+271 Evolution is all based on theory; they don't Actually know how life began; so anyone who believes in evolution is just practicing another form of religion, that is to say, having faith in a higher power (scientists) about the beginning of life without any Actual Proof (definition of a theory). amirite?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There actually is proof, but ok, you can think whatever you want about evolution. That's freedom of speech.

by Anonymous 15 years ago

The two prevalent theories are that life began on crystals or that life began in volcanoes, but the major problem with both of those theories is that only life begets life; that's one of the primary rules of nature. AND scientists assume that the atmosphere was composed differently (which there's no proof of) and changed over time, which there's no proof of either. On top of all of that, if you look at genetic mutations today, they all affect the carrier of the affected gene in a negative way; how could we credit mutations with varied, functioning species that exist today? It just doesn't add up if you ask me.

by Anonymous 15 years ago

and you think a being (wait a minute, isnt that a life source) created everyone and placed people on it that would eventually destroy the earth? im not trying to have a religious war but evolution is NOT religion

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, a being is a life source. and if there was an eternal life source, it would be able to beget life, correct? And the original plan didn't involve destroying the earth, that was only after Man sinned and thereby separated ourselves from God and brought death into the world. Evolution has less backing than you think. Almost all of it's evidence is theoretical and not repeatable, which isn't good science.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry, the only group that doesn't back evolution are the devout religious. Who, unfortunately, are not in a position to say that evolution is wrong since to say it is, means turning away from thousands of years of beliefs. If you think your religion is so infallible, look at the church's history on astronomy. Up until the 1980's the church's official position was that the earth was the center of the universe, even after all the scientific data was shown that they are wrong. Evolution is just another case of the church being wrong and being so stuck up that they wont accept it

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That was the leaders in the church NOT the religion I follow. I believe what the bible says, not necessarily what any Pastor/Preacher/Rabbi/Father says about the bible/the world/life. I believe that there's as good (if not better) of a chance that the world was created intelligently rather than randomly.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

evolution is wrong because God created life, Genesis 1 verse 26-27 says then God said " let us create man in our image, in our likeness".....so God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can't use a bible verse when discussing whether the bible is true or not.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm an atheist/Pastafarian so your argument is invalid.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

RAmen!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You're the second pastafarian to make such a comment. I believe this argument is about credibility of evolution and the credibility of Christianity, so if you have nothing to contribute to either side (or if you're not going to argue for your own side) then why comment at all?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There isn't a motive to all my actions. Why should there be? To please you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Every action has a motive (whether you wish to admit it or not). I was just wondering if you'd want to share that with the rest of us, but if you wish to remain ambiguous then alright.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yea, well, the bible is thousands of years old and written by countless old guys. And like someone stated above, the church believed something completely different than what the actual proof stated.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The bible was written based on word of mouth. Christianity was created to keep people from being evil. But then again, it was based on the teachings of Bejesus Christ, who was real, but then again he was an ancient hippie. But yea, to me the bible was written to keep people in line.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yea, I agree. I learned that religions were created so that people can get a sense of where they belong and how their world was made. And Jesus was real. Telling someone that they could rot in hell forever would most likely get a lot of people to do right because it would scare the crap out of them.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@201000 (emo_sk8er_luv): The Bible was written from primary sources in almost every case (Genesis, 1&2 Judges&Kings being the exceptions). Christianity is around because Jesus Christ came around living a perfect life, teaching people about God, love, and life, then died so that people could be freed from evil and Hell, then came back from the dead to show that He is more powerful than everything including death.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So he faked his own death?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

He died and then came back from the dead. Roman crucifixion is not something which is survivable, and there was a guard around the tomb so that no one would be able to steal the body. Angles put the guards to sleep and Jesus came back to life, and walked around on earth for another 40 days before going back to heaven.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't have the energy to argue anymore.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

About the religious leaders thinking that the earth was the center of the universe, try the 1680's not the 1980's.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Not to mention, that it was only the catholic church that preached the earth was the center. You talk as if the catholic church is the only religion on earth today. Personally i believe that Catholicism is flawed completely because they killed of the apostles and had no one to correct them when they made a mistake. And after hundreds of years they became pretty mixed up in everything. That's why i believe the ONLY church that could be true is one that was established after america was colonized to allow God to set up his church in a land that allowed religious freedom.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wow. I'm basically speechless... Do you honestly think that there is no proof? There is so much proof, although not all people may find it completely conclusive. All of this proof adds up to form theories. Theories are not just ideas put out there by random people. That is the point that I think you are missing. Because if theories were just random ideas, then wouldn't everything be a theory? And please take into deep consideration the fact that was presented to you in the comment above: Up until the 1980's, the church's official position was that the earth was the center of the universe....

