Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[Zafur]

I'm sorry I haven't been posting... I figured I should avoid it for a while.

I believe that he put in every species certain genes that would allow them to develop into several different types, but I find the idea that through a series of accidents, one species can evolve into another species, quite ludicrous.

This has been mentioned before...

If you can believe in evolution, or change in the genetic make up of a species at all, (especially if you believe that genetic mutation exists and does cause change in individuals that can then be passed down) then you should be able to believe that it could happen on a larger scale over billions of years.

I see no reason for you not to believe that this is possible. There doesn't seem to be a genetic "stop" in a genome of any species that stops it from mutating so much as to be considered a new species.

The most common response I get from Darwinists is "what proof is there that your god exists?" My answer, for the record, would be "about as much proof as there is for Darwinism." That is, none. Christianity and Darwinism are both faiths, people. Their respective followers will both swear that their respective beliefs are the right ones.

People shouldn't be asking about proof of a god when debating about Creation Vs Evolution. You have to assume that an Intelligent Designer exists if you're debating over what he does and if it clashes with a scientific theory. We're not debating about a Creator itself, it's irrelevant.

Also, I find your answer to be rather ironic...

Darwinism... It's theory, is founded on evidence, proof. It's what Science is, proving a theory or hypothesis by using established fact and finding evidence to support it, rather like a court using evidence to prove someone guilty. If there's not enough evidence, it won't be accepted, the theory, or the guilty sentence. It's based on facts and proof.

Religion, on the other hand, uses faith. Faith is belief in something without needing evidence. The blind following the blind. You have to trust that you'll end up in the right place.

Darwinism is simply not a faith. I'm a "follower" or "believer" in Evolution, but if new evidence comes up that thwarts the theory, I will end my belief in it. This proves that it cannot be a faith, as faith requires trust regardless of proof.

Furthermore (and I know this has been brought up before now): I truly believe that if Darwinism is right, nothing can be wrong. If we are all the result of an accident, there is no basis for law or morality. Seriously, guys, if I'm an accident, what right does anyone in power have to govern me? If I'm an accident, I might as well do whatever the heck I want and enjoy myself, no? I think I'll go rob some guy because I want that flat-screen TV of his, and he has no more right to it than I do because he's an accident, too. Right?

Our origins doesn't need to affect our morality... I see no reasoning in this.

Belief in evolution doesn't mean you can't believe in your religion anyways...

This could only possible apply if you were an Atheist, and decided to throw away your morals and do whatever you want because there will be no after life consequences.

[Another edit:] Wait... You're saying you have no reason to hold onto your morals if there was no prize? Is that really true belief in God, or are you just God-fearing? Even if I was an Atheist, I would continue to be civil and hold onto my morals, as I don't take pleasure in other people's misfortune or being a jerk. Even with religion causing so much violence, it might just even out if it causes people to not go on killing rampages.

Bwah. This debate would make me feel like an Atheist if it weren't for me constantly mentioning that you can believe in both a religion and evolution at the same time...xP

Edit: I think we should make a list of points brought up and full responses to them to stop them being brought up repeatedly without any new ground.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Well, of course. Ethnicity just isn't a factor for most people anymore. Discriminating against religion is the new racism.

The difference is that race is an immutable value. Religion isn't.

Besides, this topic is not discriminating against religion. It's just that most of the smart people here are, piece by piece, removing every one of the strong legs that religion has to stand on in a reasoned and logical manner, and some people seem to think that's "discrimination" or "viciously attacking" them.

Also, there is a big difference between proving evolution and proving God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. God is a far more extraordinary claim than evolution, so if there is equal evidence that God and evolution are true, I swing towards the less extraordinary claim, evolution.

On top of that, the evidence isn't even equal. There is far more evidence for evolution than for God. That tips the scale even more in evolution's favor.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you expound, if it's not too much trouble?

I will, for him.

The quote of yours that this was responding to is:

"The world has seen too many events in the history of the world that were first predicted in the Bible to doubt its accuracy (the fall of Rome, anyone?); too many observations about human nature that have been proven correct time and again (namely, the human tendency to deny God and put man in His place). There are also scientific principles in the Bible that some didn't accept until years later (roundness of the earth, anyone?)"

Logically speaking, proving one, isolated part of the Bible correct does not prov the rest of it correct. It only proves that one part of it correct. Each part must be proven correct on it's own accord, and not rely on the strength of its neighbors to prop it up.

Now, you might counter and saw "proving one part of the Bible wrong doesn't prove the whole Bible wrong", and that is correct. What it does prove wrong is the belief that the Bible is infallible and should be taken as correct at it's face.

Well, I would hardly have a reason to hold on to my morals if there's no gain to be had from following them.

Yes, you would.

Evolution isn't just about individuals competing for survival against other individuals. It can also be about tribes competing against other tribes.

There are two extremes of "culture" that a tribe can have. At one extreme, each member ruthlessly exploits the other members by lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. This is the "immoral" group. The other forbids lying, cheating, stealing, etc against other tribe members. The make friends, share, and above all abide by the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." This is the "moral" group.

In a side by side comparison, the immoral tribe would be far worse off than the moral group. In the immoral group, concepts like teamwork would never exist, and each tribe member would need to fend for itself, mostly. In fact, it could hardly be called a tribe, it's not much more than a group of animals that happened to live in the same location.

In the moral group, teamwork and sharing contribute to much better living conditions. Rather than each member having to build its own house and hunt its own food, the good-house-builders-but-poor-hunters can build houses for other members in exchange for food, without too much fear of being shorted on the deal. The good hunters can hunt, the good farmers can farm, he good tool-makers can make tools, etc.

So yes, there is a purely logical reason to have some kind of morals, without having to create the threat of Divine Punishment. Those morals might not be the exact ones spelled out in the Bible though.

BTW, here's an explanation of carbon dating to correct your misunderstanding.

There are two isotopes of carbon (an isotope are atoms of the same element that have different amounts of neutrons). The most common isotope is carbon-12, which is non radioactive. The less common one, and the one that is crucial to carbon dating, is carbon-14, and it is radioactive.

Through observation and experimentation, scientists have managed to find out two important things about carbon: 1) the exact percentage of carbon that is carbon-14 in nature, and 2) the half-life of carbon-14.

The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,300 years. This means that every 5,300 years, half of a sample of carbon-14 decays into something else. If you start with 100g, in 5,300 years you would be left with 50g of carbon-14 (and 50g of whatever c-14 decayed into). In another 5,300 years, 25g would be left, with 75g of the decay byproduct. Repeat indefinitely until the last atom decays sometime after the 12th of never.

When a creature is living, it is constantly expelling and ingesting carbon, and this keeps the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 constant. This is a specific ratio that is identical across all species in the entire world. When it dies, the carbon exchange stops, so any carbon left in its body stays there.

As the creature decays, the ratio of c-12 to c-14 will change. Because the creature can't expel or ingest any more carbon, there's no way to fix the ratio back to the constant ration of a living creature. By measuring the change in the ratio between c-12 and c-14 in a dead animal, scientists can calculate how many half-lives have gone by since the animal died. Since the half life is a known quantity, they can therefore calculate how long the animal has been dead.

Last I heard, carbon dating is accurate to around 50,000 years. After that, the sample of c-14 left is to small to make an accurate measurement, and scientists must resort to using other radioactive elements with a longer half-life to estimate dates. The process though, it usually the same as with carbon dating.

[Turtlekid2]

On top of that, the evidence isn't even equal. There is far more evidence for evolution than for God. That tips the scale even more in evolution's favor.

Any "evidence" I've seen used to support evolution can just as easily be used to support creation.

I will, for him.

The quote of yours that this was responding to is:

"The world has seen too many events in the history of the world that were first predicted in the Bible to doubt its accuracy (the fall of Rome, anyone?); too many observations about human nature that have been proven correct time and again (namely, the human tendency to deny God and put man in His place). There are also scientific principles in the Bible that some didn't accept until years later (roundness of the earth, anyone?)"

