Creation or Evolution or a mix of both?

[MAX]

I'm curious to see who supports what theory... =)

Please feel free to explain your vote.

I'm personally all for Evolution.

[Miggy-AMN]

Creation.

I simply don't see the entire universe as product of "coincidence".

Also, I don't see myself as evolved from a monkey.

[MAX]

LOL... Well it's sort of hard for me to understand that mentality since I don't quite get how you can argue with science. Creationists believe that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago, yet they have no explanation for the dinosaurs or the early hominids. And the problem is you can't really argue with Creationists because they're willing to refute what science has proven and instead just trust completely in their faith--which of course has no foundation in fact and is entirely heresay.

[Boondock Saint]

evolution.
there's something that creationists will never admit to not knowing, though: we didn't evolve from monkeys, but instead ape and human evolved along the same lines, and we both split from the same subspecies. there's a direct connection between us, and it's genetic. so there's your scientific proof.

[David85]

I simply don't see the entire universe as a product of "God".

We created God, religion is a shame and this just proves it. When the Church can't think of anything to debate on their side they make up stuff and try to limit what the other side says. Sadly in this case they won.

[MAX]

How did they win? Evolution can be proved.. creation can't... god can't be proved. he will never be proven as a fact. all you have to go on is faith. science is based on facts that have been proven.

[GBA]

how in the world would we get a random bang and everything got into place???? they cant prove it. a creation must have a creator and we are a creation. the world isnt millions of years old. only a few thousand. the bible talks about dinosaurs. the reason there are no more dinosaurs is because of the flood. and the flood is what the scientists call the ice age. many nations recall a global flood in different ways. we are a creation of God. there now is some scientists that have found out that evolution is not scientific and is not correct. why arent we evolving now??? why are there monkeys now?|?? there is no way evolution could be true.

[Boondock Saint]

Originally posted by GBA
the world isnt millions of years old. only a few thousand.

well, you'll be happy to know there's an entire field called SCIENCE that disputes this fact. also, things that many people accept as fact (like carbon dating, etc) prove that it's billions of years old. also, the creationists say that the earth is only four thousand years old, but how do you account for the six thousand years of human history that is recorded on rock and in the earth that dates from before 2,000 BC? you are a moron, that is how.

also, about your saying some scientists say that evolution can't be true, that statement is false. it is SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST which has been disproven, not evolution, which are two completely different (though often confused) theories from two completely different people (one was darwin, and survival of the fittest was from a sociologist in the mid-nineteenth century who applied darwin's evolution concept to society). the latter is the theory that has been disproven, not evolution.

WE HAVE GENETIC LINKS, for crying out loud. it's the exact same genes. you are a moron.

[David85]

There are apes and humans because not all the same species needs to evolve. Some in one area (island) could while another (island) didn't. Didn't Dowin prove this? Oh wait, that's right Christains don't want to follow anythnig that is based on facts or reasons.

[prime_timer]

We are evolving. Say you ummm, 'mate' and have a child. you and your mate both passed on your best genes to that child. its a continuous cycle, that will never end.

The reasons we have humans and we have monkeys is a little thing called 'the missing link' its the bridge between man and ape. We've yet to find it though.... which is probally why its still called the missing link. Theres far to much scientific evidence in favor of evolution then there is for creation.

[David85]

Oh... BTW GBA... The world is 6 BILLION years old, plus or minus a few million years.

The universe is 16 billion years old, give or take. That is prove by the light from stars.

[GBA]

Originally posted by prime_timer
We are evolving. Say you ummm, 'mate' and have a child. you and your mate both passed on your best genes to that child. its a continuous cycle, that will never end.

The reasons we have humans and we have monkeys is a little thing called 'the missing link' its the bridge between man and ape. We've yet to find it though.... which is probally why its still called the missing link. Theres far to much scientific evidence in favor of evolution then there is for creation.
the reason its missing is because there is no link. 16 billion years old david??? how did the earth come to be???

[David85]

The big bang. How did "God" come to be?

[GBA]

God was always there. Ok lets put it this way. What's the chance of something so awesome so well designed poping out of no were with water habitation and everything. How did it happen?

[David85]

Oh I love it. The universe can't always be here, but hell God can. That's bullshit and you know.

[GBA]

God is eternal.

[David85]

Ya eternally inside your head. The universe is circular, there is no begining and no end.

[Boondock Saint]

the universe is so big that it would make anyone's head explode to attempt to comprehend it all.

gba, the universe is billions upon billions of years old, and the earth is over six billion years old. just accept that as fact. if you want further evidence that flukes can happen like that, just look at physical deformities, or weather patterns. it's b/c science is proof that we acknowledge there are genetic reasons why deformities happen and the weather can change b/c of atmospheric conditions. saying that there is a missing link and it will always be missing b/c there is no link is possibly one of the dumbest things i've ever heard anyone say, right behind my personal favorite: jaga's reason that gay people can't get married (bubble gum diseases). the missing link isn't so much missing as it is that we are simply not sure what happened in between where the apes and homo sapiens are now and between the earlier ancestor. that's all missing link means. for someone to just deny science outright like you do is completely confounding. do you go to a christian private school or something? are you ten? i don't know how else to explain it...

[MoN]

A LOT of science is nothing but theories. So stop acting like science is all facts.

I believe in Creation. No one reply to this post trying to argue with me or call me stupid or this will be closed.

Bye.

[Wh|tE gUy]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
the universe is so big that it would make anyone's head explode to attempt to comprehend it all.

A 19th century philosopher stated that the proof of God is in creation. You see a mountain, and it obviously came from somewhere. Furthermore, while it is dificult to comprehend the universe having no end, it is even harder to comprehend there being an end, a point where it just stops

Personally I believe fullheartedly in evolution but I am not completely opposed to the idea of God creating evolution. Bing bang started the universe, but what started the big bang?

And the recent estimate is that the universe is 12 billion years old and our solor system(or maybe even our planet) is 8 billion which is pretty surprising if the universe is infact on 12 billion. Atleast according to my teacher

[David85]

No, the universe is more than 12 billion years old because NASA found planets that are 12 billion years old. Your teacher is a dumbie.

The universe caving in on itself caused the big bang. You people keep thinking in a straight line, when everything is 3-D.

BTW- No one answered my question of who created God? If the universe can't just be created, niether can God.

[Wh|tE gUy]

Originally posted by David85
The universe caving in on itself caused the big bang. You people keep thinking in a straight line, when everything is 3-D.

So your criticizing us for not having the same theory as you? And a highly arguable one at that.

And if God had been created then he wouldnt be God. (Damn, you people need to stop making me take stances contrary to my actual beliefs its pissing me off. First defending rebublicans now defending the concept of God)

[David85]

You can't just answer an unknown question with "it's god", the Indians did that with everyhting and had a god for like the clouds, now we know that's crazy. And in years when we know and prove all these things, this god thing will just be as crazy.

Believe whatever the hell you want but what is taught in school is backed by facts, and there are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO much more info proving evolution. Plus it's a good song.

[Wh|tE gUy]

How do you know there is no cloud God? You don't. Science has yet to prove there is not one because even science cannot always predict the weather.

Everything started somewhere. The idea of some superior being is not so absurd once you realize that. Yes all the planets and stars came from loose particles and what not, but what created those particles? Until you can tell me that you can not say with such conviction that there is no God.

And I'm not talking about evolution, i find it quite apparent that evolution is real. However, that does not prove there is no God.

[GBA]

Originally posted by David85
No, the universe is more than 12 billion years old because NASA found planets that are 12 billion years old. Your teacher is a dumbie.

The universe caving in on itself caused the big bang. You people keep thinking in a straight line, when everything is 3-D.

BTW- No one answered my question of who created God? If the universe can't just be created, niether can God.
No one created God, God was always there.

[MAX]

*I posted this in the general thread*

Evolution is NOT a theory. It's a fact. HOW evolution occurs is where the theories come in. People need to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

There are people who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these people oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

[Boondock Saint]

that's great. so, if god was always there, how come he HAD to create the universe four thousand years ago instead of 12 billion?

i don't get your logic. probably b/c you aren't using any. just b/c the universe is old, and there are genetic links that prove we evolved from the same subspecies as apes doesn't prove there's not a god. if you think that is proof there isn't god, you're a moron. if you think that god is proof that this stuff isn't true, you're also a moron.

i'm sorry MoN, but science has proven (not theorized) that the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution works. if you need any further proof, i suggest you study the galapagos islands and the several bird species there that all coem from the same roots, but have developed according to their specific environment and aren't found anywhere else on the earth.

and, at the risk of people saying i'm racist, the environments in which we live determined human characteristics as well. white people have lighter skin b/c they weren't under such harsh sun as people in the sahara, etc. the same can be said for bone structure, muscle content, etc. it's science, and most of it HAS been proven. so, eat that out my ass.

and, if you close a thread b/c someone says you are wrong, and they are right about it, that isn't doing the job of a moderator, that's just being a bitch.

[MAX]

i agree

[Steve-AMN]

The funny thing about this thread is that people are attacking each other for the same reason.

It takes A LOT of faith to believe in a God. IF you believe in religion then it is all about faith which is believing without seeing and not needing the proof.

Science takes a lot of faith to believe in also. There is NO WAY we can 100% be sure of anything that hasn't happend before recorded human history. The tests that humans produce are not 100% accurate because humans are not 100% acurate. While the system we have makes sense, in actuality we can not be 100% sure so it takes faith to believe in Science also.

Now I see both sides of the arguments, I have heard (not from here) thousands of "evidence" that supports BOTH theories. Do I believe in a God? Yes I do. Do I believe that there is Evolution? YES I do. Do I believe in the "big bang"? Yes I do

Do not take my post as an acusation on either side of the argument for I am not trying nor want to fuel this hot button issue.

[McBizzel]

Damn, I'm the only one riding the middle this sucks. How can people not believe that evolution is real? That's just riduculous. --~

[MoN]

I like how the only level-headed people aren't the ones who are...um, the ones who are always insulting people without any actual cause. Profanity, to my knowledge, is enough to ban someone, or so I thought. Just stop using it so much, Boondock. (not that you'd ever be banned...)
Originally posted by Boondock Saint
i'm sorry MoN, but science has proven (not theorized) that the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution works. if you need any further proof, i suggest you study the galapagos islands and the several bird species there that all coem from the same roots, but have developed according to their specific environment and aren't found anywhere else on the earth.
Show me where I said all of of science is theories. Wait, I'll show you:

"A LOT of science is nothing but theories. So stop acting like science is all facts."

A LOT =/= ALL

So your statement towards me was out of the blue, as I never said scientists, or science, were wrong. A lot of scientists, however, will argue against each other, making it difficult to know if one or the other is correct. Doesn't matter to me -- I wouldn't believe scientists regardless since it happened billions of years ago...(and I do find it rather hard to determined what happened that many years ago.) Yet, I already sense you replying saying, "You're wrong, scientist have proven this." And I ask you: How have they proven this? Time machine? Were they there?

Besides, what White Guy is saying is quite clear, at least to me. Why do you guys insist on being double-standard? God can't exist? Why? Because no one created God, right? Is that it? Who created the first atom, or what caused the Big Bang? Yes, if that can appear from no where it is not that far-fetched to believe that someone or something created it.

Oh well. I don't want to change your minds. I hope you feel the same way about not wanting to change my mind. It is hopeless.

[David85]

Your looking at it backwards, you God people are saying that the universe can't just be created, but God can. That's why it's bullshit.

[MoN]

We BOTH are, then. It's that simple. I can't be what you are if it is the same principle. Isn't that being double-standard, or something to that effect?

