Wasn't this thread about evolution and creationism?

I think it's a pretty good record this thread was on topic for at least 4 pages

__________________

It's just that a few that badmouth it....need to stay out.

I try and avoid threads I think are pointless and have nothing to contribute to.

But the Emos love crying how it sucks...then cant help returning to remind us of their opinion.

He had a good point.

Back on topic....
So my analogy of the good and moral man that's never heard of christ....excellent point to argue with the creationism crowd. Try it and watch them start making excuses....it's rather odd.

You should see the Nevermore forum. Rarely is the discussion concerned with the original topic past the first page.

Why is it rather odd that people try to stand up for their religion. What the hell would they be showing you by dismissing their beliefs because of some stupid hypothetical situation. Theres something called faith. Why do you think you're so pious as to disprove other peoples' religions? Let them believe what they want, it doesn't hurt you at all.

Lighten up wanker...like the TOPIC says...
I'm speaking of those that feel the need to debate with my opinion.
Christians for the most part feel the need to convert people...that offends my intelligence.

I dont go around starting these discussion with ANYONE....I simply finish them.

Well, why does your opinion deserve defense and theirs is nonsense? You're not accomplishing anything truthfully, just trying to be funny by saying overused phrases like " heh my opinion is a fact and you're wrong you dumb emo fag, stop whining you stupid emo heh, i'm right, youre wrong you emo.

By the way, why does evangelism offend your intelligence? Since when are you so profoundly discerning on everything?

Only when one tries to convert me and doesnt take no for an answer.
I have no prob letting them have their thoughts.
But to start arguing and telling me I'm wrong when they start a discussion and my opinion differs.
It's offensive.

What's so hard to understand?

Dont answer....you're simply arguing with me cause you always have and cant help yourself.

Do the site and you and I a favor and lets not reply to each other anymore.


Deal?

Just nitpicking here, but how can someone debate with your opinion? (No really, I've just never heard anyone say that)

I'm not the best at proper sentence structure or wording things correctly.
You're correct.

please stop that

__________________

Your hypothetical situation doesn't do anything to prove or disprove creationism, Bia. It's keyed to the absurdity, which probably made sense in a time when nobody realized how big the world was and how many people were in it, of a God whose sole criteria for salvation is believing in the divinity of a man who showed up somewhat late in the game and in a fairly specific, for a long time limited part of the world - and while that's fine, there's no reason to make this thread into a Christian bash-fest when it started as a discussion about one specific topic, namely two hotly competing theories as to the creation of life on this planet. Also, it's not a good idea to recommend to somebody asking for argument tactics that he employ a non-sequitor. It's no good to insist on science and then break rules of logic; then it just seems like you've got nothing better to do than thumb your nose at the religious.

I understand....and stand corrected.

Uhm, I don't know how the thread got diverted into that quarrel, but I just want to throw in the question "If God loves us all soo much, why does he let "the unsaved" suffer an eternity in hell?" I don't think anyone deserves spending eternity in extreme pain and torment.

__________________

That's a tiresome question best put aside for amateur philosophy classes.

I would like to see anyone dispute the proof of this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...579284690408654

Haha what an advert weird little creature at the end. I was expecting it to happen

__________________

Indeed it is. Edited.

__________________

Seen that one.

That's a dull little question having nothing to do with evolution. I don't know how people came to believe that love means endless tolerance regardless of response, or the blind indulging of faults, or anything else that would make it incompatible with sending people to hell who had any number of chances to accept and return the love and chose not to; again, the interesting question is about the people who never had even the one chance. But that's for another thread.

I hate you,you fucker.

lame..

__________________

not one, not one person went spared I made sure just about everyone I know suffered the same fate. bastard

im quite curious about that link but scaredt oclick it

__________________

It was worth it...
Just gotta look real close is all.

Oh yeah you have to make sure you have your speakers up quite loud so you can hear the dialog too it's really quiet.

__________________

TMI dude.... tmi

That's what it says in the box next to the vid so i suggest do it.

__________________

Too much information? Oh whoops, TMI!

God dammit white boy.

__________________

Oh man that was cool!

whoa i just clicked the link and watched...that was fucking weird

__________________

I love this thread even though its so old.


IM going to rot in the ground it will be fun

Who says a belief in God means you dont believe evolution? There is a fantastic book called "Thank God For Evolution" that is all about this.I am a Theistic Evolutionist which means i believe in God and evolution.