Logically speaking, proving one, isolated part of the Bible correct does not prov the rest of it correct. It only proves that one part of it correct. Each part must be proven correct on it's own accord, and not rely on the strength of its neighbors to prop it up.

Now, you might counter and saw "proving one part of the Bible wrong doesn't prove the whole Bible wrong", and that is correct. What it does prove wrong is the belief that the Bible is infallible and should be taken as correct at it's face.

Actually, proving any part of the Bible wrong would prove the rest of it wrong. Either the biblical authors were telling the complete truth 100% or they were insane/liars and could be trusted 0% (actually, several biblical authors died for their beliefs when they could have just recanted to spare themselves; this leaves only two possibilities: they were either accurate or insane).

Yes, you would.

Evolution isn't just about individuals competing for survival against other individuals. It can also be about tribes competing against other tribes.

There are two extremes of "culture" that a tribe can have. At one extreme, each member ruthlessly exploits the other members by lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. This is the "immoral" group. The other forbids lying, cheating, stealing, etc against other tribe members. The make friends, share, and above all abide by the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." This is the "moral" group.

In a side by side comparison, the immoral tribe would be far worse off than the moral group. In the immoral group, concepts like teamwork would never exist, and each tribe member would need to fend for itself, mostly. In fact, it could hardly be called a tribe, it's not much more than a group of animals that happened to live in the same location.

In the moral group, teamwork and sharing contribute to much better living conditions. Rather than each member having to build its own house and hunt its own food, the good-house-builders-but-poor-hunters can build houses for other members in exchange for food, without too much fear of being shorted on the deal. The good hunters can hunt, the good farmers can farm, he good tool-makers can make tools, etc.

So yes, there is a purely logical reason to have some kind of morals, without having to create the threat of Divine Punishment. Those morals might not be the exact ones spelled out in the Bible though.

You aren't talking about morality. You're talking about following the basic survival instinct. Morality isn't necessarily the most convenient choice in such a community; what if a pregnant woman in said tribe were forced to abort her child so that would be one fewer mouth to feed? It might be more convenient or profitable for the tribe, but it certainly wouldn't be moral.

Also, where is the law enforcement in this tribe? Human nature dictates that eventually someone or several someones will break the rules for whatever reason (be it selfish or otherwise). That's when the trouble arises. No one would have to tell them what to do, to tell them to stop breaking the rules. A mutually beneficial situation such as in your example only works as long as everyone agrees that they're getting their fair share. Again, given human nature, that isn't long. Not long at all.

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure how this thing about carbon-dating came about; I don't think I've refuted it's accuracy...? For the record, I'm open to the concept known as "old-earth creationism," which basically means that the days of creation in Genesis may or may not have been actual twenty-four hour periods. [if the carbon-dating argument was directed at someone else, disregard this little tangent.]

[Zafur]

Mind giving an example about the evidence going both ways?

Actually, proving any part of the Bible wrong would prove the rest of it wrong. Either the biblical authors were telling the complete truth 100% or they were insane/liars and could be trusted 0%

Or they were using metaphors and their parables, etc were to be taken for their meaning only, and not as 100% fact.

[pokemonfan]

I'm going to comment now...not anything major just something on the side.

Clearly I had no idea what I was doing when I started this thread and not a full grasp of the matter, like enkidu said unfortunately. I wish I could help turtlekid but alas I'm not sure how to back him up. I wish I'd never started this thread to begin with its only going to lead to an argument that no one is going to win. I see that you're out numbered so far turtlekid and I wish you luck for I, am on your side yet I need to find some information.

[Zafur]

Numbers shouldn't matter if you come up with good points.

It'll probably end with either agreeing to disagree, whether that means disregarding evidence or not, or having someone have a change in their beliefs.

For example going from believing Creation or Evolution only to maybe believing in both. Doesn't need to be drastic.

Good to see you make another post. I've been waiting for a comment from you.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Any "evidence" I've seen used to support evolution can just as easily be used to support creation.

Please, do give an example.

And if the only way the evidence supports creation is that "God could do that too" that is NOT support. At best it's just not refuting God.

In a logic system that presupposes the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God, any theory you can think of, even the most wild one ever, is irrefutable because "God could do that too." As such, I view such a system as meaningless in a scientific sense. There no point to making irrefutable statements, since attempting to falsify an idea is one of the ways scientists attempt to test its truth.

Science, on the other hand, presupposes NOTHING and builds up our understanding of the universe from independent, objective, verifiable observation. And so far, science has been able to explain quite a lot of the world quite well without having to postulate God to fill any gaps.

Actually, proving any part of the Bible wrong would prove the rest of it wrong. Either the biblical authors were telling the complete truth 100% or they were insane/liars and could be trusted 0% (actually, several biblical authors died for their beliefs when they could have just recanted to spare themselves; this leaves only two possibilities: they were either accurate or insane).

Disproving part of the Bible doesn't prove the rest of it wrong, logically speaking, but you are right that it does eliminate the absolute trust so many people seem to blindly put into it.

You aren't talking about morality. You're talking about following the basic survival instinct. Morality isn't necessarily the most convenient choice in such a community; what if a pregnant woman in said tribe were forced to abort her child so that would be one fewer mouth to feed? It might be more convenient or profitable for the tribe, but it certainly wouldn't be moral.

Also, where is the law enforcement in this tribe? Human nature dictates that eventually someone or several someones will break the rules for whatever reason (be it selfish or otherwise). That's when the trouble arises. No one would have to tell them what to do, to tell them to stop breaking the rules. A mutually beneficial situation such as in your example only works as long as everyone agrees that they're getting their fair share. Again, given human nature, that isn't long. Not long at all.

A prehistoric tribe likely wouldn't have any form of organized law enforcement. However, it wouldn't be needed. Untrustworthy members would not be trusted with anything. Other tribe members may even attempt to con them in the same ways that they were conned. Also, conned members may attempt to take retribution against to conmen, early vigilante justice. Those things would act as a very real deterrent against dishonesty, much like law enforcement attempts to do today.

Morals were formed in the absence of a statutory system of laws to act as a guide post for how to best behave for the good of the tribe.

It's an evolutionary imperative to protect your offspring as much as possible. There's also an imperative to protect your friends and tribemen as well. In a prehistoric tribe, a situation like what you describe

is only likely to occur in an extreme case, such as a famine. In that situation, one less mouth to feed can be the difference between life and death of other members. A tribe would be foolish to not abort the kid. Though, the "abortion" would likely just be either killing off the pregnant woman or just leaving her to fend for herself.

However, you're probably alluding to more of a situation of abortion for convenience. I personally don't agree with it, but my objection is more along the lines of a "Don't do something if you're not prepared to accept the consequences of it" sort of thing. There are quite a number of ways to avoid pregnancy, the most effective of which is abstinence. I have a hard time considering something that's just a small pile of cells human.

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure how this thing about carbon-dating came about; I don't think I've refuted it's accuracy...? For the record, I'm open to the concept known as "old-earth creationism," which basically means that the days of creation in Genesis may or may not have been actual twenty-four hour periods. [if the carbon-dating argument was directed at someone else, disregard this little tangent.]

You misunderstood how accurate carbon dating was, so I explained it to show that it could be more accurate than 5,000 years.

[Turtlekid2]

Please, do give an example.

Alright. For example, some evolutionists might use the similarity of one species' physique to another species'. Instead of being evidence for evolution, it could simply mean that God re-uses his designs, much like an artist has a unique art style.

Science, on the other hand, presupposes NOTHING and builds up our understanding of the universe from independent, objective, verifiable observation. And so far, science has been able to explain quite a lot of the world quite well without having to postulate God to fill any gaps.

Oh, but I'm afraid your "science" (and that's a term I apply lightly to evolutionary theory) does presuppose. First, and most importantly, it presupposes that God doesn't exist, a statement you simply cannot prove. It presupposes that all these unlikely events, these one-in-billions odds all happened in the one-in-billions conditions needed to sustain life. Darwin used the phrase "we may well suppose" countless times in Origins.