EDIT: You're*

I just love doing that.

[David85]

No because there's proof of evolution, and none for God.

BTW- MoN you aren't god of these forums, so stop acting like you can control who is banned and not banned and live with it.

[MoN]

Yes, putting faith into people who know everything. Cool. And to think putting faith into God was funny.

I don't have power to ban anymore as I did forfeit my powers, but I do at least abide by the rules. One of the rules Boondock keeps breaking, and that is his foul attitude and language. I probably could be mod again if I wanted to, but I no longer wish to babysit your hands (looks at David, Adrian, rottwylor, and Boondock)

[JustUsOwls]

Originally posted by David85

BTW- MoN you aren't god of these forums, so stop acting like you can control who is banned and not banned and live with it.

Well he does know me...

So he'd just report it to me when I'm not around.

[MAX]

Originally posted by MoN
Show me where I said all of of science is theories. Wait, I'll show you:

"A LOT of science is nothing but theories. So stop acting like science is all facts."

A LOT =/= ALL


In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.

A "fact" means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.

The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

I think "God" is a theory.

And... why did you refer to me when you made the statement to David about "holding his hand" ... I don't understand why I was lumped into that, as I don't know David.

[McBizzel]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
the universe is so big that it would make anyone's head explode to attempt to comprehend it all.



He's right, I've tried. It's actually one of the major reasons that I believe in God, or a higher being. The universe is not circular, it's infinite, how else could it be. If it were finite, that would mean that there would be a barrier somewhere out there, and that just makes no sense to me. Then, thinking about how space could be infinite is kind of trippy. How could it just go on forever? Reality itself is a trip in and of itself, how existence came to be, Matt said the Universe had an age, but how? How could existence have an age? I've come to the conclusion that existence, in it's entirety was created, and someone/thing had to do that.

These are just my beliefs though, please don't eat me alive for them. --~

[MAX]

So... one of your major reasons to believe in a god is because you can't comprehend the universe? Thats totally acceptable. I recall people thinking the earth was flat and just dropped off at the edge, because they couldn't comprehend the thought of it being round. I just think it's silly to put a lot of faith into something you can't back up with physical evidence. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I personally can't do that. I may be swayed into believing God made the big bang happen... but... I don't know... they are both just huge concepts to grasp.

[Wh|tE gUy]

Originally posted by David85
No because there's proof of evolution, and none for God.

BTW- MoN you aren't god of these forums, so stop acting like you can control who is banned and not banned and live with it.
Then tell me, where did everythin come from? Can you? I know, I know, Billions and billions of years of just particles floating around slowly combineing and forming new crap. Then tell me where those original particles came from. You can't.

Why do you find it so rediculous that people believe in God. You are actually comming off as arrogant because you don't believe in God, similar how theres always that 5 year old smart ass who thinks he knows every thing.

And while MoN isn't God, he has so much more influence than you will EVER have. So stop acting like a dick just because people have different views than you or prove they have more power.

[David85]

This is what I believe and based on nothing really, but some cool, but crazy (like the god idea isn't?) ideas. The universe is like a ball being blown up, at the end when the energy runs out it get's smaller and smaller until a big bang happens. At the edge of our universe there is another alterative universe. That goes on for ever, yes forever, just like numbers. This theory is called the multi Big Bang Theory because the big bang we know of wasn't the first, it didn't start time because there is no beginning of time. Time has no beginning and no end, and will go on forever.

I don't care if people that believe in god, but I have a few problems when people follow the Bible down to the badly translated word that god had nothnig to do about. I have a huge problem with the people who think god created the world 4,000ish years ago because we all know that that's not true. Yes we KNOW that beacsue there are dinosaurs and all kinds of life before humans that aren't in the Bible.

[David85]

The particles were always here "white guy", kind of like god was always here.

[Wh|tE gUy]

Why are you so accepting to the fact that particles have ALWAYS been around but the thought of a diety causes you to laugh? What is so rediculous about the idea that God created those paricles?

[MAX]

Time is a concept.

You double posted, junior...

*wags finger at David*

[Boondock Saint]

Originally posted by MoN
Besides, what White Guy is saying is quite clear, at least to me. Why do you guys insist on being double-standard? God can't exist? Why? Because no one created God, right? Is that it? Who created the first atom, or what caused the Big Bang? Yes, if that can appear from no where it is not that far-fetched to believe that someone or something created it.

i never said god didn't exist. and, if you read that same exact post of mine you quoted, i say that neither disproves the other, thereby saying the same thing white guy said. so, there. just read. if you promise to read things that people say, rather than just making an assumption off of one paragraph, then i'll promise to stop swearing so much.

[David85]

I'm not white guy. But your whole basis has no facts at all and mine has some. Plus if you believe there is this all knowing creature then why can't there me particles forever. If you believe your god is forever then why can't be my particles?

[Boondock Saint]

sorry david, i thought he was referring to me as well as you. man, i need to take my own advice and read. goddammit.

oh well. there went my promise to MoN. but seriously, i never said god couldn't exist. i never said he must exist either. i think god and science can coexist, but that doesn't affect whether or not i believe in evolution or not. science has proven evolution. proof. now, that's all i'm saying.

[MAX]

I agree with boon.. clear and simple. Lets have a kegger now!

[MoN]

So You Want To Believe In Evolution...

THEN WHERE'S ALL THE PEOPLE?




Bible believing Christians maintain that man was created in God’s image and likeness, therefore it is difficult to understand how this could include a transition from apes. In fact, the clear teaching of the Bible states that man was created fully mature about six thousand years ago. (Genesis 1)

PEOPLE OFTEN ASK HOW THE 6000 YEARS IS DETERMINED.

No one Bible scripture states this and perhaps this is because God knew that man has been known to attempt to explain away any one particular scripture. The 6000 years is determined by adding the total chronological time span of the Biblical patriarchs to the date of established historical events such as the birth of Christ.

Some say that the genealogy of the patriarchs contain gaps. They claim that generations might be missing because each descendent listed in Genesis may not have been a son but rather a grandson or great grandson etc. This possibility is irrelevant because the time span between these births is mathematically fixed no matter how many generations may have been missing.

All the time lines of the stated genealogies link together to form an accurate continuous chronology.

Several textual discrepancies have arisen between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic texts. These only amount to several hundred years therefore, the 6000 years+ recorded history of man stands. There is no rational way to stretch this figure to millions of years!

Evolutionists, including those who teach at many Christian colleges, believe that man is simply a higher form of ape who evolved by chance. According to this popular theory, the genus "Homo" has been evolving for about 2,500,000 years.


Now this hypothesis can be mathematically tested and compared with the account of creation to establish which is more plausible. We need only compare the quantity of physical remains of man found on the planet Earth with the expected numbers which should remain as fossils or unfossilized bones. After all, the evolutionists have assured us that fossils, in general, have been preserved for hundreds of millions of years.
The equation for human population growth is:

P= poert

(The above is P equals p sub o, times e to the r times t power)

P = present human population
po = initial human population of 2 people
e = natural logarithm base (2.718)
r = annual growth rate
t = time in years

The current annual growth rate is 1.7%. However, examination of population figures throughout recorded history, which takes into account plagues and wars, indicate that the average growth rate is closer to .5%. Now let's be extremely conservative and not even consider all the expected remains which would have accumulated from Homo erectus and Homo habilis which supposedly have been reproducing for several million years. We are also going to severely limit the calculation to the expected number of graves which modern man would have left, and then for ONLY 100,000 years instead of the 200,000 years proposed by many evolutionists. Going further, the population growth rate will be reduced to .1%.

Using these extremely conservative numbers in the above equation yields the Earth’s total population of Homo sapiens which would have lived and died :

5.3(10)^43

This number is 5 with 43 zeros after it. This population is a whopping incomprehensible, astronomical number! Let me boil this down to the expected number of graves (remains/fossils) per acre.

NUMBER OF ACRES ON THE EARTH
3.7(10)^10

Each acre of ground should contain 1.44(10)^33 bodies per acre

If the evolutionary scenario is even remotely true then:

Every time and every where a spade is put in the ground, it should come up filled with modern human bones!

As a matter of fact, no matter how deep the excavation or how many miles you probed the Earth with a test boring--you would come up with human remains. Remember this does not even include the entire genus "Homo" whose remains could not be contained in the entire globe of the Earth even if it were hollow.


BIBLICAL SCENARIO:
We are now in a position to compare this unrealistic situation with the clear teaching of the Bible.

Initial Population after the flood: 8 people
Growth rate : .428%
Time: 4750 years (since the Flood)

EXPECTED EARTH’S POPULATION:
5.38(10)^9

As you can see, this figure agrees with the current population of our planet (see graph). It is clear that the population growth figures are undeniably in accord with the Biblical account of Noah’s flood as opposed to the utter foolishness of evolution theory.

Credits: Mr. John Heffner
Chairman, Math Dept.,Kilgore H.S., Kilgore,Tx.

http://www.builtonlove.com/graph.gif
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.builtonlove.com/acreate.html

I was watching TBN (don't ask me why -- flipping through channels and happened to see a "Creation vs. Evolution," so I decided to watch) and saw this. I'm one of the people who believes math, and that's scientific, right? Well, the above seems pretty convincing. Not sure what it means to you, but the math at least seems to add up. Maybe it means nothing, maybe it doesn't. Just thought I'd post it anyway.

[Liquid O2]

I believe entirely in evolution. The bible just keeps getting proved wrong over, and over again with the advances in science, so what are the chances of everything else being the same?

Furthermore, everthing has to have a beginning and an end, so, God had to have come from something.

Another thing, we're just too closely related to monkeys to blow them off, and we're evolving as we speak, not many people get their wisdom teeth anymore because we just don't use them. That's a form of evolution.

[David85]

Math hurts my head, but moden humans have only been around 10,000 years. You want to know why we don't find human bones everywhere it's because they are destroyed or under the water, there are many different things. But dinosaurs were on earth 250 million years, humans 50,000. Why don't we find dinosaur bones everywhere? They are bigger and many more than what we had.

[Liquid O2]

And Humans weren't stupid enough to drown and get buried by all those layers of sand it takes to become fossilized.

[David85]

Wow you really don't understand fosilization....

[Liquid O2]

Yes I do. To become fossilized you have to be buried in a vast amount of soil. Slow deteriaration occurs, and slowly the calcium in the bones turns to stone. On of the only ways to get this amount of soil to cover something is to drown and sink to the bottom, where soil covers everything quite quickly, landslide i guess, and, quicksand.

[Miggy-AMN]

Who the hell said that "we created god"?

[MoN]

I think he means we are the ones who imaginated him, thus creating him (meaning he is fake, like the Easter Bunny...CRAP! SORRY MIGUEL! DIDN'T MEAN TO BE THE FIRST TO TELL YOU! lrmfolma)

[David85]

My English teacher said somethnig like "It doesn't matter if we created God or God created us....". I forgot the rest of it, she was boring me to death.

[MAX]

Originally posted by MoN
So You Want To Believe In Evolution...

THEN WHERE'S ALL THE PEOPLE?

LOL.. egads! Where did this guy go to school? (not you MON)The TALE of Noahs ark is genetically impossible. The entire human population can't have come from 6 people. Too much inbreeding will cause undesirable traits to manifest. Theres a phenomenon called Inbreeding Depression.

Why do living things avoid inbreeding? Because in general, it is quite bad for a population or an organism to be very inbred. Such things occur, such as: =)

Elevated incidence of recessive genetic diseases

Reduced fertility

Increased congenital defects such as cryptorchidism, heart defects, cleft palates.