__________________

Nooooob!!!!

__________________

Haha

I still self-proclaim myself religious-less and everyone I tell that asks me this "then you're Atheist". No, Atheist deny god.

I'm agnostic. The existance of god is unknowable. I'll find out when the time comes.

__________________

I like the name of this thread. It shows the decadence of modern society as it's automatically put that Christianity is the forefront of opposition to evolution.

__________________

FUCK DA SYSTEM!

I think this debate sorta ran out 2 years ago. I'm an atheist, because I deny what is currently known to be "God", which is the most fucking ridiculous idea ever.

However, we know less than 1% of all there is to know about to universe. And I will not deny that there is a higher power somewhere, but this higher power doesn't need to be some guy who magically creates shit.

__________________

I'd have to disagree: fundamental Christianity is the loudest dissenter of evolution, even having its own scientific (and I use the word "scientific" in the loosest possible sense, in fact, looser even than the wizard's sleeve of the town bike) arm, namely that of Intelligent Design. It is therefore logical to address the main antagonist, no matter how imbecilic and set in their ways they may be.

__________________

I kinda agree with TD. When the time comes... the real answer is one we can never really share... or maybe know once dead. If its a shit ass nothing then what? By knowing I mean does anyone remember what it was to be alive in 1924 for example? I can't remember a thing about being alive before 1981. I wonder if being dead will feel much like that. Just a complete nothing forever after.

__________________

There's only one problem with that. Specifically that when Jesus, a living, breathing human being, died, He wasn't just not there anymore, but returned, appeared, and spoke to people who knew Him before His death. That's when the conformation of life after death was made. Then He ascended into Heaven. If one doesn't take the whole circumstance into account from the birth to the resurrection then it's quite easy to believe there's fallacies. A lot of unbelievers I've encountered in whatever manner have taken the word story to mean fictional account, but when one starts looking at time frames and the flesh and blood people involved then it gets richer and realer. Even though I always have believed I still grow with everything I learn about that time frame, but it also makes for so many more questions, too. And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

And C comes before E in the dictionary.

__________________

That's definately the most scientific answer...but in my opinion also the most useless one The problem is just, that the existance of ANYTHING is unknowable (you probably know about this "the world doesn't really exist it's all just my mind making up things"-stuff). But I guess you just have to make certain assuptions about what is real and what isn't. I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster/ for example and you won't manage to prove, that it doesn't exist. But I guess, one can't believe in any nonsense (and should rather risk to make an mistake once). Too me, the christian religion (such as any religion) is just nonsense and I find the idea of any god just ridiculous. So I'm finde being an atheist, without actually beeing able to prove, that there is no god.

And for the qustion that started the threat, christianity or evolution (didn't read the whole thing, so I hope this hasn't been said before): Let's assume god has made the world. Who made god, then? Maybe super-god, but who did make him then? ...
(and if you state now, that god has alyways existed, than I could simply claim as well, that the universe/... has always existed)

What you got out of it was not what i intended.

It shows how succumb (at least western society) society is due to christianity. It shows how christianity has more of a hold than any other religion and the very fact that it is always mentioned for everything religious (outside of terrorism) shows this. But then again its so imbedded in our pysche everybody here even that claims to be "athiest, agnostic" or "hates the christian religion" abides by their morals and their way of life. This is the nature of the christian religion.

Also even if something is the "loudest dissenter" doesn't neccesarily mean by arguing with it makes your argument any better or more sound. It makes it one sided, not very complete, and countering their points doesn't neccesarily mean that yours are true either.

__________________

I don't think the thread starter was claiming that Christianity is representative of all things religion: it's probably a statement borne out of familiarity, which brings me back to my original point.

I never said that arguing with the loudest dissenter will make one's argument more valid, but ignoring them is not going to "win" one the argument. Besides, some of the claims from those Intelligent Design fellows are so ludicrous that not countering them would be completely irresponsible.

Nemesis9: Agnosticism is certainly not the most scientific answer, if anything it's a giant kop out.

The most scientific answer is evolution, which proves that man evolved from apes and was not created by a higher being.

Other aspects of science, like geology which proves that the Earth was formed more than 6,000 years ago and Cosmology which proves how galaxies are formed, are the scientific answers.