Morals were formed in the absence of a statutory system of laws to act as a guide post for how to best behave for the good of the tribe.

Laws were formed in the absence of a statutory system of laws. Morals are not defined by man.

It's an evolutionary imperative to protect your offspring as much as possible. There's also an imperative to protect your friends and tribemen as well. In a prehistoric tribe, a situation like what you describe

is only likely to occur in an extreme case, such as a famine. In that situation, one less mouth to feed can be the difference between life and death of other members. A tribe would be foolish to not abort the kid. Though, the "abortion" would likely just be either killing off the pregnant woman or just leaving her to fend for herself.

Yes, and that killing would be immoral.

However, you're probably alluding to more of a situation of abortion for convenience. I personally don't agree with it, but my objection is more along the lines of a "Don't do something if you're not prepared to accept the consequences of it" sort of thing. There are quite a number of ways to avoid pregnancy, the most effective of which is abstinence. I have a hard time considering something that's just a small pile of cells human.

But you see a larger "pile of cells" as human?

You misunderstood how accurate carbon dating was, so I explained it to show that it could be more accurate than 5,000 years.

Did I? I honestly don't remember mentioning carbon dating at all.:confused:

[Enkidu]

The way scientists found that the earth is billions of years old is through the Radio-Carbon dating method, which is the most accurate up to 5000 years. 4.5 billion is just a number, with no real meaning. The LORD created the world himself.

Evandixon is the one who said it.

Alright. For example, some evolutionists might use the similarity of one species' physique to another species'. Instead of being evidence for evolution, it could simply mean that God re-uses his designs, much like an artist has a unique art style.

Thats unverified surmise, and "evolutionists" do not use physique as a characteristic to say "evolution is right" but that species have common ancestors.

Oh, but I'm afraid your "science" (and that's a term I apply lightly to evolutionary theory) does presuppose. First, and most importantly, it presupposes that God doesn't exist, a statement you simply cannot prove. It presupposes that all these unlikely events, these one-in-billions odds all happened in the one-in-billions conditions needed to sustain life. Darwin used the phrase "we may well suppose" countless times in Origins.

No, Evolution does not start with, "god does not exist" It begins with "god is not needed" there is a huge difference between the meaning of those two phrases.

Laws were formed in the absence of a statutory system of laws. Morals are not defined by man.

I disagree, however answering this question is something hundreds of people have spent their life analyzing so I do not think that I could do any of them justice by trying to sum up one side of it for you in a couple of lines.

Clearly I had no idea what I was doing when I started this thread and not a full grasp of the matter, like enkidu said unfortunately. I wish I could help turtlekid but alas I'm not sure how to back him up. I wish I'd never started this thread to begin with its only going to lead to an argument that no one is going to win. I see that you're out numbered so far turtlekid and I wish you luck for I, am on your side yet I need to find some information.

Being outnumbered has nothing to do with who makes the most valid and substantiated points, nor should it a DEBATE be seen as a game, with whoever has the most number of players coming out on top because they can verbally "gang up" on one side.

Anyway I'm going to drop out of this debate, it's just going in circles like it always does and we're not getting anywhere.

[kuoleva]

Oh, but I'm afraid your "science" (and that's a term I apply lightly to evolutionary theory) does presuppose. First, and most importantly, it presupposes that God doesn't exist, a statement you simply cannot prove. It presupposes that all these unlikely events, these one-in-billions odds all happened in the one-in-billions conditions needed to sustain life. Darwin used the phrase "we may well suppose" countless times in Origins.

Yes, many evolutionists are atheists. The theory itself, however, does NOT assume there is no god. It simply states that we have, well, evolved. There is nothing saying "Oh, we evolved, god couldn't exist".

Yes, Darwin did use that statement. You know why? Because unlike religion, he had enough sense to say "Hey, we don't really know everything. This is just another theory."

Laws were formed in the absence of a statutory system of laws. Morals are not defined by man.

Morals ARE defined by us, our society. Society tells us that, say, homosexuality, is immoral. That "moral" has developed. In Shakespeare's time, homosexuality was open, it is even suggested that some of Shakespeare's greatest love poetry was written about, you guessed it, a man.

Society tells us certain things are wrong. We grow up believing that, and thus, morals are born.

Why do you define certain things as immoral? Is it because you grew up believing that? If your pastor or the bible never said premarital sex was wrong, nor was homosexuality, would you still believe it is immoral? What is so wrong about them? Is it because a book said "lolno"? Most arguments against things such as that are "the bible said no". Really? Can you come up with one other good reason? Do you really believe people in gay or lesbian relationships do not feel the same love for each other that a man and woman would? Does it have any effect on you at all?

Again, we define in our society what is "right" and "wrong". THAT is how laws are made, by our society's acceptance or nonacceptance of human actions. If we are "born" with morals, they simply start the first time we look out into the world. If you could look into the thoughts of a newborn child after asking him or her what they think about murder, they'd probably go "I don't know...", that is if they even knew what it was. We are taught murder is wrong, therefore, we develop the moral of it.

But you see a larger "pile of cells" as human?

You are on a slippery slope there, my friend. When does "humanity" begin? Are you saying a fetus should have the same rights as a human?

Honestly, a zygote is pretty much the same as a flake of dandruff. Don't even say that a zygote "has the potential for life". Yes, it does, but so does my dandruff. With cloning, it could be another person. Yes, it would have my DNA and genetic makeup, but we would not be the same entity. You'll probably say "Well, if a dandruff requires external conditions to develop, it doesn't count". Uhh, a zygote requires a host to develop, much like a parasite. If the mother dies, or is otherwise rendered sterile, the zygote dies with her. Therefore, it requires external conditions, a host.

Another thing, should we deny the rights of the mother, an already living, breathing human, in favour of a cell that may not even make it to the second trimester? It causes duress to the mother's body, such as morning sickness and back pain. Should she have to suffer? There are hundreds, no, thousands of deaths caused by pregnancy complications every year. Do you really want to deny the mother the right to make a choice about HER body, just so a few cells can suck nutrients out of her for nine months?

Go read the articles at http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/

That's just me, though. /endrant

And, yeah, this is going in circles. I give up. You guys win, there's no way we can counter the redundancy, because you people seem to have a shield that reflects foreign ideas.

[pokemonfan]

Numbers shouldn't matter if you come up with good points.

It'll probably end with either agreeing to disagree, whether that means disregarding evidence or not, or having someone have a change in their beliefs.

For example going from believing Creation or Evolution only to maybe believing in both. Doesn't need to be drastic.

Good to see you make another post. I've been waiting for a comment from you.

I didn't say numbers mattered, "but they do help."

"but they do help"

-Peter right before the big battle for narnia in "The lion, the witch, and the wardrobe" Great movie, you should watch it. And an even better book series.

I doubt anyone's mind was going to be changed...you guys sound hardcore and unwavering.

[Turtlekid2]

Yes, many evolutionists are atheists. The theory itself, however, does NOT assume there is no god. It simply states that we have, well, evolved. There is nothing saying "Oh, we evolved, god couldn't exist".

Unless you blatantly ignore the Bible, yes there is. How about the part of Genesis which said that God created man? Not "God created apes which would later evolve into man," just "God created man."

Yes, Darwin did use that statement. You know why? Because unlike religion, he had enough sense to say "Hey, we don't really know everything. This is just another theory."

And despite never progressing beyond a theory, it is now being taught as fact in schools.

Morals ARE defined by us, our society. Society tells us that, say, homosexuality, is immoral. That "moral" has developed. In Shakespeare's time, homosexuality was open, it is even suggested that some of Shakespeare's greatest love poetry was written about, you guessed it, a man.

Society tells us certain things are wrong. We grow up believing that, and thus, morals are born.

Again, you're confusing morals and human laws.