Fluctuating assymetry (such as crooked faces, or uneven eye placement and size).

Lower birthweight

Higher neonatal mortality

Slower growth rate

Smaller adult size, and

Loss of immune system function.

[McBizzel]

Originally posted by MoN
So You Want To Believe In Evolution...

THEN WHERE'S ALL THE PEOPLE?




Bible believing Christians maintain that man was created in God’s image and likeness, therefore it is difficult to understand how this could include a transition from apes. In fact, the clear teaching of the Bible states that man was created fully mature about six thousand years ago. (Genesis 1)

PEOPLE OFTEN ASK HOW THE 6000 YEARS IS DETERMINED.

No one Bible scripture states this and perhaps this is because God knew that man has been known to attempt to explain away any one particular scripture. The 6000 years is determined by adding the total chronological time span of the Biblical patriarchs to the date of established historical events such as the birth of Christ.

Some say that the genealogy of the patriarchs contain gaps. They claim that generations might be missing because each descendent listed in Genesis may not have been a son but rather a grandson or great grandson etc. This possibility is irrelevant because the time span between these births is mathematically fixed no matter how many generations may have been missing.

All the time lines of the stated genealogies link together to form an accurate continuous chronology.

Several textual discrepancies have arisen between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic texts. These only amount to several hundred years therefore, the 6000 years+ recorded history of man stands. There is no rational way to stretch this figure to millions of years!

Evolutionists, including those who teach at many Christian colleges, believe that man is simply a higher form of ape who evolved by chance. According to this popular theory, the genus "Homo" has been evolving for about 2,500,000 years.


Now this hypothesis can be mathematically tested and compared with the account of creation to establish which is more plausible. We need only compare the quantity of physical remains of man found on the planet Earth with the expected numbers which should remain as fossils or unfossilized bones. After all, the evolutionists have assured us that fossils, in general, have been preserved for hundreds of millions of years.
The equation for human population growth is:

P= poert

(The above is P equals p sub o, times e to the r times t power)

P = present human population
po = initial human population of 2 people
e = natural logarithm base (2.718)
r = annual growth rate
t = time in years

The current annual growth rate is 1.7%. However, examination of population figures throughout recorded history, which takes into account plagues and wars, indicate that the average growth rate is closer to .5%. Now let's be extremely conservative and not even consider all the expected remains which would have accumulated from Homo erectus and Homo habilis which supposedly have been reproducing for several million years. We are also going to severely limit the calculation to the expected number of graves which modern man would have left, and then for ONLY 100,000 years instead of the 200,000 years proposed by many evolutionists. Going further, the population growth rate will be reduced to .1%.

Using these extremely conservative numbers in the above equation yields the Earth’s total population of Homo sapiens which would have lived and died :

5.3(10)^43

This number is 5 with 43 zeros after it. This population is a whopping incomprehensible, astronomical number! Let me boil this down to the expected number of graves (remains/fossils) per acre.

NUMBER OF ACRES ON THE EARTH
3.7(10)^10

Each acre of ground should contain 1.44(10)^33 bodies per acre

If the evolutionary scenario is even remotely true then:

Every time and every where a spade is put in the ground, it should come up filled with modern human bones!

As a matter of fact, no matter how deep the excavation or how many miles you probed the Earth with a test boring--you would come up with human remains. Remember this does not even include the entire genus "Homo" whose remains could not be contained in the entire globe of the Earth even if it were hollow.


BIBLICAL SCENARIO:
We are now in a position to compare this unrealistic situation with the clear teaching of the Bible.

Initial Population after the flood: 8 people
Growth rate : .428%
Time: 4750 years (since the Flood)

EXPECTED EARTH’S POPULATION:
5.38(10)^9

As you can see, this figure agrees with the current population of our planet (see graph). It is clear that the population growth figures are undeniably in accord with the Biblical account of Noah’s flood as opposed to the utter foolishness of evolution theory.

Credits: Mr. John Heffner
Chairman, Math Dept.,Kilgore H.S., Kilgore,Tx.

http://www.builtonlove.com/graph.gif
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.builtonlove.com/acreate.html

I was watching TBN (don't ask me why -- flipping through channels and happened to see a "Creation vs. Evolution," so I decided to watch) and saw this. I'm one of the people who believes math, and that's scientific, right? Well, the above seems pretty convincing. Not sure what it means to you, but the math at least seems to add up. Maybe it means nothing, maybe it doesn't. Just thought I'd post it anyway.

HAHAHAHA, oh man. There's no way I'm reading THAT! --~

[MAX]

You have to read it, if only for the rediculous conclusion that this HS math teacher comes to. The "biblical scenario" had me in stitches. How would all the different races and colors and languages come from these 8 survivors.....in 4000 years..... it's ludicrous.

[Wh|tE gUy]

its possible, English is a fairly younge language. As for different races and colors, it only takes a few generations to change colors. My grandfather is HELLA dark and Im white as hell. Someone who is 1/8 or even 1/4 black CAN look 100% white.

[David85]

Nevermind that, it would mean we are all related and that would make the human race a little messed up. That's why the Bible isn't suposed to be taken litterally anymore, it's so out of whack. I have read fairy tales that are more realilstic than parts of the Bible.

[Boondock Saint]

no, it's not possible, considering that there is actual recorded history dating back more than 6,000 years. and cave drawings dating from before that.

it's not a question of skin color, but instead of the overall adaptations that humans have made to their environment.

nevermind even that, but how do you have empires dating from 6,000 BC if the earth is only 4,000 years old? it makes NO sense, whatsoever. noah and the survivors excluded, how do you have these civilizations dating from thousands years earlier that are supposedly decendents of noah and his family from an even that doesn't take place in the biblical scenario until roughly 2,000 BC? that just SOUNDS like someone didn't put any thought into what they were saying. also, the way that science and math theories work is that you should always work to DISPROVE your theory. it's quite obvious this math guy just took whatever he could to prove he was right.

[David85]

You people should watch the History Channel they have cool stuff on this. They had one where Noah's area floated and had to live on a boat he had for those days. He was a trader so he put all his animals on it. They also said that in order to make the highest mountains float over there would need to be 5-6 times as much water on earth then there is now. Even if that was possible it would change the atmisphere and no one could live because the water vapor would be so high, if you breathed you would drown.

[GBA]

Ok David. When God created the earth there was water under the ground and in the air. There was about 25% land and 75% water before the flood. After it changed.

[GBA]

Originally posted by David85
This is what I believe and based on nothing really, but some cool, but crazy (like the god idea isn't?) ideas. The universe is like a ball being blown up, at the end when the energy runs out it get's smaller and smaller until a big bang happens. At the edge of our universe there is another alterative universe. That goes on for ever, yes forever, just like numbers. This theory is called the multi Big Bang Theory because the big bang we know of wasn't the first, it didn't start time because there is no beginning of time. Time has no beginning and no end, and will go on forever.

I don't care if people that believe in god, but I have a few problems when people follow the Bible down to the badly translated word that god had nothnig to do about. I have a huge problem with the people who think god created the world 4,000ish years ago because we all know that that's not true. Yes we KNOW that beacsue there are dinosaurs and all kinds of life before humans that aren't in the Bible.

Ok, david if nothing was there how could something be there after time. nothing was there so, when theres nothing there will not be something because nothing isnt anything.

[David85]

Oh brother, you can't come back with facts so now you jusat come up with bull. The Earth is 86% water now, even if it was all melted and then times it but 5-6 times it wouldn't be enough.

[GBA]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
nevermind even that, but how do you have empires dating from 6,000 BC if the earth is only 4,000 years old?
The world is not 4,000 years old. It is arround 8 to 9,000.

[Boondock Saint]

actually, the world isn't 8 to 9,000 years old, it's over 6 billion years old. this is a fact, it's been proven, and there's no amount of bible gobbledy **** or mathematics wizardry that can prove it otherwise. even most christians and other religious people acknowledge that the earth is this old. you really are just a moron.

edit - and so when did this flood of noah's take place? was it before the empires? because, there's recorded history long before those...and those civilizations survived and moved, they weren't wiped out by a great flood or anything...

[MoN]

"you really are just a moron."

Why insult people if you're right? Angry? Awww, give David a hug...

[MAX]

lol.. i love arguing.. it helps you realize your convictions even more =)

[David85]

Who's giving me a hug?

GBA, you make no sense.

[MoN]

Originally posted by David85
Who's giving me a hug? Is that eagerness? Boondock will give you a hug soon. :)

[Boondock Saint]

i just find it really weird that people dispute science. like, it's science. even MoN's earlier point about science being comprised of theories doesn't even work, because in the scientific community and terminology, a theory is something that has been proven. a HYPOTHESIS is an unproven idea. hence, they tag theory on everything that is generally accepted throughout the world.

i just want to know how we can base all of earth's time on history that was written down long after the fact (by several different people), and by a religion that didn't even surface until around 1,000 BC that was created mainly as a way of unifying a northern jewish state (israel) and a southern jewish state, and both of which had different versions of the tale. i just can't see a book with the kind of history the bible has proving that the world is only a few thousand years old. not saying the bible's wrong in anything, but i mean...it's written by humans. huge passages are omitted. it was formed long after most of its books were written. centuries even. how is something this much of a hodgepodge of selected religious thought such an authority on the history of the entire universe? and the answer is that it's not. plain and simple.

and, as for MoN's remark about how i can call someone a moron when i'm right (implying that i shouldn't have to if i'm right), well...let's just say that i call 'em like i see 'em. and gba's a moron.

and, of course dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible. do you think everyone went around digging them up in jerusalem back in the day? they wrote what they knew about at the time...and a lot of it is allegory. it's a way to live life, not the definitive history of the universe.

[David85]

What people don't understand is that Dinosuars were not discovered until 1860, and then no one know what they were. Just because we don't know somethnig doesn't mean it's not true. That goes both ways about there being a god and there not, but the earth is much older that 8 thousounds years or whatever.


And where's my hug?!?! b:D

[Cooolcorey]

My turn to enter the fray!

I used to fully believe in Creation a few years ago. Then I had science classes and just like some people here, I found it hard to dispute, so I was on the fence. Now, I'm leaning more towards science, just because I got to thinking about when the dinosaurs existed in God's little "Create a universe and it's people in 7 days". I also looked at Noah and how all 6 billion people and ALL of the animal species of today (in many different races/species, nontheless) were supposed to come from 2 of each kind of animal on this little ship. And if there was this great flood, it must have happened before all of these civilizations, because otherwise, the pyramids would be quite gone, and wasn't the point of the flood to get rid of all these evil people? There were plenty of evil people in the Roman empire alone, so that plan didn't work very well, and if God is perfect, then shouldn't his plan have worked perfectly?

Sorry about the lack of organization in the above paragraph, that was just me flowing my ideas as they came to me.

Right now, I believe more in science, but what we believe is completely irrelevant. It's kinda funny how humans just have to have an answer to everything.

[Linque]

rottwylor, noone can argue with you b/c you don't agree with other people's opinions. I say I believe in creationism, you say something like...I don't know how you can refute science by relying completely on your faith, which is all heresay.

Its like me saying I don't know how you can refute faith by relying completely on science to explain cancers dissappearing, a perfect (supposedly ramdom) 23 1/2 degree tilt, a perfect 90,000,000 miles from the sun, people raising from the dead after 3 days of being clinically dead, etc.

But I'm not saying that, the above paragraph is an explanation as to why I can dissagree with science.

Faith: Bible: "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Faith: Websters: "Unquestioning Belief"

You have faith too, my friend; faith in science where mine is in God.