If indeed a God did create the Earth in six days, then how does this reconcile to geological and cosmological evidence? Because I'm a kind hearted soul, I'll tell you: Either the people who wrote the Bible were nutters who invented a method of controlling the masses (God's gonna getcha, mo'fo') or God was lying (but He's infallible isn't He, and surely doesn't need to lie to protect his ego? Who cares if it took you a Billion years, we weren't here!).

__________________

alright, i guess we meant the same thing - the question which is "more scientific" is just a matter of how you define science. If you go for a rather positivist / nature science - definition it would probably be atheism, if you want a more philosophical definition ("scientific theories should be based just on logic...) you can't go wrong with stating you don't know the answer (just like Platons "i know, that I don't know anything), although I don't like agnosticism too much, as stated before.

(and yes, I know I simplified some theoretical things, such as positivism now).

and when it comes to the creation of the earth, i can't agree with either of your answers. god wasn't lying (you know, it's hard to lie if you don't exist), but the bible was probably also not wrote my people wanting to control masses. The forming of religions hast always been a more complex process, going hand in hand with the interests of those ruling but not beeing invented by them JUST (but maybe also) to control people.

Or The Genesis Creation Story isnt meant to be taken literally?

__________________

Also does anyone here know Pascal's Wager?

__________________

Sure, it's just the same as with Harry Potter. It's true, that they were flying around on brooms, you just mustn't take this literally. They just felt, as if flying around, so when interpreted correctly, the book actually wants us all to take drugs.

And maybe the world trade center could make it into the bible, when you exaggerate the story a bit and then tell people to not take it literally. The bible already tells about a huge tower which gets destroyed by god...

*sarcasm mode off*

Sure and I also know that many people gain lots of strenght from ther believes. That doesn't only apply to religion: I could also come up with the idea, that everyone everyone I don't like will be death by tomorrow. Maybe I'd be more happy then but still: thouh it may help it doesn't work for me to believe in that or in any religion, because it is just ridiculous to me. And just because I believe in something, the thing doesn't become true.

As for the wager: Let's assume I make a new religion now. The main thesis is, that you have to sing a Britney Spearce song everyday, otherwise you'll be tortured and everything after you died. Now, if you don't believe me and I was wrong indeed, nothing happens. But if you don't believe and I was right - bad for you If you do believe and I was wrong, nothing happens. But if I was right - well, then you were very lucky Now to conclude: Believing me and doing that song everyday is definately the better option for you

Evolution has nothing to do with disproving higher being creation. This is some sort of random thing that people have jumped onto arguing which is far from what evolution entails.

Intelligent design explains all of the arguments you made in relation to religion so it seems pretty trivial to even argue about it.

Such as:
God could have created all the processes which have yielded our universe and mankind. Evolution, the formation of the solar system, big bang, everything.

Also six days could just be as much of an interpretation as anything else one will read from the bible. So an argument about the text straight out of the bible is about as ridiculous as it gets. There aren't very many people who are going to argue the side of direct wording from the bible. It seems ridiculous to do so, and just as ridiculous to argue about it.

About the post above me. Do you honestly think thats how it works if there even is anything such as religion and after life? That you can "pretend" or go along with the flow and if you do that then good for you? Hopefully you don't because if god/gods are that stupid and easily tricked by man then who really is the god/gods here?

__________________

Yes as said above me Darwins Evolution does not provide a explanation for the origin of life to begin with.

__________________

If we're not supposed to take the text literally then why must religious folk live according to the teachings of the Bible? If the world was not created in 6 days, why the hell is that statement in there, particularly if the Bible is the very word of God? God created man in his own image? So God is an ape who would gladly throw his faeces at passers by? What if there is a God and at the Pearly Gates, He refuses entry to Heaven because you didn't believe he could create the Earth in 6 days? I here Doubting Thomas went down a storm in Satan's S&M dungeon.

I mentioned that agnosticism is a kop out earlier (as is Pascal's Wager for that matter) but religion has the oldest of that particular form in that often trawled out phrase, "don't take the Bible literally". This ranks up there with "God moves in mysterious ways" - nice one, God, what did that 6 year old ever do to deserve leukemia?

The problem is, Christians flit between taking and not taking the Bible literally as and when they please. They can't have it both ways. There is no such smoke and mirrors with science: it's either proven or not. Scientists don't qualify evolution with the metaphorical "because I said so", they use facts and logical deductions from first principles.