Why do you define certain things as immoral? Is it because you grew up believing that? If your pastor or the bible never said premarital sex was wrong, nor was homosexuality, would you still believe it is immoral? What is so wrong about them? Is it because a book said "lolno"? Most arguments against things such as that are "the bible said no". Really? Can you come up with one other good reason? Do you really believe people in gay or lesbian relationships do not feel the same love for each other that a man and woman would? Does it have any effect on you at all?

The Bible saying "no" is all the reason I need, the Bible being the inspired Word of God, after all. However, if you want more reasons, how about that gay relationships open the door for even worse perversions? That they aren't self-propagating, and thus by definition are self-detrimental? That they are breeding grounds for STDs?

You are on a slippery slope there, my friend. When does "humanity" begin?

At conception.

Are you saying a fetus should have the same rights as a human?

It should have the right to live, yes.

Another thing, should we deny the rights of the mother, an already living, breathing human, in favour of a cell that may not even make it to the second trimester? It causes duress to the mother's body, such as morning sickness and back pain. Should she have to suffer? There are hundreds, no, thousands of deaths caused by pregnancy complications every year. Do you really want to deny the mother the right to make a choice about HER body, just so a few cells can suck nutrients out of her for nine months?

Well, as Jiggy-Ninja said, if you're not prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, don't make the choice. The consequences here being that the mother is no longer making decisions about only her body.

And, yeah, this is going in circles. I give up. You guys win, there's no way we can counter the redundancy, because you people seem to have a shield that reflects foreign ideas.

And here is where the debate turns to "BAW we cant convert teh christianz with our logik skillz that means they cant think for themselves". So I guess I'm done, too. To those who debated my points intelligently, thanks for your time and civility.

[Zafur]

I didn't say numbers mattered, "but they do help."

"but they do help"

-Peter right before the big battle for narnia in "The lion, the witch, and the wardrobe" Great movie, you should watch it. And an even better book series.

I've read the book before watching the movie, and am currently trying to find time to read The Horse and His Boy.

Unless you blatantly ignore the Bible, yes there is. How about the part of Genesis which said that God created man? Not "God created apes which would later evolve into man," just "God created man."

But, assuming evolution is correct, wouldn't the first apes born as human be considered as God creating humans? If I were a god, and forced animals to evolve into a species, I'd consider it me creating that species.

The Bible saying "no" is all the reason I need, the Bible being the inspired Word of God, after all. However, if you want more reasons, how about that gay relationships open the door for even worse perversions? That they aren't self-propagating, and thus by definition are self-detrimental? That they are breeding grounds for STDs?

For the whole "Bible saying no" thing, I suppose you're not wearing clothing made of a mixture of two clothes or have your sideburns shaved, right?

The most commonly used verse against homosexuality is in Leviticus, which present day Catholics/Christians do not follow.

For this argument about homosexuality being a sin, I'd like to link you to this one written article that should have explanations against most of the points brought up against it.

Link

I hope you don't let anything negatively affect your morals...

Also, I'm pretty sure the STI transfer rate from high to low is

Gay Male Couples

Straight Couples

Lesbians

If anything, males are the ones who foster and spread STIs.

Sauce

I don't see how lack of self propogation is a perversion, please explain. Especially how this is harmful. Lack of it helps a species if they are currently going through a period of overpopulation. Less mouths means more food to be "shared", meaning less animals dying of starvation. I don't suppose you're against asexual humans also just because they don't find the need to engage in reproductive acts and are thus unlikely to reproduce?

There has been a mouse born of two eggcells...

Homosexuality is just a sexuality. If people choose to protect themselves or not from STIs are their personal choice, which has nothing to do with their sexuality.

For the whole abortion thing:

... I'm pro-choice, but I don't think abortion is always right. I think that if you're gonna abort it, then do it when it hasn't developed a brain yet. I agree that people should protect themselves and should be held responsible for it but things like accidents, condoms breaking, and rape happens. I could go more in detail about how I view abortion should be dealt with but I don't think that's too important for this side debate. I just view if it doesn't have a human brain, which holds a human mind, it should be legal to abort. Otherwise, it's not more alive than perhaps a plant. It never experienced being alive so it can't miss it. I don't think a "would be life" should have the same protections as a life. I read somewhere that a while ago Jews didn't consider babies to have a soul until about a month old, but I don't have evidence of that on hand at the moment.

And here is where the debate turns to "BAW we cant convert teh christianz with our logik skillz that means they cant think for themselves". So I guess I'm done, too. To those who debated my points intelligently, thanks for your time and civility.

Please try to remain mature, for both sides... This debate really doesn't need anything like that. Not only for right now, but there has been some iffy statements in past posts.

It's true that it goes in circles but that's just because new people to the debate probably didn't see it had been brought up already.

And well... You kind of need to use logic to debate this, and that statement is rather odd. If it turns into logic vs opinion, it's usually pointless since one can only attack the basis for an opinion, and even if a person's opinion has lost all its legs, they might still hold onto it, going into denial. Opinion doesn't have much room in debates anyways... Like debating if blue or red is a better colour for purely aesthetic reasons.

Ugh. I'm confused now. Continuing long posts with an hour in between is hard when trying to keep things consistent. xP

Edited June 8, 2009 by Zafur

[kuoleva]

The Bible saying "no" is all the reason I need, the Bible being the inspired Word of God, after all. However, if you want more reasons, how about that gay relationships open the door for even worse perversions? That they aren't self-propagating, and thus by definition are self-detrimental? That they are breeding grounds for STDs?

I quit reading here. The sheer amount of douchebaggery in that made me sick.

Really? Do you REALLY not believe they have love? If so, you are, in my eyes, one sick and twisted person.

I'm going bitch-mode here, but I've had it with this crap. If they have LOVE, which most gay and lesbian couples I've met have more of than heterosexual couples, does it matter? I guess you just live to screw people over.

STDs? LOLOHGODDESS. Uhm, those are just as prevalent in hetero couples. Like Zarfur said, men seem to be the breeding ground, but most of the blame falls on stupidity. And, really, if they get an STD, what concern of it is to you? I hate watching people hurt as much as the rest of us, but you act like your girlfriend is going to get an STD from a gay man, and then give it to you.

I give up, I give in, grats, you people and your book win.

Peace out.

Oh, by the way, watch this episode of South Park. The beginning is a little inappropriate, but the base of it does accurately depict what happens when homosexuality is repressed. Most of them kill themselves. Do you really feel so "holy" now, causing hundreds of people to put the gun to their head just so you can feel loved by god?

Kuo out. That sounded quite rude, I know, but I live in the Bible-belt. I have to rant about it or I'll explode. The daily ranting of "You're going to hell omgwtfbbq" from the more crazy folk leaves me homicidal. >_< I apologize for sounding rude, but I felt it had to be said. I also know that had no relation to the original topic, but 90% of this thread doesn't. We're all in different directions. Oh well.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Yes, many evolutionists are atheists. The theory itself, however, does NOT assume there is no god. It simply states that we have, well, evolved. There is nothing saying "Oh, we evolved, god couldn't exist".

Yes, Darwin did use that statement. You know why? Because unlike religion, he had enough sense to say "Hey, we don't really know everything. This is just another theory."

In addition to her statements, Darwin wrote his book over 100 years ago, probably closer to 150. Considering all those "we can suppose"'s, it's important to keep it in context.

Darwin formulated his theory before Mendell (I think that's his name) conducted his experiments. Evolution was conceived of before DNA, genes, and chromosomes were discovered. There wasn't yet any proof that offspring were influenced by their parents. In fact, that idea didn't even exist before Darwin's book.

Darwin's theory, as laid out in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was very much incomplete, but it was also very much ahead of its time.

Scientists have made numerous discoveries since Darwin's days that support the basic foundation of his theory, even if they do not support every detail of it. Genes have been discovered that give the method of inheritance necessary for evolution to occur. The rate of genetic mutation in gamete (either gamete or zygote, I forget my bio terminology) formation has been has been measured through observation (I think the average is 1 mutation per billion nucleotide bases, but don't hold me to that), which is the second thing necessary for evolution to occur. Natural selection has been observed to occur in laboratory experiments, the third and final component necessary for evolution to occur.