[Linque]

As to the Dinosaur question, I am in the minority amoung Creationists as I believe that, between Genesis 1:1 & Gen. 1:2, there was an entirely different civilization that at one point had dinosaurs--then they became corrupted and God flooded the Earth and veiled it in darkness.

Thats why, after Noah, God promised to never flood the Earth again (and if you look in Revelations, the next time the Earth is destroyed, after the rapture, its by fire).

[Wh|tE gUy]

A little paraphrasing of a commedian i saw on TV

"There are 2 things you will find A LOT of in the Bible, wine and sh*t I can't believe really happened. I'm pretty sure the wine came first."

Simpsons:
"Have you actually read the Bible? Technically we aren't even allowed to go to the bathroom."

Anyways, I dont think the stories in the Bible should be taken so seriously. A lot of them are rediculous to an extent. You must take the messages not the actual stories from the Bible.

[Boondock Saint]

Originally posted by Linque
As to the Dinosaur question, I am in the minority amoung Creationists as I believe that, between Genesis 1:1 & Gen. 1:2, there was an entirely different civilization that at one point had dinosaurs--then they became corrupted and God flooded the Earth and veiled it in darkness.

Thats why, after Noah, God promised to never flood the Earth again (and if you look in Revelations, the next time the Earth is destroyed, after the rapture, its by fire).

but dinosaurs never existed at the same time as man. this is also proven. so there, your argument is wrong. it's not that you don't have the faith, my problem isn't faith in god, it's the unwillingness to accept something that has been proven over something that you assume to be true. dinosaurs never lived with humans - fact. the world is 6 billion years old - fact. these are facts. fact fact fact. there IS a profound difference between fact and faith.

plus, in just over a thousand years, there's no way that the entire human race was re-born from noah's family. no way possible. we'd be sitting here with about a billion people at this point. especially if it happened after certain civilizations and empires. i mean, in all of ancient recorded history, there's not even a great flood mentioned. not until the bible is written. so, if it covered the entire earth, and it took place only a few thousand years ago (when written word was actually fairly common in some shape or form), where's everyone talking about it at? i just think the concept of the timeline really hurts most creationist arguments.

but yeah, the dinosaur comment is completely ludicrous. humans and dinosaurs existing together? completely not possible. they are seperated by 65 million years! of course, if you believe in the 9,000 year mark, your story gets even more ludicrous.

*edit* - white guy, i agree with your above statement exactly. as i said before, it's a way to live your life, not a definitive historical reference. also, david, here's your hug...

...and why not a kiss on the cheek while i'm at it. --~

[Nintendo Survivor]

I'm definetely on the side of evolution. It is clearly shown through scientific evidence that this is how we came to be. I'm currently reading a book which is easily the clearest proof of evolution there is. It's called "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. All of you who don't agree with evolution should read it, then you will be able to realize how much more correct science is compared to the Bible.

[prime_timer]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
i just find it really weird that people dispute science. like, it's science. even MoN's earlier point about science being comprised of theories doesn't even work, because in the scientific community and terminology, a theory is something that has been proven. a HYPOTHESIS is an unproven idea.


kinda right...it goes hypothesis, theory, then law. hypothesis is unproven, like you said. Theories, on the other hand are generaally right, although they're not 100% absolutely correct every time you do them, so chances are things can come up inconclusive sometimes..... then theres the law. If you try to dispute a law..... your a freaking idiot. "Gravity doesnt work like that!!".

and now a quick joke before i disappear from this thread again:

"Whats the point of a holy war? Its people only fighting over who has the better imaginary friend."

[MoN]

I have always been taught that a theory is something scientists have concluded many times. I don't think that's a fact considering scientists always prove themselves wrong. Was I taught wrong?

Boondock needs a beating. Go ahead and give him one, David...

[MAX]

Originally posted by Linque
rottwylor, noone can argue with you b/c you don't agree with other people's opinions. I say I believe in creationism, you say something like...I don't know how you can refute science by relying completely on your faith, which is all heresay.

Its like me saying I don't know how you can refute faith by relying completely on science to explain cancers dissappearing, a perfect (supposedly ramdom) 23 1/2 degree tilt, a perfect 90,000,000 miles from the sun, people raising from the dead after 3 days of being clinically dead, etc.

But I'm not saying that, the above paragraph is an explanation as to why I can dissagree with science.

Faith: Bible: "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Faith: Websters: "Unquestioning Belief"

You have faith too, my friend; faith in science where mine is in God.

I like debating things. However, when I have a plethora of facts and evidence backing up my stance, and I'm trying to debate agains people that only have a piece of literature and faith at thier disposal.. well, I can see how you'd think "no one can argue with me". I don't dislike anyone in here for their beliefs or opinions, in fact, I appreciate a diverse group like this due to the fact it increases my viewpoints. If everyone thought the same, these threads and posts wouldn't exist. Plus, I like to start topics that cause a reaction. =) Also, If you'd read all my posts... you'd know that there are plenty of people in here I have agreed with to different extents (Boondock, David, etc..)

Yes, I believe in science. Fact over Faith, in my opinion. Why live in a delusion, or potential one. I really don't have much more to post on this, since I have posted a lengthy amount already. I'll just chime in if someone has a specific question I guess.

[King_O.F]

The proevolution book Life Ascending admits: "When we ask how a process [evolution] . . . could have generated such qualities as love of beauty and truth, compassion, freedom, and, above all, the expansiveness of the human spirit, we are perplexed." C'mon, asserting that man's faculty of reason and conscience springs from subhuman ancestors lacking reason and conscience themselves is like stating that a river springs from a well lacking water.

[Boondock Saint]

while that sounded philosophical and deep, and very well may have been, it is a statement that is wrong. how can you consider it to be that we can't GAIN reason and conscience? why can't anything gain reasoning? there is proof in other species that they've learned and developed over time. if no one did that, we wouldn't have heated food, refrigeration. animals wouldn't know where the best place to hunt is, or a dog wouldn't know to return to its owner for sustenance if it couldn't REASON that it will get food that way. your entire argument comes from the view that lower forms of life don't have self awareness or reasoning skills. well, i ask you, why do animals run when they sense danger? it's because they are aware of themselves. without awareness they would sit on their asses and let things just happen, or, better yet, they would all die off because they wouldn't know they need to feed themselves. to say that you can't come from a lower life form is ludicrous. how many times do we have to say that it's PROVEN science? PROVEN. PROVEN PROVEN PROVEN. there is NO way that evolution didn't happen. to suppose that there were these lower forms and then magically humans just sprung up in their current form, now THAT'S what is impossible. THAT'S what is like stating that a river springs from a well lacking water. i mean, do you guys even listen to what you're saying before you say it? how can you not believe in proof, but believe in something that isn't even a complete document of what you say it is? how? why can't evolution and religion coexist? it already does in the minds of millions of relgious people around the world. i don't know how you can't accept proof. i say it once more, evolution is PROVEN.

[MAX]

I'm so glad you beat me to that, boon... I'm saying this in general, but people need to start thinking for themselves and not always believe something someone wrote. I'm sure someone will twist this around and say that I should apply that to reading books of science... *waits*

[Boondock Saint]

rottwylor, if you didn't put so much faith in your science books, you'd be able to see that the earth is something sublime that has been created only for human inhabitants, and that all animals are dumber than us and can never have evolved from lower forms of life, much less us from them. also, god is great and all-knowing, and i'm sure he would want us to know if the world was in fact really, really old or not, which just leads me to believe that his silence on the issue (with the exception of what some old guys wrote in the first five books of the bible - as much for political reasons as for relgious ones) is confirming PROOF that all of your science is bupkiss.

saying that god doesn't know what he's talking about is like saying that a well doesn't hold water, yet still makes a flowing river. i mean, c'mon! don't you get it?

[MAX]

LOL... when I first started reading that, I thought you were serious... I really wish God would just get off his rump and come on down from the Heavens to give a speach or something on Nat'l T.V. That way everyone can stop arguing over creation v. evolution, and know there truly is a God. I mean.. he talked to Moses, why won't he talk to me?! Then he can go on The Price is Right and win everything, cause he's omnipotent and would know all the prices.


I totally want to thumb wrestle with God

[Wh|tE gUy]

Ive seen God before. She is Canadian and doesn't understand the ACTUAL definition of irony. Also a little angry at times

[MAX]

Originally posted by Wh|tE gUy
Ive seen God before. She is Canadian and doesn't understand the ACTUAL definition of irony. Also a little angry at times

HAHAHAHA!!! That makes me want to watch Dogma now.

*starts singing* "...it's a black fly, in your chardonnay...it's a death row pardon, one minute too late..."

oh... thats not ironic, that just sucks

[McBizzel]

Yeah, evolution is cool. (we have to stay on topic, if we get off for two or three posts, this entire thread will be closed without warning) --~

[MAX]

I think this evolution thread is dying anyway. It's hard to argue with facts =) Maybe Jerry Fallwell can log on and debate evolution v. creation... that would be fun. I really don't see how you can NOT believe in evolution or that the earth has been around for more that 5,000 years... or even 10,000 years. It just baffles me. Or why we all don't have genetic deformaties due to all the inbreeding we would have had to do if we only started with 6 people after the "great flood." Plus.. 2 of every animal?? That would have had to be a huuuuuge ark.. what about the billions of different insects that wouldn't have survived a mass flood like that? I'd just like some enlightenment. =)

[King_O.F]

so... after a little while evolution just stopped? huh!?

[Boondock Saint]

no, we're ever evolving. many humans (myself included) no longer get wisdom teeth because we have no need for them (also because our jaws have become smaller). evolution never stops, and that's the key. if you think like that, King OF, then you don't really understand evolution. the only reason it seems that evolution has stopped is because you are living in a specific time during it. it is a very long process. just because you don't physically see changes within your specific lifetime doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

[MAX]

I feel like Boondock is my seperated siamese twin, holding down the evolution fort...except we don't look anything alike..

[King_O.F]

is evolution scientific?


The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened."-The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."-The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

[Wh|tE gUy]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
no, we're ever evolving. many humans (myself included) no longer get wisdom teeth because we have no need for them
Man i wish i had a use for nipples, maybe then i would actually have a pair :(

[Lovebird]

wat the hell?! but to think evolution doesn't exist is stupid,,,what do you think the appendix is? it was an organ used by earlier forms of man that is no longer needed and hasn't completely stopped being made in humans...but that's like saying, which came first, the chicken or the egg? the egg. a bird(not a chicken) laid an egg that was the first chicken which was the evolved form of the bird laying the egg...unless you believe in god, in which case it would be chicken

[David85]

You can't call everyone with a different view than you stupid. You have to call them ignorent. :D

[Boondock Saint]

you know, you keep quoting all these people king, but i've gotta tell you, i think that evolution is very scientific. in fact, it's mostly biology and archaeology, both very respectable sciences. it's not like the study of UFOs or anything like that.

evolution is very scientific. you have a control - the environment in which the evolution takes place - and you have the variables - the animals (including mammals...ALL of them). i mean, if you look at the example i was pointing to earlier with the galapagos islands, you can see that all of these different bird and lizard species come from the same family, but are often seperated by one trait that they have developed to help them adapt to their specific island. we know this is true because you don't find these birds on the other islands, and often entire species have been isolated for hundreds of years. yet, we know they come from a common species root because they share commonality with it, and it was known to nest in the region in the past. if you ask me, that sounds a lot more scientific than someone going, "i read a book, science isn't science."