Evolution may not disprove fully the idea of a grand Creator, but it certainly blows the clap trap stated in the Bible out of the water and hence mankind's theological understanding of such a Creator. This for me is enough to dispell religion as entirely synthetic with no connection whatsoever to a Creator being.

Further to this, I have not seen one compelling shred of evidence to suggest that man was created, Intelligent Design (a misnomer if ever there was) included. ID is merely an advanced form of the sort of Christian thinking pre-Copernicus: Science couldn't disprove it so it must be true. But science prevaled then, and it will prevale again.

__________________

I have to disagree with that. I don't think that has anything to do with Christianity otherwise the Hindus and Jews wouldn't have a lot of the morals that Christians do. I think they're more like ways to just live a reasonably content, peaceful life regardless of what your religious persuasion is.

__________________

In his image does not mean he looks like a human.He is not of this world therefore he cannot be human or human/ape-like.The "in his image" is related to our ability to reason and our sentience and our values and morals.

__________________

Then He fucking failed miserably.

I can feel another kop out coming... "Free will".

__________________

In your opinion that is

and here is a good link to help with the figurative or literal thing:

http://www.catholic.com/library/cre...and_genesis.asp

__________________

Start here.

__________________

You do know that alot of those experiments have failed and has actually provided evidence for ID? The Urey/Miller thing? absolute joke and flawed

__________________

Modern society has been built on christianity. Hinduist and Jewish societies don't operate the same as the rest of the world does.

Mansley: NOW we are getting somewhere hah. You've touched on the thing that rubs me wrong way too often. The pick and chose what you want to and not to interpret, or what you do and don't want to follow. Shouldn't one just admit that unless you follow it literally you shouldn't follow it at all? Most christians are just idiots that fail to see their own hypocracy and if i was a god i damn sure wouldn't let someone who believes in religious buffet to come to my heaven.

The only reason why I made the argument i made against your early one regarding interpretation is that MOST people interpret rather than take the words word by word. The bible is often fancy and poetic in writting which leads one to believe that things should be interpreted rather than take them word for word.

But then again what is six days? Six rotations of the earth? It took six rotations of the earth for the universe to be made, before the earth was made? That makes alot of sense....

There are alot of theories for how life was started, but at the end of the day they still don't know. Those who puts as much weight into science as some people put into religion are fools as well. One can't accept science as "gospel" all the time and expect science to always create answers and solve every problem because far, far too often are they incorrect.

__________________

The Genesis story was never meant to be taken Word for Word literally the Bible shouldnt be broken down into being Figurative or Literal.It should be interpreted CORRECTLY.Did anyone even check that link i posted?

__________________

"that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), "

Just because one thing is meant to be literal in the Bible does not mean it can be or should be done with the book.The Bible is made up of several Books each with different themes.Which makes it possible and likely to accept a figurative creation story.

__________________

Who in the fuck are you to say how to correctly interpret the god damn bible?!

__________________

Maybe because thats how other Priests,Pastors,and other religion related related people have interpreted it for hundreds of years?

__________________

If thats how the pastors and religious leaders teach it, then why do people even think that it should be taken literally in the first place?

__________________

Because people can see different meanings to everything.Christians disagree on things like Free will and Calvinism all the time.A good way it was explained to me was:

"There is no such thing as taking the Bible literally or figuratively. The only way you should take the Bible is correctly and how it was supposed to be. To find this out, it is best to see how people originally took it, which results in a non-literal translation of it."

__________________

Then how could there even be one correct way?

__________________

Correct Way of what?

__________________

Interpreting the bible.

Or genesis or whatever we were talking about.

__________________

Thats really hard to determine.I take the creation story figuratively becuase it make sense to me that way and apparently lots of others.A good amount of people see in completely different.As long as both parties agree that the Lord created it,it doesnt matter how or how long it took him,that is the most important thing.

__________________

So how did the Lord get created?

__________________

The Lord is eternal he transcends time and matter

__________________

Why can't the universe be eternal?

__________________

Because it was created,nothing created can last eternally

__________________

You can't even prove that it was created. By all appearances it was just a heap of molten rock that happened to contain the amino acids that can form together to create life. And they did so about 4.6 billion years ago, contrary to the belief of the people who wrote the article you linked to which says that it was created 5,698 years ago. I could have misread though as it is 2 in the morning and I am on painkillers right now.