All three of the basic principles that form the foundation of evolution have been discovered and observed. Intelligent Design (Creationism with a cheap, secular hat) has, at most, a dusty old book written almost 2,000 years ago under dubious conditions and by unverifiable authors. What is there left to dispute?

Unless you blatantly ignore the Bible, yes there is. How about the part of Genesis which said that God created man? Not "God created apes which would later evolve into man," just "God created man."

The Bible should be ignored. It cannot be verified that it is truly God's word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Bible doesn't have anything approaching extraordinary evidence, despite the fact that it makes the ultimate of extraordinary claims.

And despite never progressing beyond a theory, it is now being taught as fact in schools.

"Just a theory" is a blatant misrepresentation of what theory means in a scientific sense.

In every science textbook I've ever read, a theory is defined as a set of ideas that coherently explain a set of natural phenomena that have a wide body of supporting evidence and gained widespread consensus among scientist. That's not a small thing.

Would you object to tectonic plate theory, because it is "just a theory"?

Again, you're confusing morals and human laws.

The Bible saying "no" is all the reason I need, the Bible being the inspired Word of God, after all. However, if you want more reasons, how about that gay relationships open the door for even worse perversions? That they aren't self-propagating, and thus by definition are self-detrimental? That they are breeding grounds for STDs?

The Bible is unverifiable. Points of absolute morality, heaven and hell, which God to pray to, etc are far too important to rely on faith alone. Without objective reasons to choose one religion over another (if we must choose a religion to begin with), we are nothing more than blind people throwing darts, hoping to hit the right combination.

And define perversions. If these perversions only occur between consenting adults, no one has any right to butt in.

Non-propagating, at this point in our history, is probably a good thing. The global population, in the past few hundred years, has exploded. It's gotten so bad that some places like China are so overcrowded that families are forbidden to have more than one child. The global need for food will eventually outstrip our ability to farm. Farming methods will continue to improve, but there's probably some sort of fundamental limit to how much you can grow in a certain area. There will be terrible consequences is population growth isn't slowed down.

STDs pass between heterosexual couples just as easily as homosexual ones.

[pokemonfan]

So wait...all of a sudden being gay..is...ok? That wasn't God's plan at all. Just like sexual intercourse (ew!) before marriage is also not part of God's plan but guess how much of that there is today. Whether people take guns to their heads because they cant have what they want or not homosexuality is wrong. On STDs that can happen between any sexual intercourse (ew) unfortunately it happens more when there is multiple sexual intercourses (ew) with more then one person. So X having sex with A, B, C, and D would make him more likely and his partners more likely to receive a STD. I'm pretty sure that is correct.

Also I would suggest not to read the horse and his boy. Its a total bore fest and I dont remember any of it or why its called the horse and his boy. Also I read the book before seeing the movie too.

--Jiggy Ninja--

In addition to her statements, Darwin wrote his book over 100 years ago, probably closer to 150. Considering all those "we can suppose"'s, it's important to keep it in context.

Darwin formulated his theory before Mendell (I think that's his name) conducted his experiments. Evolution was conceived of before DNA, genes, and chromosomes were discovered. There wasn't yet any proof that offspring were influenced by their parents. In fact, that idea didn't even exist before Darwin's book.

Darwin's theory, as laid out in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was very much incomplete, but it was also very much ahead of its time.

Scientists have made numerous discoveries since Darwin's days that support the basic foundation of his theory, even if they do not support every detail of it. Genes have been discovered that give the method of inheritance necessary for evolution to occur. The rate of genetic mutation in gamete (either gamete or zygote, I forget my bio terminology) formation has been has been measured through observation (I think the average is 1 mutation per billion nucleotide bases, but don't hold me to that), which is the second thing necessary for evolution to occur. Natural selection has been observed to occur in laboratory experiments, the third and final component necessary for evolution to occur.

All three of the basic principles that form the foundation of evolution have been discovered and observed. Intelligent Design (Creationism with a cheap, secular hat) has, at most, a dusty old book written almost 2,000 years ago under dubious conditions and by unverifiable authors. What is there left to dispute?

You are correct on mendel, he was as some say "The father of genetics" For through his experiments with pea pods he was able to come up with his theory. His studies were basic and his results were some of the greatest information on genetics scientists have ever received. However humans should stop sticking their noses further and further into the creation. All we're going to do is either perceive something, act on it, be wrong and mess everything up. Or have the right information, act upon it, and still mess things up. We're going to ruin the beauty of the world around us and screw up so many things and only bring misfortune upon ourselves! And for the record that "dusty old book" has sold the most copies of any book ever published in the world!

The Bible should be ignored. It cannot be verified that it is truly God's word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Bible doesn't have anything approaching extraordinary evidence, despite the fact that it makes the ultimate of extraordinary claims.

What! Ignored? The bible is the most accurate history book historians could ever get! True extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where's yours? Have you ever seen an ape become a man? Have you ever seen fossil evidence of a transitional species? Of course we have evidence. Artifacts and proof that the bible's events happened. "Bible people" for lack of better words would've been able to properly discover the ark of noah except the country that is believed to have the ark within it wont let the "bible people" in to investigate.

"Just a theory" is a blatant misrepresentation of what theory means in a scientific sense.

In every science textbook I've ever read, a theory is defined as a set of ideas that coherently explain a set of natural phenomena that have a wide body of supporting evidence and gained widespread consensus among scientist. That's not a small thing.

Would you object to tectonic plate theory, because it is "just a theory"?

Again, you're confusing morals and human laws.

The textbooks that you get in schools hold many lies..after all its what the government wants to teach the future generation the teachers are just doing their job. Its annoying that the teachers cant speak out for their beliefs they have to teach what they have to teach. The government is corrupt therefore what they make is corrupt.

I dont have time to counter all your points but I'm assuming by the time I come back there will be more points to counter.

[Turtlekid2]

The Bible should be ignored. It cannot be verified that it is truly God's word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Bible doesn't have anything approaching extraordinary evidence, despite the fact that it makes the ultimate of extraordinary claims.

What insolence. Do you realize where you derive all your morals? No, not from society, from the Bible. From God. Please correct me if every moral idea you have did not originate in some way from the Bible.

Moreover, Darwinism/evolution is just as unverifiable as the Bible. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your correction had better prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the theory of evolution.

[kuoleva]

Nice girl off, this is just so lulzy, and offensive, I have to step up to the plate and give you a taste of your own medicine.

So wait...all of a sudden being gay..is...ok? That wasn't God's plan at all. Just like sexual intercourse (ew!) before marriage is also not part of God's plan but guess how much of that there is today. Whether people take guns to their heads because they cant have what they want or not homosexuality is wrong. On STDs that can happen between any sexual intercourse (ew) unfortunately it happens more when there is multiple sexual intercourses (ew) with more then one person. So X having sex with A, B, C, and D would make him more likely and his partners more likely to receive a STD. I'm pretty sure that is correct.

Oh lawd... First off, I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or beat you to death. The latter is illegal in most countries, so I'll go with the first two.

Secondly, who are YOU to say whether it's right or wrong? It's people like you that killed my friend and classmate. You don't have any idea how much I'd like to string all of you up and put you through even a MINUSCULE amount of the shit he went through. Do you know what it's like to have the cops calling you, telling you they found the body of your friend under the highway overpass? No. You don't. So shut the fuck up. You have NO right to say that you know what god thinks. It is a freaking BOOK. It could have NOTHING to do with god, just some bored drunks with imaginations. So quit basing your world views on what mommy tells you. Karma is a bigger bitch than I'll ever be. Have fun, assholes. >_<

Thirdly, what is wrong with sex between consenting adults? It's fun, pleasurable, and if you understand the risks, what's wrong with it? You take a risk every time you breathe. What's wrong with sex, if both people consent, understand, and accept the risks that come with the pleasure? It's fun. I don't regret it. It made me happy. It made him happy. We prepared, but we understood something might happen. That's the main issue: Understanding, and consent. If you have both, what's the big deal? It's not like sex is a binding contract, just some fun that also can procreate. Yes, I think rape is horribly wrong, as is molestation. The issue with the former is consent, the issue with the latter is understanding. Statutory rape is arguable, but otherwise, sex is fun. Risky fun.