[MoN]

Originally posted by David85
You can't call everyone with a different view than you stupid. You have to call them ignorent. :D Oh, yes, "ignorence" is what kills the world we live in. Yeah, that's it. Damn "ignorent" people! :)

[MAX]

Originally posted by King_O.F
is evolution scientific?


The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened."-The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."-The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

The problem is you are quoting things that were published 20-50 years ago. 50 years ago, we also didn't think cloning was possible... guess we were wrong on that too...

[Boondock Saint]

the problem is that they're also relying on something for facts that was written about 1300 years ago before mankind even knew about anything that has been discovered since then. also, the bible, not saying that it's wrong or anything, has a lot of cultural significance in the way it was written. certain passages were written from perspectives that support what they are saying. for instance, the city of sodom. sodom was engaged in battle with an opposing force, one of the subjects of whom wrote the passages about sodom, and so when it says it rained down fire and brimstone, they were talking about them winning the war and beating sodom, and that passage in the bible was about them proving their superiority. there are MANY MANY examples like this, and if you guys had watched the history channel rather than the super bowl, you'd know exactly what i'm talking about.

[MAX]

Originally posted by King_O.F
is evolution scientific?


The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.

Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

[David85]

Can't we all get along?

I mean really as long as people believe that we didn't all come from the same few people and that the world is only 10 thousands years old, and that there WERE dinosaurs, then believe in god who cares.

[MAX]

We are getting along, rodney king... this is what is called a "debate" in grown up land =)

j/k =)

[Boondock Saint]

hahaha. that's pretty funny. anyways, the massachussetts high court ruled that only full marriage rights - not civil unions - were constitutional, so i guess it's only a matter of decades before that takes effect here in the south...

*edit* - now if they'd only rule that it's a fact that the earth is billions of years old and that the bible is just a book that has religious significance to SOME people...

[David85]

Yep, so get used to it people. :p

CA made inter-racial marriage legal in 1948, the USA SC made it legal in 1968, and everyone's favorite state because they are so dumb and behind the times, Alabama, got rid of it in 2000.

[Wh|tE gUy]

Originally posted by David85
Yep, so get used to it people. :p

CA made inter-racial marriage legal in 1948, the USA SC made it legal in 1968, and everyone's favorite state because they are so dumb and behind the times, Alabama, got rid of it in 2000.
Just like to point out interracial marriages have been going on in Alabama for a few decades now, they just got around to actually erasing the law in 2000.

[David85]

Well yes I figured that, but still. I guess one won't really need to get rid of the laws if you are just going to marry your cousin or brother/sister anyways. :D

BTW- Are you from that lovely state?

[Wh|tE gUy]

Hell na, Californian born and bred son

[MAX]

Lets get back to the topic...I don't want this closed.. I like to hear peoples thoughts and beliefs...

p.s., HAHAHA BACKFIRE!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_us/teaching_evolution_1

[bountyhunter]

It's a bit of both. The animals evolved from ancient species, but humans are a totally new deal. We didn't evolve from apes or monkeys, god created us seperately.

[David85]

I'm sorry but that is dumb. So you believe in some realley messed up belief between relgion and science that doesn't make any sence.

[MAX]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
It's a bit of both. The animals evolved from ancient species, but humans are a totally new deal. We didn't evolve from apes or monkeys, god created us seperately.

Of course we evolved from early hominids and primates.. you need to take a college level genetics course.

[bountyhunter]

Yes, I need to be spoonfead BS by a bunch of guys who believe the theories of a man that admitted he himself was wrong. We did not evolve from anything. Where are our ansestors? The apes are still around, but nothing else between us is.

[MAX]

a) I wasn't referring to Darwins theory of evolution. A traveling Evangelist named Lady Hope stated that on Darwin’s deathbed, he renounced evolution and declared Christianity. No one will ever know if these accusations were true because Darwin died on April 19, 1882, at the age of 73

b) there is a lot more scientific evidence to support evolution than darwins theory. take for example, birds. there isn't just one type of bird... there are a bunch of different branches of birds. just like there are different branches of primates.. we are merely one branch... just because we evolved doesn't mean that all apes or primates had to evolve also.

[Boondock Saint]

darwin, to my knowledge, never renounced his findings, and i believe that bit about finding christianity has been contested quite well. anyways, what you keep referring to when you say a theory that has been proven wrong and all that other crap, isn't the theory of evolution at all, but instead the theory of 'survival of the fittest', or natural selection, which has been disproved. this wasn't even a scientific theory really, but instead an idea that a sociologist by the name of Herbert Spencer had when he applied darwin's idea of evolution to human society. if you take an intro sociology course, they tell you right off the bat that his theory has been disproven.

evolution has not. i repeat...evolution has NOT been disproven...quite to the contrary, in fact.

*EDIT* - also, the theory is founded in genetics now, as rottwylor stated, not really much of darwin's theory at all. his was all based on observing animals and genetics is based on the makeup of the body, which is actually a pretty much exact science. the problem everyone had with darwin was that he had no real scientific evidence to back up his claims, but genetics has proven most of what he claimed over and over again.

[Linque]

From a creationist's standpoint, why do humans supposedly evolve at all? What would be the point? We have people all over the world living in all kinds of environments, from extreme heat to extreme cold and everywhere inbetween; but, ALL of them have the same features. Upright, apposable thumbs, cranial structure, etc.

Also, apart from height/weight/nutrition, we (as humans) have kept these features for Millenia; from as far back as Mankind has depicted itsself, we have kept these same features. A current Egyptian still looks like the earliest ancient Egyptians, based on ancient art, sculptures, etc. So why then did we stop evolving? Why havn't we seen any change for MILLENIA, which is plenty of time for noticeable steps in the evolutionary process to emerge?

Based on your own rejection of "Natural Selection," it can't be because "there was no longer any need for it." That answer means that something with better abilities/traits eventually took over those with inferior abilities/traits, this process repeating many times to form humans, i.e. natural selection.....so that can't be it.

Random genetic resequencing then? No, unless you believe we came from fruit flies: Only ONE protein sequence separates humans from fruit flies.......so that can't be it.

Answer: Evolution never took place. It had no need to take place, God created us in his image and perfectly suited for the world.



BTW, a few pages ago, I posted something on dinosaurs. Boondock, I never said dinos and humans lived at the same time, I said dinosaurs and a pre-Gen. 1:2 human civilization existed. Between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, thats where the missing millions of years are in the creationist theory. But sometime in there, the people of Earth became corrupt and God was forced to allow Satan to destroy the Earth and veil it in darkness.

[Wh|tE gUy]

You dont seem to realize that different races have slightly different genetics. People hailing from Africa are a lot less receptive to UV rays, and thats based more on than them just having darker skin. There is a certain enzime that can only be found in asians making them less tolerant to alcohal (not making this up). People in Northern Asia have much more hair than people in Southern Asia, probably to help deal with cold. All people "native" to North and South America originally came from Asia (Mongolia supposedly) yet a Columbian looks vastly different to a Native American who looks vastly different than a Mongolian.

[MAX]

Originally posted by Linque
From a creationist's standpoint, why do humans supposedly evolve at all? What would be the point? We have people all over the world living in all kinds of environments, from extreme heat to extreme cold and everywhere inbetween; but, ALL of them have the same features. Upright, apposable thumbs, cranial structure, etc.


No they don't! What about differences in skin color, facial features, types of hair, etc.? Africans have (a) enlarged sweat glands, which helps to cool their skin, (b) darker skin to protect from the intensity of the sun at their latitude, (c) coarse hair which allows for quick heat escape, (d) enlarged nostrils and ears to also aid in cooling ..... ALL which contrast with Scandanavians at higher latitudes with completely opposite needs.


Also, apart from height/weight/nutrition, we (as humans) have kept these features for Millenia; from as far back as Mankind has depicted itsself, we have kept these same features. A current Egyptian still looks like the earliest ancient Egyptians, based on ancient art, sculptures, etc. So why then did we stop evolving? Why havn't we seen any change for MILLENIA, which is plenty of time for noticeable steps in the evolutionary process to emerge?


First of all, a thousand years is NOTHING in the evolutionary scale. The earth has existed for MILLIONS of years, so even a couple thousand is just a drop in the bucket. Second, there are plenty of examples of other species which have, even over the course of MILLIONS of years, shown virtually no evolutionary changes. Can anyone say "crocodile"? The crocodile hasn't needed to evolve because as a specie it has found a balance millions of years ago--its appetite allows it to eat just about anything, it only exists in warmer climates where it doesn't have to deal with seasonal changes, and it has no predators. Humans on the other hand have not NEEDED to evolve because our level of intelligence enables us to adapt our environment rather than adapting ourselves, we are omnivores so we can eat just about anything, and we have no predators. Perfect balance. Why change?

[Boondock Saint]

i was gonna post all of that last night, but i got too tired. thanks rottwylor. you rock.

linque...jeez, man. get a CLUE as to what's really going on.

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by Wh|tE gUy
You dont seem to realize that different races have slightly different genetics. People hailing from Africa are a lot less receptive to UV rays, and thats based more on than them just having darker skin. There is a certain enzime that can only be found in asians making them less tolerant to alcohal (not making this up). People in Northern Asia have much more hair than people in Southern Asia, probably to help deal with cold. All people "native" to North and South America originally came from Asia (Mongolia supposedly) yet a Columbian looks vastly different to a Native American who looks vastly different than a Mongolian.
thankyou for telling us this, but I know a lot about people from differenbt races and such haveing different qualities, but I'd say that what you are talking about is more genetic adaptation then anything, not evo. I'm not sure what you support, but if you'r saying that evolution didn't happen then this doesn't support evolution and you're right to post it.

anyway, I'm pretty sure boondock keeps mentioning me and the bible in the same sentence. I'm not even a christian.

to linque: I agree w/ you.

[Boondock Saint]

i'm not mentioning you and the bible. also, what the hell do you think genetic adaptation is? it's because of evolution that their bodies have adapted. have you ever had any formal education? what the hell are you babbling about?

[MAX]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
thankyou for telling us this, but I know a lot about people from differenbt races and such haveing different qualities, but I'd say that what you are talking about is more genetic adaptation then anything, not evo. I'm not sure what you support, but if you'r saying that evolution didn't happen then this doesn't support evolution and you're right to post it.

anyway, I'm pretty sure boondock keeps mentioning me and the bible in the same sentence. I'm not even a christian.

to linque: I agree w/ you.

LOL... lemme explain children =)

Adaptations are traits (or characters) that have been subjected to natural selection. This means that the trait has EVOLVED (been modified during its evolutionary history) in ways that have contributed to the FITNESS of the organism manifesting it .

[Link]

I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation. Sure, species change due to random genetic recombination, but we don't yet know why this occurs, since it is random. I believe that this aspect is controlled by God, to aid in his masterpiece. Remember the phrase: "God works in mysterious ways."

[Xetas]

I fully support the watchmaker theory.

[MAX]

Originally posted by Paladin
I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation. Sure, species change due to random genetic recombination, but we don't yet know why this occurs, since it is random. I believe that this aspect is controlled by God, to aid in his masterpiece. Remember the phrase: "God works in mysterious ways."


Evolution is constantly occuring. If I have to explain the why's again, then you people (not pointing anyone out) are not reading my posts very thouroughly. The very rapid evolution of viruses and bacteria can be easily observed. Also, several speciation events (instances of one species evolving into another) involving multicellular organisms have been observed and documented.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

By genetic recombination, I'm sure you are eluding to genetic "drift"? That is not the only form of evolution. There is also mutation, and natural selection. However, only heritable mutations, those occurring in the reproductive cells are involved in evolution. Because only a small portion of the genetic sequence of the DNA molecule is used to code for proteins, most mutations do not result in new traits. Of the mutations which do result in new traits, most are harmful. That is, they interfere with an organisms physiology or in some other way reduce an organisms adaptability to its environment. However, sometimes just by chance, a mutation will occur which produces a trait that leaves an individual possessing it better adapted to its environment. In most cases, an individual that is better adapted to its environment, will tend to produce more offspring than an individual who is less well adapted. Thus evolution.