__________________

I wasnt trying to prove it was created.You asked a question and i answered it with my beliefs.I believe the world is millions of years old but i also believe it was created.Not that we just got lucky and everything was perfectly balanced for human life by pure accident

__________________

And dude im tired as heck it was fun talking to ya about this.Take Care

__________________

Even if it wasnt perfectly balanced for perfect human life, we would have evolved differently, look differently, talk differently, think differently etc and that would what we would call perfect. I hope you get what I'm saying.

That however we turned out, we would consider it perfect because it is all we know for ourselves.

Yeah nice chat mate, good night.

__________________

I'm too drunk to be reading this.

Hahaha

__________________

Be that as it may, the "difficulty" and unlikeliness to be able to "inerpret" it "correctly" is still a reality. Your attempt to try and explain this is pretty shitty and just kind of proves my point, and debunks yours in the same sentence.

In agreement with your later point, the purpose of the bible isn't to nitpick at tiny little objects rather the morals and stories it conveys. To sit here and say that the bible is a "fact by fact" representation of what happened in the past seems pretty asinine. It would seem christ never intended the religion to become the at times sadistic unnatural cult that it is today, rather an earthly humble existance. (which it is very far from)

Have you not thought that god in his "infinite wisdom" KNEW that how he created the universe eventually via various processes he designed would yeild mankind? Does it not say that man was created from the earth by gods hand?

Inflames: There is no point in "proving faith." That would be the dumbest thing ever. A christian, muslim, jew shouldn't have to "prove" their religion exists. The point IS faith and their isn't really any positive in attempting to gain knowledge that one isn't going to gain.

What would be the definitive sign that god doesn't exist? Honestly, lets be realisitic here. It shouldn't take but about 30 seconds of thinking to understand its impossible, and always going to end up fruitless. The only thing people are "proving inaccurate" are various things in the bible. But then again most times they aren't proving anything wrong, rather realizing the details aren't exactly the same in the book. (the world flooding and so on)

Where the sick christian religion continues to go down the wrong path is the OVER interpretation and blind ignorance that it has today.

__________________

I guess I just don't get how people could so strictly abide by the rules and tecahings of a book written thousands of years ago. Its a book, written by humans - humans are prone to exaggeration and outright lying. And as the bible says, humans are imperfect. Also, the bible has been translated thousands of times, from language to language and different versions exist. Could not the original meaning of some things be lost?

__________________

It takes 30 seconds to prove God doesnt exist?Why dont you bring that up to a Christian Scientist or Christian Apologetic.They would rip your fucking nuts off in a debate.Your attacking me for trying to provide points for my side of the debate so im gonna return the favor and criticize your fucking idiotic statements.I can understand and respect In Flames standing because he provided what he thinks of the world and God and did so without being an arrogant prick.Blind Chance isnt the only explanation for everything.Try to be a little accepting and respectful of others beliefs regardless what you think about them.

__________________

the meaning? probably not so much. the details? most definitely.

An example of this is anything Socrates. Plato wrote Socrates dialogues years and years after they happened. Does one really believe what he said was word for word? No absolutely not, but said it in the context that was what about he would say, and for the purpose of the reader getting away with what the purpose of the dialogue was.

Picking and chosing what you believe in a religion is a crock.
Lets run through the logic here:
You pick and chose what you want to believe because in the end it suits you and yourself best. When was religion ever an all about yourself/selfish kind of thing?

__________________

Such as the literal interpretation of the Creation Story? I completely agree with you that some things are may be lost thru translations.One example is the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is actually when put in its original lanugage is a rough meaning of "Thou Shalt Not Murder"

But according to TMfreak everything i say is bullshit so yeah

__________________

Yep, thats what i said. I would suggest reread what i've said considering ive pretty much carried the weight of the side of christianity "fighting" evolution this entire fucking time.

If you're intelligently uncappable of understanding my questions I've asked of you, I'll understand. Shouldn't one who makes an argument for creationism have already understood that god could have created all that has been before, rather than calling it all scientific hoaxes and nonsense?

__________________

I never said evolution was a scientific hoax.....

My belief is that millions of years ago God put into effect the natural orders of things with the original intent of creating humans thru evolution.I prolly read your post too fast and mis read it.for that i apologize

__________________

Thats exactly what i said...