Fourthly, what are you, five? Did your parents really teach you to be so immature about sex? "ewww" only makes you look like a kindergartner, it doesn't make you look articulate or intelligent in the least. Seriously, grow up. You don't have to have sex, but you could at least take the time to learn about it, rather than stuffing your face in your bible and pouring wax in your ears during sex ed.

Lastly, again, who are you to suggest that all homosexuals sleep around? Most that I know have a partner, the only person they sleep with. I consider myself bisexual. Does that automatically make me a whore? I know, right, cuz I totally sleep with gurlz n gaiz liek all teh time. I must be a total STD infested slut because I believe love isn't limited by gender.

Really, for five minutes, get your head out of your ass.

You are correct on mendel, he was as some say "The father of genetics" For through his experiments with pea pods he was able to come up with his theory. His studies were basic and his results were some of the greatest information on genetics scientists have ever received. However humans should stop sticking their noses further and further into the creation. All we're going to do is either perceive something, act on it, be wrong and mess everything up. Or have the right information, act upon it, and still mess things up. We're going to ruin the beauty of the world around us and screw up so many things and only bring misfortune upon ourselves! And for the record that "dusty old book" has sold the most copies of any book ever published in the world!

Because people like you are blind enough to believe it without question.

I do agree with you, though, that we are ruining the beauty of the world.

What! Ignored? The bible is the most accurate history book historians could ever get! True extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where's yours? Have you ever seen an ape become a man? Have you ever seen fossil evidence of a transitional species? Of course we have evidence. Artifacts and proof that the bible's events happened. "Bible people" for lack of better words would've been able to properly discover the ark of noah except the country that is believed to have the ark within it wont let the "bible people" in to investigate.

Actually, do a quick google search. There are many "missing links". Hell, take a frog for example. It turns from a fish into a four-legged amphibian, capable of living on both land and sea. That seems like evolution combined with natural selection to me.

Maybe they won't let "bible people" investigate because they don't feel like being the host of all this crap that comes with "amagawd jeebus wuz here mebbe teh biblez is tru ohmahgod lets harass them because WE FOUND A SHIP WRECK WHOOP-DE-FREAKING-DOO!"

The textbooks that you get in schools hold many lies..after all its what the government wants to teach the future generation the teachers are just doing their job. Its annoying that the teachers cant speak out for their beliefs they have to teach what they have to teach. The government is corrupt therefore what they make is corrupt.

LOL. Just... LOL. Seriously, I hate it when people bitch about being "discriminated against". 80% of America, and the world is being discriminated against? Oh god. Try being Muslim for one day. See how many death threats you get. The same goes for being Jewish. Hell, I've even seen Buddhists get bitched at. Hun, you don't even KNOW discrimination. The teacher's can't "teach what they believe" in public schools, because our kids should grow up learning about ALL lifestyles, instead of having a bible shoved so far up their ass they are choking on it. You want that? Go to Catholic school.

I dont have time to counter all your points but I'm assuming by the time I come back there will be more points to counter.

M'dear, you aren't countering anything, just looking like an uneducated fool who believes everything blindly.

What insolence. Do you realize where you derive all your morals? No, not from society, from the Bible. From God. Please correct me if every moral idea you have did not originate in some way from the Bible.

Moreover, Darwinism/evolution is just as unverifiable as the Bible. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your correction had better prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the theory of evolution.

LOLOHGOD. Morals existed BEFORE the bible. They would exist if that poorly translated collection of pages had never been written. Even Christians don't know shit about the bible, nobody even knows who wrote it. Very credible, dontcha think?

Uhm, there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. I'm not good with the technicality, if Jiggy ever comes back, I'll let him explain.

Sigh... People... Thanks guys, you gave me both giggles and nerdrage. <3

[pokemonfan]

Nice girl off, this is just so lulzy, and offensive, I have to step up to the plate and give you a taste of your own medicine.

Oh lawd... First off, I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or beat you to death. The latter is illegal in most countries, so I'll go with the first two.

Secondly, who are YOU to say whether it's right or wrong? It's people like you that killed my friend and classmate. You don't have any idea how much I'd like to string all of you up and put you through even a MINUSCULE amount of the shit he went through. Do you know what it's like to have the cops calling you, telling you they found the body of your friend under the highway overpass? No. You don't. So shut the fuck up. You have NO right to say that you know what god thinks. It is a freaking BOOK. It could have NOTHING to do with god, just some bored drunks with imaginations. So quit basing your world views on what mommy tells you. Karma is a bigger bitch than I'll ever be. Have fun, assholes. >_<

Thirdly, what is wrong with sex between consenting adults? It's fun, pleasurable, and if you understand the risks, what's wrong with it? You take a risk every time you breathe. What's wrong with sex, if both people consent, understand, and accept the risks that come with the pleasure? It's fun. I don't regret it. It made me happy. It made him happy. We prepared, but we understood something might happen. That's the main issue: Understanding, and consent. If you have both, what's the big deal? It's not like sex is a binding contract, just some fun that also can procreate. Yes, I think rape is horribly wrong, as is molestation. The issue with the former is consent, the issue with the latter is understanding. Statutory rape is arguable, but otherwise, sex is fun. Risky fun.

Fourthly, what are you, five? Did your parents really teach you to be so immature about sex? "ewww" only makes you look like a kindergartner, it doesn't make you look articulate or intelligent in the least. Seriously, grow up. You don't have to have sex, but you could at least take the time to learn about it, rather than stuffing your face in your bible and pouring wax in your ears during sex ed.

Lastly, again, who are you to suggest that all homosexuals sleep around? Most that I know have a partner, the only person they sleep with. I consider myself bisexual. Does that automatically make me a whore? I know, right, cuz I totally sleep with gurlz n gaiz liek all teh time. I must be a total STD infested slut because I believe love isn't limited by gender.

Really, for five minutes, get your head out of your ass.

Because people like you are blind enough to believe it without question.

I do agree with you, though, that we are ruining the beauty of the world.

Actually, do a quick google search. There are many "missing links". Hell, take a frog for example. It turns from a fish into a four-legged amphibian, capable of living on both land and sea. That seems like evolution combined with natural selection to me.

Maybe they won't let "bible people" investigate because they don't feel like being the host of all this crap that comes with "amagawd jeebus wuz here mebbe teh biblez is tru ohmahgod lets harass them because WE FOUND A SHIP WRECK WHOOP-DE-FREAKING-DOO!"

LOL. Just... LOL. Seriously, I hate it when people bitch about being "discriminated against". 80% of America, and the world is being discriminated against? Oh god. Try being Muslim for one day. See how many death threats you get. The same goes for being Jewish. Hell, I've even seen Buddhists get bitched at. Hun, you don't even KNOW discrimination. The teacher's can't "teach what they believe" in public schools, because our kids should grow up learning about ALL lifestyles, instead of having a bible shoved so far up their ass they are choking on it. You want that? Go to Catholic school.

M'dear, you aren't countering anything, just looking like an uneducated fool who believes everything blindly.

LOLOHGOD. Morals existed BEFORE the bible. They would exist if that poorly translated collection of pages had never been written. Even Christians don't know shit about the bible, nobody even knows who wrote it. Very credible, dontcha think?

Uhm, there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. I'm not good with the technicality, if Jiggy ever comes back, I'll let him explain.

Sigh... People... Thanks guys, you gave me both giggles and nerdrage. <3

I'm absolutely disgusted! I'm so appalled! For one, you directly insulted me and my beliefs. I'm not a 5 year old...if I was I'd be a genius and a prodigy because I can type coherent sentences. Do you have to swear in every other sentence? Gosh there are better words to use then those words.

