Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[foibles]

OK, whoa, wraith89; I never said that science was right and special creation was wrong; I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. What I meant to say was that there could have been special creation, I just believe that Darwin's theory was correct. And, now, of course, chickens supposedly evolved from T. Rexes. That does seem a bit odd... But, really. I know Pokémonfan said that there was never a transspecies fossil found; that doesn't mean that there aren't any. I'm sorry, I just believe that things evolved, because if a divine force helped us, where did that divine force come from? Was it created by another? Because if that happened, the one that created ours was probably created by another, which was most likely created by another, and so on and so on. I'm not gonna get in the way of your beliefs, and this is starting to be too philisophical for me. So, uh... Bye, people.

EDIT: Like Endiku said:


I totally agree with this.

Oh yeah. /end rant.

There is nothing "philosophical" about this. Belief in anything really should be grounded in reality. When all the evidence points in one direction, and people still think otherwise, it is usually called stupidity. People really need to stop bending over backwards like this and stand up for what all evidence points toward.

And that other post simply makes you seem more jesus addicted. Seriously, it's not something to be proud of.

[girox]

hum... Choosing between the bible and darwin... well... I'd Choose Arceus
Don't want to be rude (I'm catholic and all...) but the bible is like an antique sci fi novel and darwin... well he believed we and teh monkeyz were cousins... so yeah I stick with Arceus

[Enkidu]

I really think someone should delete that last post, it's ignorant to no end.

By simply saying

well he believed we and teh monkeyz were cousins

it shows your lack of even a pathetic attempt to understand the theory, meaning I believe you don't even have a right to say it's wrong.

Your faith also seems ill met if your calling the bible an Antique Science fiction novel as well.

[girox]

I really think someone should delete that last post, it's ignorant to no end.

By simply saying it shows your lack of even a pathetic attempt to understand the theory, meaning I believe you don't even have a right to say it's wrong.

Your faith also seems ill met if your calling the bible an Antique Science fiction novel as well.

It was just a short and "fun" way to say it... gosh I'M SORRY and yes my faith isn't what it used to be 13 years ago I have my reasons why to think like that and I do know about darwin's theory

gee...

[Okami]

I think it's mostly in your wording, Girox. I guess because this is a more mature-based discussion thread, the way you put it just wasn't fitting for some others =/
You're forgiven, though. :]

[girox]

Yeah... my bad, I'll watch my comments from now on

[Enkidu]

It was just a short and "fun" way to say it... gosh I'M SORRY and yes my faith isn't what it used to be 13 years ago I have my reasons why to think like that and I do know about darwin's theory

Don't worry about it, but in a debate thread, you DEBATE not talk down to other people from what seems to be a self justified position of higher moral authority and simply state I believe what I believe and your beliefs are just wrong.

but anyway, lets get back on point here.

[Zafur]

This forum has been awfully quiet...
The "missing link" has been found, any comments?

I've only read one article on it so far, so I'm still neutralish. Could or could not be, but sounds believable so far.

[wraith89]

I highly doubt that missing link is actually a missing link. Funny thing is, that article is dated back at 2006 or something.

[Illithian]

I highly doubt that missing link is actually a missing link. Funny thing is, that article is dated back at 2006 or something.

Scientists are fairly certain its the missing link.

Look at it this way. National Geographic (as of today) has officially proclaimed it the missing link. Thats a massive organization with a big reputation. They don't want to say things that end up being disproven later. Yes, it happens, but it still looks bad. They are pretty sure about something before they announce it, let alone put it online.

I'm not going to make a long statement about why I think science can explain everything (and my freakishly sci-fi version of "creation of the universe"), but I might write a novel about it. Someday. Far, far away.

[Enkidu]

There hasn't just been ONE missing link, every time the scientific community finds a "missing link" , the religious community disregards it entirely saying, well now you need to find a BETTER transitional fossil.

Theres another "missing link" that was found yesterday too.

-> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

-->http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...0405_fish.html

--->http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ink-found.html

[wraith89]

It's not even that. It's that the last time they claimed to have found missing links... many happened to be hoaxes (a boar's tooth for Nebraska Man anyone?)

I'm very skeptical about their claims and I want to do some further investigation before accepting it as if it were a fact.

[Okami]

Another missing link has been found? Gasp. </sarcasm>

Pardon my disrespect there, but seriously. They just need to give it up, because this new one looks too dinosaurish to be anything closely related to a human.

[Zafur]

Dinosaur? May I ask which one you're referring to? All I see is a lemur-monkey and something that looks like an amputated fish/fish growing legs.

[wraith89]

Dinosaur? May I ask which one you're referring to? All I see is a lemur-monkey and something that looks like an amputated fish/fish growing legs.

LOL. More the reason to shun this whole "missing link" hypothesis