I didn't say you said it was a hoax, rather most ecentric ridiculous christians act as though it is. You didn't explain whether or not your believed in evolution or natural processes.

__________________

Aww shit.... Sorry dude

I believe in Evolution but not Darwins Theory of it(if that makes sense)

As i understand it Darwins theory eliminates God as opposed to just Scientific evolution which doesnt have an explanation of the origin of life

__________________

Goddamn right.



Evolution does not prove that man was not created by a higher being, although certainly many of it's more intelligent followers (such as you and I) eventually reach that conclusion. Evolution is not incompatible with the idea that She created man, and in fact would show God to be a lot more experimental and fun that I ever gave the Bible credit for.

It also is just as likely that She intended us to be merely one of billions of stepping stones in evolution and that we aren't, in fact, her prized creation in and of ourselves. How arrogant that would be!



This is true. Again, more intelligent Christians would assert that the processes we've discovered were those utilized by Her upon Her creation of the universe. Again, they are much more difficult to argue than the stubbornly ignorant imbeciles known as "Fundamentalists" because they insert logic into their beliefs.



Intelligent, modern day Christians would have to perceive the Bible as being a figurative gospel and not a literal one, and there are many potential explanations why; my personal favorite is that man, at that point in his existence, was far too stupid to understand the significance of the truth presented in it's raw form and, thusly, She had the book written in a simplistic, idealistic, and hyperbolic form that ignorant, stupid man would be able to better understand at that time.

The tragedy comes in the fact that so many people, to this present day, are far too stupid to take the Bible in anything but literal form, and are forced to challenge proven scientific facts with nothing but "God put bones in the earth to TEST OUR FAITH!" Test our faith? If evolution truly has any intelligent design to enhance species to perfection, the Fundamentalist genotype is due for extinction real soon.

Of course, another interesting idea is that evolution was created by Her, but she does not guide it; therefore, it was Her creation, but has no intelligent route or goal... She created it so it may boundlessly create and she could sit and enjoy the show, I suppose. God really IS a bitch.

__________________

Darwins theory says nothing about religion, god or the creation of the earth or life.

Darwin is survival of the fittest. And thats it, nothing more nothing less. The idea that successful traits continued to flourished while shitty ones did not. Overtime through "some way" (which still hasn't been concluded) animals took on different shapes.

I dont' think there is a soul out there that seems to understand this. Darwin would definitely "roll in his grave" if he saw how much his shit was thrown around aimlessly. Its on both sides of the spectrum, Christian fundamentalists and "atheists" alike. Both seem to believe Darwin had some sort of hand in saying creation is full of shit.

__________________

I think that comes from most darwin-evolutionists come up with these incredibly far fetched reasons for the origin of life and most people assume that that means he eliminated God.Im relatively new to this(ive been studying it for maybe 2-3 months) So your prolly right

__________________

I just looked at your quote. It doesn't make any sense, if anything it shows darwinism all over it. How else would something develop such different physical features? Survival baby.

__________________

Haha my quote isnt meant to be serious.A guy at another forum i frequent said this and i got a big kick out of it so i quoted him.

__________________

I didn't honestly take it to heart, but I was hoping one wouldn't actually attempt to make an argument out of it, but then again if it was a solid argument I wouldn't mind having a go at it.

__________________

There is a shit load of truth to this. The things alive today fought to survive, adapted, and in some cases specialized to find their niche. If I'm right Darwin never sought to challenge creation, religion, or start a 100+ year fight. He just stated he can see common resemblances between different species, some long dead and some better made.

Its not a fantastic ideal to believe living things change over time. Insects do it right before us every day on some level.

For religious people I think it affirms a wonderful design. We all die but life continues, and stronger.

__________________

Jam that foot a little further in. I don't think your toes are quite up on your back teeth yet.

__________________

Ascerting that a God "created" the science that led to life in this universe doesn't sit well with me. While not beyond the realms of possibility (since it cannot be falsified even if a Grand Unified Theory and the orgins of life are proven and fully understood) it, once more, sounds like a kop out, one-upmanship, almost. It's as if Christianity (and it is largely emanating from Christianity) is trying to lay claim to the science that is dispelling the very tenets of the Bible relating to how came to be.