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Proof is a loosely used term on this page. It's mostly based off of conjecture and biased research (scientists studying "how something evolved" instead of studying the thing in a completely objective manner), so I for one will not bandwagon about a matter as important as how life began. See my comment above for my view on the church.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You are assuming that all scientists are horrendously biased. That is not the case. While nobody can be completely objective, you are still overgeneralizing the amount of bias in a scientist. And in your referenced comment, you stated that you believe in what the bible says. The bible states that the earth is no older than a few thousand years, yet there is so much proof against that, that it might as well be considered fact; it is anyway. The bible, unfortunately for you, is now written in stone in a way and cannot be changed, like it has been before.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Did I say all scientists were biased? Other than carbon dating, is there any proof of how old the earth is? The only time the Bible was changed was when Mohammed had 'visions of an archangel' and claimed to have been shown the will of God. His visions showed many things contrary to the Previously written Word of God, so another religion had to form as the Jews/Christians would not accept his visions. The bible has always been set in stone, and - I hope - always will be.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But whose to say that people didn't add in their own little things in the Bible? It's not like there was only one Bible, there were many different versions of it. So, for all you know, you could be worshiping a specific person's views instead of the very first views of Christianity. The Bible was changed much more than once.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can't prove that it was changed any more than I can prove that it wasn't, so I won't argue with you about that any more. But if it was changed, that would mean that part of the truth (the Word of God) was changed, and therefore no longer true. Would you like to point out any falsehoods in the Bible?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

God watched over the writing of the Bible though the Holy Spirit, it was guided and essentially written by God through men!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@135501 (TheRomanianAssasin): i think what you need to understand is that while there is proof out there of evolution, there is just as much proof to back up creation, its not just the bible, there is proof in everyday geography of creation, as well as proof of jesuses second coming.and the "churches official position"? which church. christian,catholic,Jewish. we are not all the same. prime example being the catholics that rarely refer to the actual teachings of the bible. don't put all relgious ppl in the same catagory cause we all have different ideas, although we should all be going with what the bible tells us. and the bible isnt any specific persons view, it hasent been changed that much other then by the original people that wrote it, it was more then one person and yes written by god through men. of course there are different bibles out there but the only big change is they are worded differently, some made easier to read for children so they can understand.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Guided by the Holy Spirit? If you can prove this to me, with LOGICAL proof of course, then I will immediately apologize for everything and back down. You absolutely cannot tell me that the Bible was not altered. The two major religions today believe in the same God but have different names for Him: Islam-Allah and Christianity-God. This just adds to what I am saying. All of these religions arose from different interpretations of what happened in history. You can't prove that people didn't alter it. If I went around telling people that I had spoken to God and that he gave me a list of Ten Commandments, and it eventually caught on, couldn't I just tell people whatever I wanted and they would believe me? Most likely yes, no matter how ridiculous. It just goes to show that respected people, take Peter for example, could have manipulated the gullibility of people of the day to his advantage.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