God is a safe bet.
--Pascal [implied]

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost
nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an
atheist."

[Boondock Saint]

i'm not atheistic. i believe in something. it just doesn't start with 'B' and end with 'ible'.

anyways, thank you rottwylor. your ability to put into words the stuff i understand but can't explain is great. thank you. and also, the link is good. evolution...it's right.

[Linque]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
linque...jeez, man. get a CLUE as to what's really going on.

I have a clue as to what I believe is really going on.

Boondock, you and rottwylor claim to love debates, I do to. But you both are REALLY horrible at it.

Yes, you present your views and evidence to support them, but ALWAYS at the expense of cheap-shots at others.

A true debate is (from dictionary.com), “A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.”

Attack the position, not the person holding the views.

When you say "get a CLUE...," you are not debating; you are stating that your belief is the right one no matter what anyone says. You are not open to any contrary evidence.

We who believe in creation have given you plenty of reasons to support why we don't believe in evolution, or evolution the way you interpret it. And while I encourage the exchanging of ideas--this is what helps civilization grow--please refrain from implying I "don't have a CLUE."

I believe I have a "clue" as much as you do about yourself.

And don't think I'm getting angry or pouty or my feelings hurt, I just want to see a healthy debate, not one that ends up in ridicule. I'll visit this topic as long as it is active, and chime-in when I feel it is prudent.


If you want a fast-paced (so-to-speak), 1-on-1 debate on this topic, where I can fully express the depth of my views and resond more accurately to your supporting evidence, lets set up a time to meet in an IM. Or heck, we can try and get a few people for and against evolution and set it up in a IM Chatroom.
(And since God-created evolution sort-of defeats the purpose of the argument, lets keep it at the core of the debate: scientific evolution vs. pure creationism (i.e. Adam and Eve, and the timeframe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2)).

When is a good time?..........................

[Boondock Saint]

linque...i wasn't debating. i was telling you to get a clue. that's the bottom line. you don't know what you're talking about.

[Link]

Originally posted by Linque

(And since God-created evolution sort-of defeats the purpose of the argument, lets keep it at the core of the debate: scientific evolution vs. pure creationism (i.e. Adam and Eve, and the timeframe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2)).



Are you now saying that because I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation, I should not post in this forum? I am entitled to share my opinion, as a member of these forums. Please do not state what should and should not be discussed. It only promotes narrow-mindedness.

[MAX]

Originally posted by Linque
I have a clue as to what I believe is really going on.

Boondock, you and rottwylor claim to love debates, I do to. But you both are REALLY horrible at it.

Yes, you present your views and evidence to support them, but ALWAYS at the expense of cheap-shots at others.

A true debate is (from dictionary.com), “A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.”

Attack the position, not the person holding the views.

When you say "get a CLUE...," you are not debating; you are stating that your belief is the right one no matter what anyone says. You are not open to any contrary evidence.

We who believe in creation have given you plenty of reasons to support why we don't believe in evolution, or evolution the way you interpret it. And while I encourage the exchanging of ideas--this is what helps civilization grow--please refrain from implying I "don't have a CLUE."

I believe I have a "clue" as much as you do about yourself.

And don't think I'm getting angry or pouty or my feelings hurt, I just want to see a healthy debate, not one that ends up in ridicule. I'll visit this topic as long as it is active, and chime-in when I feel it is prudent.


If you want a fast-paced (so-to-speak), 1-on-1 debate on this topic, where I can fully express the depth of my views and resond more accurately to your supporting evidence, lets set up a time to meet in an IM. Or heck, we can try and get a few people for and against evolution and set it up in a IM Chatroom.
(And since God-created evolution sort-of defeats the purpose of the argument, lets keep it at the core of the debate: scientific evolution vs. pure creationism (i.e. Adam and Eve, and the timeframe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2)).

When is a good time?..........................


A couple things. linque.

First off, I have not ONCE taken a cheap shot at anyone in this post. If you feel I have, you are either way to sensitive to be posting in here, or you have misunderstood the intonation in something I've typed. I am hoping for the later.

Second, I am glad you know the meaning of "debate." I, however, suggest that you join a college level debate team so you know HOW to debate. I have NOT been "cheap shotting" people, and I have been posting facts to the contrary of creationism that I would have used if I were debating with another college team. I would be happy to debate with you over IM anytime, unfortunately I find that debating with people that are your age (most of the time) is pointless and fruitless... as people in their late teens early 20's "know everything." Also, I attended 2 different colleges and I'm a double major, one being biology with an emphasis in Evolution and Systematics. So I doubt you're going to want to debate with me, as I have a plethora of imformation at my disposal.


Lastly. This is a public forum (as Paladin stated) that I created on the topic of whether people were in favor of Evolution or Creation OR a mix of both... .there are a lot of grey areas for different peoples view points within said topic. So anyone is allowed to post their viewpoints regarding such. Paladins "god created evolution" is completely within the threads topic, and I'd more apt to accept THAT theory than I would "creationism." You're idea of keeping this thread at "creationism vs evolotion" is narrow minded and trite. It would be as if someone decided to make a thread about homosexuality and heterosexuality, then getting mad at someone who brings up bisexuality.

Feel free to post your opinions on creationism, linque, as you have almost no supporting facts or evidence for it.

[Boondock Saint]

i just got tired of you being dumb and having to argue with people who are so stupid they won't ever accept the fact that what they 'know' is wrong, at least on the fundamental assumption that evolution has never been proven. that's why i went for the cheap shot. you can't post your reasons on here, linque? why not? everyone else has...me included.

[Lovebird]

i don't see why it's so hard to believe evolution exists...i mean, i'm sure i said this earlier, i don'lt remember...but what do all you dopes think the appendix is? just some useless tissue that has been there since man as been around? it was an organ that did something back in the way back when, but now is useless due to changes in global temp or somethin like that...to say that evolution is non-existent is just stupid...

[Linque]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
i just got tired of you being dumb and having to argue with people who are so stupid they won't ever accept the fact that what they 'know' is wrong, at least on the fundamental assumption that evolution has never been proven. that's why i went for the cheap shot. you can't post your reasons on here, linque? why not? everyone else has...me included.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically saying I'm stupid for not believing like you, right? How ignorant. I don't think your stupid for not believing like me, you choose what you want to believe.

"(And since God-created evolution sort-of defeats the purpose of the argument, lets keep it at the core of the debate: scientific evolution vs. pure creationism (i.e. Adam and Eve, and the timeframe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2))."

I meant limiting the content of the debate in the IM discussion only, not in this topic.

[Boondock Saint]

no, it's me saying that you're stupid for not recognizing that someone just shat all over you and you have nothing to come back with but some 'lost chapters' of the bible. stupid.

mugan, you're right. same thing goes for the tail bone. that's right, it's not just a bone that was named b/c a tail is there on other animals, but because humans, in fact, used to have tails. we don't need them, so we don't have them, yet the bone is still there. it's called a retro helix. that's what things are called when they are throw backs to the previous evolutionary form. anyways, that is why you're stupid linque. it gets boring arguing with people who can't prove anything b/c what they believe isn't even IN the friggin' bible.

[MAX]

We even have genetic "scraps" in our DNA that we don't need anymore.

[Boondock Saint]

you know who i miss at times like these? professor go...he's my good twin, after all. but mostly it's b/c he makes comments like these:

Maybe science teachers should try to scientifically explain how parting seas and rivers turning into blood and eternally burning bushes can be possible. I'd like to listen to a lecture on that.

man, such a great guy. where the hell is he?

*edit* - rottwylor, you should repost that long ass thing you said about education and whatnot in here so more people can read it, since that thread got closed by the infamous sam not too long after. and, it really ripped linque a new one AGAIN...just a thought.

[MAX]

This one?


Evolution is NOT a theory. It's a fact. HOW evolution occurs is where the theories come in. People need to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

There are people who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these people oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Linque
I don't beleive in evolution either (I'm Church of God), but the only problem I have with evolution is that too many teachers teach it as the gospel truth (no pun intended). Evolution can stay, but put the word theory after it too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hello.. they are SCIENCE teachers for a reason... it is their JOB. When a religion teacher teaches you about Jesus and the apostles.. you don't make the comment that they are being biased and should add more science into it, do you. No. So when a SCIENCE teacher teaches it as - you state - the 'gospel' truth... they are doing their job... EDUCATING you. As far as the whole issue with evolution being a theory... it's not. Read the first section above as to why it's not.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wh|tE gUy
The problem with teachers is they state too many things with such bias it really is unfair for the students. I have had VERY few teachers that stay impartial in their political views. My french teacher (surprise surprsie) would constantly bash not only Bush but the entire nation, history and present.

I'm sorry but when you are in a position of influence you shouldnt be spouting your views on impressionable minds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're right.. we should all stay as sheltered as we possibly can, that way we never have confrontation or do anything thought provoking. No one should ever do anything that would cause you to think for yourself and make judgments and form opinions. Especially at an institute for learning and education. Maybe you were attempting to make a point that I didn't catch. And I don't mean for this post to sound sarcastic at all.. although it reads that way. I just think that if we didn't hear anyone elses opinions and biases, we'd never have reason to form our own. I think it's important for people, like teachers, to be able to use thier position to make their students think... if they are modifying what they are teaching in order to platform thier own opinions, and not teaching their outline...then there is a problem. If they are sticking to thier outline.. and then sidebar with why they agree or disagree...thats what you call 'topic discussion'. An important tool in creating your own identity and opinions if you ask me.

[Boondock Saint]

yes, that one. man, that's a good post. where or where is professor go?

[MAX]

Oh... since a true creationist believes the world is only a few thousand years old. I thought that this would be interesting to read:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/11/oldest.insect.ap/index.html

[Link]

I don't believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. The Earth was not created in 7 Earth days. Rather, I believe that the authors of the Bible couldn't grasp the amount of time it would take to create the universe. Either that, or the earth was created in 7 days by God's standard, in which one of His days would last millenia by Earth's standards.

[Linque]

The "lost chapters in the Bible" aren't chapters, they're verses. Throughout the Bible there are references to this pre-Adam civilization. I will post them here if you so desire, but I am wary because
1.) Everything I have posted prior has been met with nothing more than insults and
2.) You have said yourself that you don't believe in the Bible so providing evidence based on scripture that you wouldn't accept seems pointless.

I will read this topic a few more times, but I choose to not open myself up to insults anymore. It hasn't been the first and it won't be the last, but here I've said what I feel is necessary to contribute to the diverse views presented here. Take it for what you will, all I can do is present them to you.

Honestly and truthfully I do not hold a grudge; I am not offended (I look forward to future engagements on the boards). Scoff at me if you must, but in all seriousness I pray for you and truely believe God loves you, as do I.

[MAX]

I have posted plenty of links in support of evolution. If you want to post some obscure link to "lost verses" from the bible, by all means do it. No one is stopping you.

In regards to Paladin's posting... I was referring to a TRUE creationist. They believe that the earth was created somewhere in, literally, the last 5-8,000 years, give or take a couple thousand.

[King_O.F]

lost verse's of the bible? that's even more retarded then evolution which is almost as retarded as buying a ps2

[MAX]

"lost verses" of the bible is something that belongs in an Indiana Jones movie.