Do you suffer from anger problems?

Edit:

As for saying ew...would you rather me say gross? You've had sex at age 14! do you...of course you dont know....um what about the whole you're going to have a baby now thing? I mean seriously do you know the responsibilities? I also was reading through some of your previous early on posts and...you're a witch? Why? How could you practice something that satanic?

Why dont you read through this page...actually read it!

Link to the truth

A frog is not a missing link...what are you refering too? Can you back that up? A frog may be capable of living on land and water and it lays its eggs in water. This is a natural gift that God gave the frog...I think it would be a good time for this image.

It depends on how you look at it sometimes. Really though, a frog is not at all a missing link. As on your morals comment...did anyone have to be taught to do anything wrong? Did people have to be taught to do wrong. No, people had to be taught to do right. Morals existed...and they're stated in the bible.

If you're looking for evidence without the bible then that's like this...

My answer is...no way!

end edit.

Edit 2:

I was reading some more early posts and i think clearly some of the Christians you've been around haven't been well completely full on it. I mean they aren't here to kill anyone they're supposed to heal and represent the love of God. Like this song....

I dont know the author sorry...

"If we are the body (the body of God) then why aren't our arms reaching? Why aren't our hands healing? Then if we are the body..why aren't our feet going? Why is the love not showing..." Clearly you were around people that weren't showing the love properly. Its a good song but I dont have it memorized.

The bible may have been written by humans but it was God using them. They loved him and served him so they willingly let God inspire his ideas inside the head and then they wrote down exactly what God wanted them too. They were willing to do it if they weren't willing God would've found someone that was.

End edit 2.

Edit 3:

Once again reading through the old posts I see lots of things that I should mention. Such as the discovered missing links. Ugh, people can fake things. I'm highly skeptical on such things being that lots of things look alike because God uses his designs over such as the human hand and that of the monkey's but that doesn't mean that they evolve into humans or something else...God makes each of his creatures unique in some way.

As for your prehistoric creatures having feathers...I'm not sure what your point is there. Big deal they had feathers...I mean hello...birds! God created all the animals at the same time and they all were unique with some similarities of course. So a velociraptor has similarities to a bird...there is no way its going to evolve from a fast land monstrosity to a small feathered creature that can fly. It just doesn't make sense and goes against the bible's evidence for creation.

End edit 3

Edit 4:

I've missed a lot of the thread and there is a lot that I disagree with.

Dinosaurs and birds did exist at the same time. The reasons that the birds survived is because the new climate that the flood caused was to different and harsh for the poor dinos so they eventually died off. The birds were far better suited towards the environment then the dinos so they survived.

Selective breeding and having new traits bred onto animals is not evolution at all. Evolution I think is one species evolving into another species to create an entirely new species. Am I right on that? With a new fur color or something like that doesn't make a new species a dog with silver fur is still a dog.

End edit 4

Edit 5:

lol dolphins having sex for pleasure. No, animals dont have sex for pleasure (unlike us corrupt humans) animals have innercourse for the single reason of reproduction and no pleasure seeking involved. Unlike humans, animals have a set "program" so to speak that tells them how to live and they dont know anything else and always abide by that "program or code" just like a bird knows to fly and a dog knows to sniff to find food. Its a natural thing (unlike homosexuality which clearly isn't natural)

We are seperate from animals because we can choose. We have a choice of how we want to live our lives unlike that of regular animals who follow a set program and anything else is just a profound thought. A spider knows how to spin a web does it do anything else to catch food? no it spins a web? We humans can either grow food or kill for food. We have choices we can make choices and its a huge difference to that of animals. Yet another reason why a monkey could NEVER become a human.

End edit 5.

Edit 6:

I noticed that someone mentioned cockiness and how being cocky was distracted and then enkidu said that wraith89 was the cockiest of all (I'm pretty sure this is how it went) and there were a bunch of side little comments about the cockiness. Quite frankly we're all cocky. Also although you may not intend to hurt someone or offend them since you cant here the voice behind the words you cant really tell and people make false assumptions. To me that isn't being cocky, that's being human.

End edit 6.

Edit 7:

Illithian directed a post at wraith89 (post 96) and one of the first things said was....

In one of your posts, you stated that it was impossible to breed a horse with a donkey. I agree. Can you breed a turtle with a snake? No. This we can agree on.

I thought that wraith89 said that a horse and a dog cannot breed yet a horse and a donkey can. Isn't that how you get a mule? I just dont like misquotes and I think it was a misquote. Plus a horse and a donkey can breed to get a mule. At least that is the impression I'm under.

In the same post illithian also said that he believed the bible to be a guide to living a good life. I believe that to be incorrect. The bible is a guide towards living life and living it properly. Ten commandments anyone? The bible is also the greatest history book historians will ever have.

end edit 7

Edit 8:

That article okami posted is definitely not....(I refuse to say it).....although the site may be completely bias does that mean that all credibility should be automatically dumped? Really just because it clearly has an opinion that cant be swayed does that mean its wrong to cite such a resource? I'm sure that the people that wrote those wiki articles are bias towards one side.

It would be incredibly difficult to find a site or other resource that isn't bias. I think answers in genesis is completely credible although it's bias towards the bible and its creation theory.

Also, I'm sorry if bringing up all of the old posts seems a bit odd to you but I missed a lot that I want to comment on.

end edit 8.

Edited June 9, 2009 by pokemonfan

[Enkidu]

Selective breeding and having new traits bred onto animals is not evolution at all. Evolution I think is one species evolving into another species to create an entirely new species. Am I right on that? With a new fur color or something like that doesn't make a new species a dog with silver fur is still a dog.

No, you are not right on that, Evolution is both. You get new species through trait mutation and selective breeding and it is through that change that species change ( Evolution ) It is not a leap from frog to bird in the way you speak of it.

A frog is not a missing link...what are you referring too? Can you back that up? A frog may be capable of living on land and water and it lays its eggs in water. This is a natural gift that God gave the frog...I think it would be a good time for this image.

There is more than ONE "missing link" she was referring to a specific missing link between 2 transitional fossils.

The bible may have been written by humans but it was God using them. They loved him and served him so they willingly let God inspire his ideas inside the head and then they wrote down exactly what God wanted them too. They were willing to do it if they weren't willing God would've found someone that was.

By this logic anyone can claim to be speaking to god, but unless it's something you agree with it's wrong?

As for your prehistoric creatures having feathers...I'm not sure what your point is there. Big deal they had feathers...I mean hello...birds! God created all the animals at the same time and they all were unique with some similarities of course. So a veloc raptor has similarities to a bird...there is no way its going to evolve from a fast land monstrosity to a small feathered creature that can fly. It just doesn't make sense and goes against the bible's evidence for creation.

UGh, really? Don't you see the flaws Jiggy, Zarfur and me have been pointing out? Your approaching the entire thing from " Creation is true, god exists" when this is a debate to logically use evidence and create an argument for either side, all your doing is saying " No my faith in god means X,Y and Z are 100% true" and if that IS the case, why are you posting here if you have no intention of debating?

Dinosaurs and birds did exist at the same time. The reasons that the birds survived is because the new climate that the flood caused was to different and harsh for the poor dinos so they eventually died off. The birds were far better suited towards the environment then the dinos so they survived.

Considering there were many more prehistoric sea-creatures I don't see how you came to this conclusion, does the bible state this to be true? That contemporary animals and Dinosaurs coexisted?

PLEASE READ THIS

In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species.[1] Indeed, the similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[2]

ol dolphins having sex for pleasure. No, animals dont have sex for pleasure (unlike us corrupt humans) animals have innercourse for the single reason of reproduction and no pleasure seeking involved. Unlike humans, animals have a set "program" so to speak that tells them how to live and they dont know anything else and always abide by that "program or code" just like a bird knows to fly and a dog knows to sniff to find food. Its a natural thing (unlike homosexuality which clearly isn't natural)

We are seperate from animals because we can choose. We have a choice of how we want to live our lives unlike that of regular animals who follow a set program and anything else is just a profound thought. A spider knows how to spin a web does it do anything else to catch food? no it spins a web? We humans can either grow food or kill for food. We have choices we can make choices and its a huge difference to that of animals. Yet another reason why a monkey could NEVER become a human.