Everyone who has said that Evolution does not disprove Creation is right. What Evolution does disprove, for me, is the Bible's account of it. Much in the same way that General Relativity superceded Newtonian Mechanics, Creationists must find another theory and Inteligent Design is not it. How does this interact with faith? It doesn't. It requires a paradigm shift that no person of faith would buy into. Why? Because why would they believe the new account over the old when it's a question of faith in both cases and would discredit the Church? Contrast this to science: the scientific community could easily move to Relativistic Mechanics because there was a wealth of empirical evidence to support it.

__________________

I don't interpret it that way at all. If anything, I interpret it as an effort on the part of the faithful to validate their beliefs in the face of overpowering evidence against the way their beliefs were once interpreted, and against the way their beliefs are presented in their millenia old gospel. As long as it allows them to understand the way science discovers truth, I don't care if they feel the need to qualify it as a creation of their God. The point of science, after all, is to elucidate the complex methods by where matter and space were created, exist, and evolve, not to rob the faithful of their faith. There is no point in involving science in unprovable and undisprovable paradoxes involving beings we've never seen or heard who apparently exist on some unexplorable plane. Basically, to me, scientific facts exist independently of any religious beliefs; indeed, all scientific hypotheses should until we reach a point of advancement where we can solve the heretofore unsolvable.




Absolutely.



This is why science is more reliable, helpful, and informative than any religion has ever been or ever will be. Unfortunately, we are still in a state of primitivity where religion is more powerful than science. Hopefully that changes in time to save the planet... we'll see.

As far as creationists go, they are basically the lowest common denominator of intellectualism in modern society... they are equivalent to the slack-jawed hillbillies of science, indeed worse, since they don't engage in actual science while maintaining the premise that they do. They are surprisingly willing to condemn a man to death based on the same evidence whose validity they attempt to destroy when it disproves their universal beliefs, a tragic irony they are far too stupid to see. DNA, RNA, AA sequences need to be thrown out the window; they can prove that you are related to me, they just can't prove we are related to chimpanzees. Fuck that shit! We didnt come from no monkeys1!

__________________

Somewhat old topic, probably not bringing anything new to it, but I've been reading a lot of this stuff lately so I thought of replying something.

I think both are complete bullshit. No, someone didn't snap his fingers and *ping* we started to exist. No, we didn't evolve from a fucking microbe. There are so many holes in the so called evolution that it really doesn't prove anything. ("even if it isn't proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist" true, but in this case I don't believe that) There are animals that have been the same for like 4 million years. It's simply impossible for anything to not evolve in that period of time. If evolution exists. Which it doesn't.

The whole creationism thing... common sense that it's not true. At least in the way the bible is telling it. Or how we've understood the bible.

I do believe "someone" created us in a way or another. It's just something we'll probably never know.

__________________

I personally believe your attitude and open-mindedness is pretty piss poor. (surprisingly) I'm not saying you should accept one over the other, or both but for you to conclude that its impossible for something to evolve over a time span, seemingly says that you know way more than apparently every scientist in these particular fields.

Being skeptical is one thing, and concluding something with no evidence or real knowledge on the subject is pretty asinine. Who are you to call what is and whats not possible? Maybe your mind is unable to comprehending the possibilities of either, or BOTH? Both theories are loaded with questionable ideas. Creationism isn't something that is intended to prove or dissprove. Unless god "himself" comes down from the heavens and says "yes i made you, yes i made the way things are" (which even then people would deny i'm sure) there is no way it will ever be proved. One of the points i made earlier is simply that, for somebody of faith there is no real REASON to try and prove or dissprove your religion. Thats not what faith is about. There is nothing ont he planet that when you turn it over has a stamp on it and says "Made by God."

What are the possible evidence even conceiveable that could prove gods existance? At least in my frail and feeble mind I can not come up with a single way to prove scientifically something that is intangible and not of the physical world.

Even if something seems unlikely to be true most definitely doesn't disprove it by a long shot. Just because you can't conceive of a being snapping his fingers and making the universe does not mean it didn't happen. I know pretty much said the samething, but its not just words it's what is. (by this of course i'm refering to disproving via not believing.)

Even if there are holes in the THEORY that doesn't mean it isn't similar or at least kind of predicts what happens. There are so many physics theories, BASIC theories, that we take for granted everyday. But remember they're theories and not laws.

__________________