PS2 is just a piece of inferior hardware, plain and simple.

Evolution... well.... someone either hasn't gotten past 6th grade, or is allowing Linque to post under his name. lol

[Linque]

they're not lost verses, they're there, just not in one place. They're scattered throughout the Bible as references to events in the past relevant to the people in the Bible, and thus, us also. Much like a history textbook mentions past events that are relevant to us today.

[MAX]

I'm not the one that said they were lost in the first place.. I was just repeating what I was reading. Thust the " " quotes.

Also... I'm still waiting for these verses that will refer to dinosaurs, and the different hominids that roamed the earth, so I can give feedback.

[King_O.F]

hey! while we're using indiana jones in this topic. ya know they say what God's name is in "The Last Crusade"?

[King_O.F]

the Bible doesn't mention Dinosaurs or hominids...people are just getting crazy now.
Hey! while we're using Indiana Jones in this topic, ya know they say what God's name is in "The Last Crusade"? *for those of you who can't find it the 7,000 times it's translated in the Bible

[MAX]

^ exactly.


Jehovah?

[MoN]

blahblahblah

Might as well quit knocking on religion and start focusing on what you want to -- science.

One thing that has bugged me about science is evolution. I'm not going to make a point yet but I want to know something: what is the first human race (color)? If it is a fact, then let me know.

Also, does evolution always mean getting better? Or does it mean it just changes? (not looking the word up dawgs)

[Eradikatus]

Reading the pages in this thread is making me laugh.

I really don't care how it happened, because right now is more important than back then.

[Wh|tE gUy]

Originally posted by MoN
blahblahblah

Might as well quit knocking on religion and start focusing on what you want to -- science.

One thing that has bugged me about science is evolution. I'm not going to make a point yet but I want to know something: what is the first human race (color)? If it is a fact, then let me know.

Also, does evolution always mean getting better? Or does it mean it just changes? (not looking the word up dawgs)
First human was black/Middle Eastern. Scientist believe that everyones blood line can be traced back to a single woman however many thousands of years ago. And i do not believe evolution is necessarily always good, sometimes it can just be change

[MoN]

So evolutionists believe that all different races have evolved? I know the locations of the peoples depends on what color their skin is, but I was just wondering if evolutionists (at least some) think that there is a more evolved race (I doubt it, but it came into my mind).

[Boondock Saint]

yeah, the oldest 'human' ancestor thus far found was found in the middle east. i forget the name they gave her. basically, the birth of civilized human behavior began in that region. as civilization spread, skin colors adapted to varying living conditions, as did hair, etc. however, since this information is carried genetically, it can be passed and mixed from one generation to the next. this is the same with all mammals, certainly, and also many other animals, though not necessarily color-related - there are traits that are passed on and develop from generation to generation.

evolution is change. it's not always for the better, i believe, as i'm sure there are some instances when something has evolved into something lesser or simply died out (the latter i know is true), but it is also based on necessity.

as rottwylor pointed out earlier, the human body doesn't adapt as quickly as it has in the past anymore because of intellect, which allows us to adapt our surroundings to us, rather than us to them. therefore, the only major differences to come about in the past few hundred years are relatively minor things, wisdom teeth, etc.

to say that humans come from NOTHING is simply foolish, and i tend to support beliefs like paladin has, specifically about creationism. there's no telling - if there's in fact a god - whether he did create the earth in our measurement of days. there are, however, lots of things in the bible that are entirely made up and fictitious. for example, when the first five books of the bible were written, the jews had just split into two seperate israelite states. if you will, notice the significant emphasis on the second sons being the 'good sons' in those first five books...cain and abel, etc...well, that's because the version that we have translated comes from the northern israel state, and they emphasized the goodness of the second son in the texts because they were the second state to come into being and wanted to prove their superiority through their religious document (after all, how can you argue with divinity, right?)...there are MANY instances where information in the bible has been altered from its origin to fit political views and whatnot. you should really learn some of the history of the bible if you're going to argue with it as your main source...

*edit* - to answer MoN's post, which was made while i was writing this, there is really no theory of which 'race' is more developed, b/c humanity basically developed at the same rate. unless you're in a white power/black power/etc. group, this view isn't really supported by anything. the difference between races isn't so much between races as it is between geography and adaptability to certain environments, as well as cultural factors as technological advancement and technological lag...but then you're getting into sociology not biology, and it's a whole new and completely different ball game. trying to compare race and evolution beyond the development of skin pigmentation is like trying to compare baseball to soccer...there's really no similarity or even relation at all...i'm sure also, that skin color really has less to do with evolution per se as it does with adaptation and survival, which is a bit different than actual biological developments, since it's so easily interchangable and whatnot.

[King_O.F]

Originally posted by rottwylor
^ exactly.


Jehovah?


this man knows his bible! or his...indiana...jones.

[MAX]

I'm a survivor of the Roman Catholic religion, so i've read the bible... it's an interesting read. Also, I like I.Jones.

[Eradikatus]

If I remember my random trivial information correctly, Africans are one of the oldest human races.

As to evolution, the current running theory of it is that various mutations come in at random moments, and if the mutation is favored then it starts spreading through procreation until it become prominent. No "evolving to do something" or nonsense like that.

[MAX]

That last sentence doesn't make sense. I can see somewhat of what you're saying, however you're making it sound as though EVERY mutation is carried on in procreation. Which it's not. For example, if a baby is born without a stomache, it isn't likely to survive. Hence, it wouldn't be procreated. If for some reason in the future a baby is born with, say, a third eye in the back of it's head. Thus allowing it to see perfectly in all directions. That trait would most likely be more apt to be carried on as a trait, as it would be more beneficial to the survival of the species. That is why it's called evolution, because it's when a species EVOLVES. That is why your last sentence doesn't make sense.

[koten]

He said if the trait was favorable (as in benificial, i don't see how not having a stomach would be benificial in any way shape or form...)

Evolution is what happened and that is the truth

[MAX]

I realize that, but I was reffering to his last statement. It didn't quite make sense to me. Also, I didn't say that not having a stomach would be beneficial.

I mean, if we all are the product of mutation that happened to be favored and became prominent in procreation, we'd all look similar. The reason for evolving is so you species can survive in it's environment comfortably. That is why there are different races of people... If you need to, refer back to my earlier post regarding this. I mean, I agree with what Erad posted to an extent. It was just that last sentence that threw me.

=)

[koten]

Ohh, ok, gotcha!

[MAX]

Where are linque and jaga to keep this alive and amusing...

[bountyhunter]

I don't know, but i have the same beleifs as jaga so here I am.
I think I already said I don't beleive in evolution haveing anything to do w/ humans. Were to far away from apes and there isn't any evidence side a skull of something that somewhats resembles us, but no sine of intelligence. Were to advanced to have evolved from animals, because we think differently. Animals don't think, they just do. Animals don't have a consiounce, we do. We know what we do, and the animals know not......

[MAX]

lol... you should look up what it means to "evolve" before you post something like that. I agree though.. you and Jaga think alike.

[bountyhunter]

It really depends what you mean by evolve......there's two many different definitions. If what you mean by evolve is to adapt to surroundings for the better, then technically we're evolving everyday, but we didn't come from animals............I'm pretty sure me and jaga have the same religion.

[MoN]

I can tell rottwylor is right -- humans DID evolve from apes. Look at his picture.

lrmfoflma that was hilarious, wasn't it?!

[bountyhunter]

lol yeh that was hilarious

[MAX]

Actually.....

...nevermind... I'm not even going to explain lineage and primates and hominids, because bountyhunter will just dazzle me again with his brilliance....

[MoN]

Hey, come on. You ignored my brilliant post!

[MAX]

oh no.. i saw it.. don't hate, appreciate

[MoN]

Okay. Boondock's picture definitely shows evolution hasn't fully finished!

How's that?

[MAX]

Depends.. are you conceding to evolution??

[bountyhunter]

Yeh, I'd have to agree with that.

EDIT:what mon said

[Professor Go]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
I don't know, but i have the same beleifs as jaga so here I am.
I think I already said I don't beleive in evolution haveing anything to do w/ humans. Were to far away from apes and there isn't any evidence side a skull of something that somewhats resembles us, but no sine of intelligence. Were to advanced to have evolved from animals, because we think differently. Animals don't think, they just do. Animals don't have a consiounce, we do. We know what we do, and the animals know not......

Uhh.. isn't that why we're evolved?

EDIT: oops.. either you guys are really fast typists or I need to pay attention.

[bountyhunter]

I said we didn't evolve from animals buddy, not that we as humans didn't improve.

[MAX]

Good, Go is here... I can't keep explaining the same thing over and over to the same people on here. I am going to just repost stuff I typed earlier.

[MoN]

Originally posted by rottwylor
Depends.. are you conceding to evolution?? No. I'm cracking "jokes.

[bountyhunter]

and that would be..............

EDIT: reply to what rott said

[Professor Go]

I think you evolved .. from my butt! Lolrofla [/MoN]

[MAX]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
I said we didn't evolve from animals buddy, not that we as humans didn't improve.

Humans ARE animals, just to inform you. Yes we DID evolve from lesser animals. Not directly from APES or CHIMPS, but we are along the same evolutionary tree as they are.

[bountyhunter]

whatever..........I don't think that was the point

EDIT: No we didn't, Rott

[MoN]

Originally posted by Professor Go
I think you evolved .. from my butt! Lolrofla [/MoN] That's not a bad impersonation, but it's not entirely accurate. :(

Good try though. lrmfolma

[MAX]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
whatever..........I don't think that was the point

EDIT: No we didn't, Rott

Evolution is NOT a theory. It's a fact. HOW evolution occurs is where the theories come in. People need to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

There are people who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these people oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

*there, suck it*

[bountyhunter]

Animals evolved from each other.........we are not animals, we can think

[Professor Go]

Originally posted by MoN
That's not a bad impersonation, but it's not entirely accurate. :(

Good try though. lrmfolma

Ok how's this:

I thinke evolve from bUtt!11 ROmlao!11 Pwnd u!1

[Professor Go]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
Animals evolved from each other.........we are not animals, we can think

Are you a religious man, bountyhunter?

[bountyhunter]

Somewhat, but I'm a muslim, so even if I was very religous it probably wouldn't mean the same thing as a religous christian, but I don't beleive this because of my religion(well, at least not fully) It's just something you infer from examining different things......comparing and contrasting.

[bountyhunter]

Damn rott, looks like we got this back on the road, huh.

[MAX]

Regarless of your faith. Science is based on facts, on studies that are made with trial and error. Not a book that was written by some obscure person. I think faith is great. If you aren't jamming it down peoples throats, or whatnot. Religion is archaic in every sense of the word.

[bountyhunter]

I'm not jamming it down anybody's throat.........there's no clear evidence that we evolved from a bunch of animals.

[Boondock Saint]

yeah, none except all of the studies we've posted about on here and the tons more we haven't even mentioned that prove that evolution is the truth.

[MAX]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
I'm not jamming it down anybody's throat.........there's no clear evidence that we evolved from a bunch of animals.

HAHAHAHAHA

There's more proof that points to that then there is to creation. How old are you anyway.. I think I was stupid at 16, and you remind me a LOT of myself during that time period....

[bountyhunter]

Yeh, but they're wrong..........we didn't evolve from animals, that's all their is to it.

[MAX]

No.. thats you being being uneducated. Do you live in a cult where science isn't taught?