This seems to me like that 1970's Christian view that "Humans need to be special, and the universe needs to revolve around us belief" that I do not agree with.

Dolphin's do have sex for pleasure, they have sex with the intent of NOT reproducing as do MANY other creatures. One of the better examples are Apes, because not only do they have sex for fun, but they also masturbate which by definition is sexual stimulation that serves no point other than tobe pleasurable.

That article okami posted is definitely not....(I refuse to say it).....although the site may be completely bias does that mean that all credibility should be automatically dumped? Really just because it clearly has an opinion that cant be swayed does that mean its wrong to cite such a resource? I'm sure that the people that wrote those wiki articles are bias towards one side.

It would be incredibly difficult to find a site or other resource that isn't bias. I think answers in genesis is completely credible although it's bias towards the bible and its creation theory.

Also, I'm sorry if bringing up all of the old posts seems a bit odd to you but I missed a lot that I want to comment on.

In a debate someone who refuses to not only change their view but those who go into a "debate" with the soul reason of Talking TO ( as oppose to WITH ) someone else because they have no intention of changing their beliefs, even going so far as to spout incorrect, unfalsifiable and sometimes entirely made up evidence lose credibility. And thats exactly what that site was doing.

So far in this thread not many of us have been unbiased, but that is mainly because the majority of us do not understand the opposing argument to our side in the slightest.

Damn it, I really didn't want to post again.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Enkidu

[Turtlekid2]

First off, I'd like to point out that:

Good Lord, your post is littered with profanity and insults. If you're wanting us to see your side of the issue, you'll catch more Christians with honey than vinegar. And of the lot of us, you're the only one who who has resorted to said profanity and insults. I think that says something about what you believe. Just putting that out there.

who are YOU to say whether it's right or wrong? It's people like you that killed my friend and classmate.

I'm very sorry about your friend, but we didn't do that, so why are you bringing this up?

Thirdly, what is wrong with sex between consenting adults? It's fun, pleasurable, and if you understand the risks, what's wrong with it? You take a risk every time you breathe. What's wrong with sex, if both people consent, understand, and accept the risks that come with the pleasure? It's fun. I don't regret it. It made me happy. It made him happy. We prepared, but we understood something might happen. That's the main issue: Understanding, and consent. If you have both, what's the big deal? It's not like sex is a binding contract, just some fun that also can procreate. Yes, I think rape is horribly wrong, as is molestation. The issue with the former is consent, the issue with the latter is understanding. Statutory rape is arguable, but otherwise, sex is fun. Risky fun.

Oh, but that is exactly what sex is. A binding contract. Between one (1) man and one (1) woman. It's a union that is made to mimic the union between Christ and the Church, which, by the way, is why we take such offense at homosexuality or polygamy.

Because people like you are blind enough to believe it without question.

Do you honestly believe I've never questioned my own beliefs? Every Christian does at some time or another, for one reason or another. It was the questioning process, for me, that cemented my beliefs in my mind, once and for all.

Actually, do a quick google search. There are many "missing links". Hell, take a frog for example. It turns from a fish into a four-legged amphibian, capable of living on both land and sea. That seems like evolution combined with natural selection to me.

How many of these "missing links" have been proven as such? Piltdown man, anyone? Nebraska man, anyone?

LOLOHGOD. Morals existed BEFORE the bible. They would exist if that poorly translated collection of pages had never been written. Even Christians don't know shit about the bible, nobody even knows who wrote it. Very credible, dontcha think?

They existed before the Bible was written, but not before the first events of the Bible happened. Answer this, please: if the moral ideas that people have today didn't come from God, where did they come from? And please don't say that they were shaped by society; those are laws based on morals. What I'm asking is where did these ideas come from in the first place? And please don't say that they emerged from a mutually beneficial agreement of convenience among tribe members, because morals are often anything but practical or convenient. A man robbing a big corporation will turn a bigger profit than a man working for the big corporation. A prince who murders his older brother so he will be next in line for the throne will become ruler of his country. Morals didn't arise out of convenience, they arose because God gave them to man.

[pokemonfan]

<3<3<3Very beautifully said turtlekid2 very well put<3<3<3

As to question just one of the things you said turtlekid2...I do believe that more then just enkidu has resorted to insults. I do believe that many of the times Kuoleva swore they were directed as insults.

Also, I feel very sorry for you, you've suffered a great loss, a loss of a friend and no one should half to feel that at such an early age. Although it is a little out of place since we didn't so its odd to bring it up. I'm sure that no sane christian would kill someone.

Sex is a binding contract, just like turtlekid2 said. It is reserved for marriage. When you get married you have to sign a bunch of legal documents and stuff, and before you have innercourse you have to prepare for the baby and stuff like that. When you do it without marriage you have none of the legal documents, no preparation, and no trust in one another. Legally the man could take off and leave you with the baby.

Missing links, these things are nothing but fakes or they're being perceived incorrectly by the discoverers.

Also, dinosaurs and animals did coexist. Humans were there too. We all coexisted. There was none of the and then 2 million year later, mammals appeared. Or something like that. There wasn't any of that. It all came together in a matter of a 6 day period. You say 6 million years...I say 6 days. Both very profound statements if you think about it.

Animals, having sex for pleasure, is something I find ridiculous. They have sex for the soul reason to reproduce. They act on instinct and animal instinct is to survive, find a mate, and reproduce.

[Okami]

Hm, the topic of sex in its entirety is a whole debate of itself...The three forms (Actually, four: I forgot asexual) of sexual beings and discussion of lust, STDs and other things could be debated in great detail, I believe.

Just a thought, but where would any of us be without sexual intercourse?

[Enkidu]

Yes, I had sex. Ohmahgawdnowai. That was awhile ago, and I haven't had pregnancy symptoms. I had sex once, oh wait, that means I'm a whore.

Yea it does, how could you !? I can't belie- Oh. You gotta calm down yourself though haha.

As to question just one of the things you said turtlekid2...I do believe that more then just enkidu has resorted to insults.

What insults have I been saying now? If saying " You aren't comprehending the theory of evolution" ( when you have not been ) or " Your equally as cocky as someone else" ( when they have been, and also talking down to everyone else from a self justified position of moral authority ) is an insult, then what some other people said must have been terrible blasphemous curses or something. I've been trying to be as polite as possible, but it seems even that hasn't been enough?

I may have used "ugh" a few times ( as I hate explaining evolution ), or just told you that you were wrong, but neither of those are insults.

Sex is a binding contract, just like turtlekid2 said. It is reserved for marriage. When you get married you have to sign a bunch of legal documents and stuff, and before you have innercourse you have to prepare for the baby and stuff like that. When you do it without marriage you have none of the legal documents, no preparation, and no trust in one another. Legally the man could take off and leave you with the baby.

What..? Sex is not only used for procreation, nor has it always been used solely for procreation even before the introduction of contraceptives. Having a baby is not always the result or intended result for the majority of sex.

Animals, having sex for pleasure, is something I find ridiculous. They have sex for the soul reason to reproduce. They act on instinct and animal instinct is to survive, find a mate, and reproduce.

This is dead wrong, Rats will even have sex with other males just to orgasm, a multitude of species have sex to the point of death simply because it they cannot control themselves. Apes, as I said before, masturbate and dolphins have sex for fun. You may not believe it, but it is the truth.

[Turtlekid2]

Yes, I had sex. Ohmahgawdnowai. That was awhile ago, and I haven't had pregnancy symptoms. I had sex once, oh wait, that means I'm a whore. Woopsie.

It doesn't "make you" anything. But if it was outside of marriage, it was morally wrong.