there is a god.

Numbers 2 and 3 are just your opinions. Nothing more.
Give me some actual facts.

Originally posted by Facefirst
To think that God created this whole Earth for us as a proving ground to show our "holiness" and "worthiness to go to Heaven" is beyond arrogant.

And that is not enough of a case to dismiss "evolution" to me.
.

I didn't stat THROW OUT EVOLUTION FROM YOUR OWN HEAD, did I? That's not what I intended; I inteded to show a TTTTTIIIIINY bit of why I really don't like it and SPECIFICALLY DON'T want LIES SHOVED DOWN MY THROAT ON A CONTINUAL BASIS. If they WON'T take the lie out, they need to throw the whole out--20 years is too DAMN long to perpetucate debunked sections of the theory!

Oh, and to ASSUME THAT I, OR ANY CREATIONIST BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED THIS HELLHOLE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SHOWING OUR

"holiness" and "worthiness to go to Heaven" is beyond arrogant.

IS PRETTY DAMN AROGANT TOO!

Hell, if someone said that in their post, BLAST AWAY!

Scripture never states that man attains holiness through the creation. It states that creation was made perfect, then we defiled it and GOD came in to save our asses, that his rightousness was accounted to us, though we had not, to us because of a cross between our obedient fait and his own righteousness, and that we will never be worthy of heaven, it is a gift covered by Grace that we can never repay, no matter what we do...that's what the BIBLE TEACHES.

Originally posted by jlc163

Originally posted by Facefirst

Scripture never states that man attains holiness through the creation. It states that creation was made perfect, then we defiled it and GOD came in to save our asses, that his rightousness was accounted to us, though we had not, to us because of a cross between our obedient fait and his own righteousness, and that we will never be worthy of heaven, it is a gift covered by Grace that we can never repay, no matter what we do...that's what the BIBLE TEACHES.

As I have stated previously:

We are of the animal kingdon.

We are part of the Earth.

I agree that we have defiled the Earth. You will not get an argument out of me there. We have gone on to do as any species that goes unchecked does....we denude the landscape and consume beyond the EARTH'S ability to feed us...... no argument there. Please refer to the Austrailian rabbit and rodent plagues of the 20th century.

As I was taught in Roman Catholic School..... God put all of the world for "us" to rule over. Something along the lines of ruling over all the beasts and land. Please excuse my in-exactness.

Why was the concept of "sin" introduced to this "hell-hole" ??

I was taught that you had to follow certain rules and that if I didn't that I was going to burn in hell........

WHERE ELSE am I supposed to "PROVE" myself worthy of going to heaven and finding the "SALVATION" in the BIBLE you mention?

Judeo- Christian Religion......no, let me be more exact, ALL RELIGIONS are no more reliable than a horoscope or some witch-doctor's mumbo-jumbo.....

What makes the Bible more reliable than some witch doctor in the backwoods making potions? NOTHING.

The only thing I know for sure.... ..is that we are all going to die and our children are going to live on........ the strongest and most intelligent children!!!!!!!!! sounds like evolution to me!!!!!!!!