[Boondock Saint]

no, you're right...we didn't evolve from any animals that are around today. we did, however, evolve from a common ancestor as some of the animals around today...and yes, it was probably an animal. oh, you know what? we're animals, for crying out loud! right through genus, phylum, species, whatever. we're animals ourselves, and so you're stupid for not recognizing that.

[bountyhunter]

WTF? We're not animals, and I already explained why. We're too different from them.

[Boondock Saint]

no, we're not. oh wait, you don't accept science.

how do you explain our brains functioning much the same way as dolphins? how do you explain there only being certain parts of dna construction that seperate us from apes? how do you explain that we're not? b/c i remember your explanation being just as stupid as your claim.

[MAX]

Dolphins actually use more of thier brain than we do... so you could argue that they are a more developed animal than homo sapiens.

[Boondock Saint]

well, if we were animals, that is...

[MoN]

Originally posted by Professor Go
Ok how's this:

I thinke evolve from bUtt!11 ROmlao!11 Pwnd u!1 That's even worse. :(

If you talked to me on AIM you might would know more. Sorta like Miguel. hay wft

Seriously, rottwylor, is saying "suck it" a good choice of wording for you? :eek: lol

Anyway, I was kinda curious why some scientists disagree with other scientists. Does that mean that it isn't a fact, if scientists disagree? Do they have to find a way to agree before it can be classified as a "fact?"

And I've also been taught that facts are not ALWAYS true. I believe it was said that facts can just be proven right or wrong.

[MAX]

Oh....right..... because homo sapiens isn't plant OR animal... it's a class unto itself... damn schools... WHY would they LIE!

[Boondock Saint]

...no...facts can't be proven right or wrong...that's why they're called facts...they're true.

[MoN]

Originally posted by rottwylor
Oh....right..... because homo sapiens isn't plant OR animal... it's a class unto itself... damn schools... WHY would they LIE! Government manipulation. Yes, that is it. I'm right. You're wrong. :)

[MAX]

Did you know that a tree really isn't a plant... plants evolved from plants, but god just made trees suddenly one day.

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
no, we're not. oh wait, you don't accept science.

how do you explain our brains functioning much the same way as dolphins? how do you explain there only being certain parts of dna construction that seperate us from apes? how do you explain that we're not? b/c i remember your explanation being just as stupid as your claim.

Well boon, if god created us all it wouldn't be strange for everything to be simmiliar. You need to look furthere then just what you are told or what you here. Once again animals don't think, they are just programmed to do. Wether dolphins use more of their brains then we use ours isn't important. It's what the brain is used for, or more specifically, what parts are used for what.

[Boondock Saint]

right...just programmed to do...that's why you can teach apes sign language, right? or teach different things to other animals? did you know chimpanzees have even learned to do basic mathematics? oh well, i guess in the wild they're programmed to do mathematics.

if animals didn't think, then they wouldn't have emotions, yet they do. also, plants have emotions...weird, when you start learning about things what you can know, right? yeah, i said it...plants have emotions. what you gonna do about it re-re?

animals not thinking...that's the dumbest thing i've heard you say YET on the subject, and that's amazing, b/c you've said some really, really stupid stuff.

[MoN]

Well, one big "thing" I have a hard time believing avout science and everything scientists say are facts is because the earth is so complex, that it just seems natural to ME that there is some creator.

[Boondock Saint]

i've never said that there's not a creator. i believe, however, that evolution is what happens and i believe that animals can think.

seriously, what kind of stupid opinion is that?

[MAX]

Animals do think, they make choices. As for dolphins.. lets see. They live in pods, which are like families. They take care of each other and defend each other, which is a choice and also shows emotional attachment. They communicate to one another by clicking, thus showing another social instinct. They use sonar, which... wow... humans can't. Enough about dolphins and such, cause I could go on and on. The point is... you're wrong.. again.

[MoN]

Originally posted by Boondock Saint
seriously, what kind of stupid opinion is that? My opinion or that bountyhunter guy? Sometimes gets confusing.

I've learned not to try and even back up my opinion because you guys like science, whereas I don't. It's futile to try and change each other's minds.

[MAX]

It's not really whether you like science or not. It's the fact that..well... science is right. Whether you do or don't like it. It'll be around long after the bible or any religion out there.

[MoN]

Yeah, all the evil in this world. :)

[MAX]

Yer part of it.. so don't look so smug

[Boondock Saint]

...indeed. it's going to be around long after all the current languages are dead, so it wouldn't be surprising that it will outlast religion, something that has an even shorter lifespan.

[MAX]

no way... science isn't even real

[Boondock Saint]

eh, neither is the dogma from religious beliefs either. so, i guess we're all ****ed.

[bountyhunter]

Yeh, pretty much

[MAX]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040226/sc_nm/science_dinosaurs_dc_2


crap...there goes that dumb a** belief that the earth has only been here 8000 years...once again....

[bountyhunter]

Who said the earth has only been here for 8000 years? Humans have been here for at least most of that time period.

[MAX]

Go to the internet and look up Creationists. They believe the world has only been here for 8000 years or so.

[Boondock Saint]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
Who said the earth has only been here for 8000 years? Humans have been here for at least most of that time period.

actually, humans have been here for ALL of that time period, considering there are ancient civilizations (the semites, for instance) that go back 10,000 years or more. i thought even you'd know that, since you seem to have an interest in the region.

*EDIT* i saw that news story earlier. it's interesting stuff. i love archaelogy and paleontology and whatnot. i just can't do it myself.

[bountyhunter]

Yes, I did know that, but I didn't post that to say what I know, I posted it to say that whoever said that the earth is only like 8000 years old, because you can carbondate crap that goes back a long time before that, and it would have taken millions of years to form the grand canyon anyway.

[Boondock Saint]

yeah, i know, and that wasn't directed as a slam against you, though i guess it came off that way.

and how do you know god didn't CREATE the grand canyon just like it is now?

oh, b/c it's changed drastically even in the past fifty years, probably...

[bountyhunter]

depends how you look at it. Technically, it was eroded away by the colorado river, but maybe god put that there.........

[Sabur]

My vote is for evolution. as I'm not a believer in god and still don’t see any evidence of being one... so as far as that grand canyon thing goes, its the river its not like some one put a canyon there, this aint SimCity...and don’t bother flaming me on the no evidence part... I've heard all the arguments, I went to a Christian school for a while and if they can’t change my mind, no one will...

[bountyhunter]

fine with me, i'm not gonnna flame you, and if you don't wanna beleive that's up to you

[Sabur]

Thanks bountyhunter, ive read and heard to many religious propaganda and it seems like every one is trying to make me believe in something... its nice once in a while people believe that that its up to me to decide (like my parents did) and not try to push **** on me.

[bountyhunter]

Yeh, dude. there's some people here that will just yell and yell if you don't agree with what they say.

[Boondock Saint]

there are also tons of people here who refuse to accept science. i mean...c'mon...who doesn't accept science? really? if you don't, then you probably don't go to the doctor, either, b/c that's all based on science (biology and genetics, actually)

[bountyhunter]

Who exactly are you reffering to? I accept most science, but I don't believe all the crap they put out there.

[Boondock Saint]

i'm just referring to most people who argue about faith and how it disproves science. neither faith nor science disproves the other. it's simply stupid to argue against science using a faith-based system where you will never know what is true or what is not.

[bountyhunter]

true, true, what's that called? blind belief? dogma? something like that.............

[MAX]

religion is for the weak minded

[sniffums]

It's funny how you can't just try to understand someone else's views, don't just go around bashing religious people. I myself am not religious at all, but I do find it incredible how one can believe so fully in something so unknown. Religious people are not weak minded, but actually as strong minded as anyone else to be able to believe in something so hard to grasp for so many others. Do not call something you may not understand weak, it only makes yourself look shall I dare say it...weak.

[MAX]

Funny.. if you would have read every post, you'd know that I have a very significant background in religion. I, however, don't believe in creation or any part of the bible. So I can say that religion is for the weak minded. Next time, get your facts straight so you don't qualify for a "stupidest post" entry.

[sniffums]

Actually I did read all the posts and I know that you aren't some idiot or something just bashing religious people, but just answer why you believe they are so weak minded, and just because I disagree with what you posted does not qaulify me for a "stupidest post" entry. Next time explain why you believe what you believe especially when it can offend so many people. And since you have had such a significant religious background I would hope that you wouldn't be so unsympathetic, knowing how sensitive religious people are towards their beliefs.

I mean didn't you think someone would read that and get offended?

[bountyhunter]

He says they're weak minded because it makes him feel stronger about himself.--~

[MAX]

Well.. I went to private catholic schools my whole life, CCD, religious studies... and they were interesting. Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. There would be no religion at all if weak minded people didn't keep leaning on it as their crutch. Therefore, it is actually the weak minded people that religion is leaning on and on which it is keeping going. Take away weak mindedness in people and religion has no place left to lean on. I don't want to be so arrogant as to claim to know the absolute truth (supposing that there maybe actually is one, a point we're not even sure of at all) or any such nonsense like religion does, but I'm all for helping bring awareness to people and inviting them to actually think for them selves. If weak-mindedness is the symptom, and if just believing is the disease, then the cure must be found somewhere in the act of inviting others to think. If it's not used, it will get abused.

I mean... Bountyhunter is a perfect example.

[bountyhunter]

Really, I use my religion as a crutch. I don't even talk to people of my religion outside my family and family friends, so your accusations are pointless. Maybe someday you'll wake up and wonder what the hell you've been doing. Or maybe not.........

[sniffums]

Those are some really great points there and I do understand how the church can be viewed as someone's crutch. It's weird I myself think that there of course was a man known to us as Jesus and that he was an extraordinary fellow, but I don't believe very much if anything at all that the church says after that. I mean throughout history the church has tried to control it's followers through lies. Everything is just so complicated these days....*Brain cramp*

P.s. Thanks for clearing that up and not flaming the f*ck out of me, I know how annoying I can get...=x

[bountyhunter]

Yeh, to the best of my knowledge the bible has been changed and reritten and modified to suit the religous leaders desire so maney times nothing holds up

[MAX]

Originally posted by bountyhunter
Really, I use my religion as a crutch. I don't even talk to people of my religion outside my family and family friends, so your accusations are pointless. Maybe someday you'll wake up and wonder what the hell you've been doing. Or maybe not.........

Are you really that stupid in real life.. or do you pretend on here. Seriously. You have had to have been home schooled, or just taken out of the school curriculum at the 3rd grade level. You don't have to talk to people of your religion to still have it as a crutch. You're ignorant posts have proved that well enough. Someday.. when you get to college.. IF you can get admitted into one that is... you'll realize how stupid you sound 99 percent of the time on here.

[bountyhunter]

Well, that's fine. You go ahead and keep saying that. Just remember this: I'm not insulted by you. You can't do anything to insult me. Got it? Good............

[MAX]

Stupid people are never really truly insulted.. because they lack the brain power to process an insult. ^ Case in point

This thread shouls also be closed, as it's gotten off topic

[bountyhunter]

It's obviouse that you beleive in evolution, and that you beleive everyone else that defies that is wrong. So we started out as a bunch of fish. No. Were too different from the animals. We aren't animals. We care about what we do. They don't. They didn't need to turn into us to survive, they can do that fine on their own. We're too different. Oh, and getting into college will be no problem for me.

[MAX]

If you keep up that backwards redneck hillbilly logic.. yes it will be hard. I can't see any credible college allowing someone in that doesn't have a normal education. You're stupid, thats all there is to it. You're logic is flawed, and there's no point arguing with you because your small IQ level doesn't let you look at the whole picture. You're like 14 anyway.. so you're going to think what you want.