as I said earlier, Islam is a result of one man claiming to have visions from God contrary to everything else God had said. His version of God served his purposes at the time. It can be discarded when examining discrepancies in the Bible. About Peter, If you have read the new testament you would know that the all of the Apostles, after Christ's ascension, traveled around Israel and the land of the Gentiles. So, if any one of them tried to teach the people falsehoods, the others would be able to correct those ideas when they arrived in the same lands. BTW, almost all of the apostles died martyrs deaths. If they did try to manipulate people to their own advantage, would they continue to do so to the point of execution?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If it was benefiting them and they really believed it would eventually work, then yes. What if every one of them was teaching these "falsehoods" and instead it merged into one concept? One which differed from the first one.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It didn't. The Gospels are written about the life of Jesus by four different authors to four different audiences, and the rest of the New Testament is written by people other than those four. The life of Jesus (Gospels) fulfills the prophesies in the Old Testament, and taught concepts that were carried on in the rest of the New Testament. The doctrine does not change, the message does not change; the Bible has not changed, the Apostles didn't change the story. And, I'm just curious, have you read the New Testament? All of it? I've read up on evolution a whole lot, and have formed an argument against it, so maybe by reading the New Testament you can try to form an actual argument against it. Just a thought.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Next time you make a comment on the creation of Islam or any other religion other than your own, do us a favor, and research it before you say it. There's no need for additional misconceptions here.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What proof is there of creation besides the bible, whichcannot be counted as fact?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know a marine biologist working in Portland, Oregon who is a devote Christian, but still accepts evolution, and studies it from the point of view you claim all scientists are lacking, so again, please do a LITTLE research before making rude claims...Unless you want me to do the same about the bible...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Being heterozygous for Sickle cell anemia is a mutation that you benefit from. Christianity is an outdated religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But how many more negative mutations do you know of? For example, random mutations that kill children in their mother's womb, mental deficiencies, mutated limbs, etc. Truth never goes out of date.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Your values and views were persuaded at a young age by the church telling you there is a God and jesus, as part of human psychology you naturally reject anything else you are told otherwise even against all evidence.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No. My faith, values, and views are my own. I disagree with the Church (and many Christians) about a great number of things. You classify me as closed-minded to help your side of the argument. I happen to know that mutations cause harm to thousands more than they help. Why can't you just accept that? I do not reject facts. I actually am trying to present a logical, factual argument in my own defense all over this page. I could just as easily say that YOU are convinced of evolution because it was taught in schools when you were a young age, and will deny any logical arguments against it, but where would that get us? Nowhere. Let's try to find truth, not debate psychological conditions.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay. Let's say that the Bible was never actually changed. The apostles still could have just as easily created this idea, one which eventually became known as Christianity, in order to control people. It's a very simple concept if you think about it, considering that people of the time were very easily influenced. Just because there are multiple books on religion, it doesn't mean that they were created because of interaction with God. Maybe these people were just smart enough to see the advantages. People were afraid that if they did not do what the bible told them, they would go to hell. Leaders could easily use this to control a majority of people at the time. However, this whole idea, of course, is just going to get us nowhere because we cannot yet, if ever, uncover the true intentions of these people.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But their intentions are already known. They died to spread the knowledge of God. Only later in history did rulers take advantage of people through religion. The letters from the apostles, if they're edited, should show some evidence of manipulation to get some advantage for themselves. If you've ever read the New Testament, you will see them constantly pointing away from themselves and towards Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit when talking of who should be glorified. People were not motivated by a desire to stay out of Hell until hundreds of years after Christ's death. Everyone who believed back then did so because of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ; the miracles that the Apostles performed; and/or from seeing Christ after the resurrection.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'll give you that, the apostles thing. But people were still afraid of hell, even back then. Those miracles can be contributed to science today, but not back then, only giving people more reason to believe in and fear God.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, because casting out demons, healing people with a prayer, and the resurrection are all explainable today (Sarcasm). People didn't start to believe in Jesus' actions from some sort of fear of hell back then (and hopefully don't today either). They saw what Jesus did either as fulfillment of scriptures* (if they were Jewish) or as the Son of God coming to earth to free us from the bondage of Sin and Death (if they were Gentiles). Belief and Fear of God entitled turning their back on sinful ways, following the teachings of Jesus. There are other elements to it, such as the Holy Spirit, but that's the essence of it. *Fulfillment of the scriptures means a savior coming into the world, and many more things as based off of Old Testament prophesies.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The bible we have today IS changed. Many people wrote books for the bible, Mary Magdeline as an example. At some point in time, a group of people in the church decided that those extra books shouldn't be taken as gospel truth, and that those they did put in are the (for lack of a better term) 'right' ones to put in. Your argument that the bible has not been changed is therefore unusable.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You only say mutations harm people because you're not thinking of the word mutation in a scientific way. The gene for lactose-tolerance is a mutation; humans were originally all lactose intolerant. That mutation doesn't harm us. Blue eyes were origionally a genetic mutation. Blue eyes *help* us--people with blue eyes can see better in the dark than people with brown eyes. Pale skin is a genetic mutation that allows us to absorb more light from the sun. They've even discovered a genetic mutation that can help battle Tourette Syndrome and one that can make a person more resistant to HIV.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I mean that mutations cannot cause a species to become another species. I realize that there are a few beneficial ones, but most random mutations cause harm to the carrier.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Over a (very) long period of time, they *can* cause them to become another species or two separate species, the first species and the one created from the mutation. If a species goes through enough mutations, they will eventually be very different from the what they started out as.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There's a disturbing lack of evidence for your claims.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How so?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

scientists hypothesize which fossils are transitional (there's no cold, hard evidence which undeniably shows that the fossils aren't a distinct species). Most creatures which mutate do not pass on their genes. Those genes which do mutate and are passed on rarely affect the structure of the creature.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@198657 (Apollo): ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........................'...../ ..........''............. _.·´ ..........................( ..............................

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You do that because you can't defend your argument.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"No. My faith, values, and views are my own. I disagree with the Church (and many Christians) about a great number of things. You classify me as closed-minded to help your side of the argument. I happen to know that mutations cause harm to thousands more than they help. Why can't you just accept that? " where you raised as a Christian? because if you were BAM! you were brain washed as a child. i was brain washed as a child. everyone was. but the point is, you're saying it's you own opinion that no one gave to you, well, if you were raised Christian, you were handed Christianity. unless you were born and live in a purely non-christian state and never heard of it, miraculously found the bible somehow, read it, and without talking to anyone came to your own decisions about it, you WERE brain washed. if you werent raised christian then you were probably brainwashed into not wanting whatever you grew up in and changed. what do you disagree with you sounds like coun't

by Anonymous 14 years ago

a crazy ass Christian who claims to love their neighbor but secretly wants them to burn in hell.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that your definition of brain-washed is that Person A grew up in a place/with people which/who taught Value B, so Person A automatically believed Value B. That's not brain-washing, that's teaching. Everyone, as a child, is taught what the people around them believe, that's just part of society. I claim my beliefs as my own because I only believe in Christianity because of what I've been through myself, not because of what anyone else told me. I've heard from God many times, seen prayer answered, talked to a demon, and had visions. The Christians I disagree with are the ones who don't take the Bible seriously in some way or another (add their own interpretations/take stuff out of context/ignore some part completely).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"if you look at genetic mutations today, they all affect the carrier of the affected gene in a negative way" I lol'd so hard at this statement.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

yes there is prof of the atmosphere being different its in ice in antartica thats why scientists drill holes in the ice and if you dont belive that they do it is in the opining scene of the day after tomorow

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You have almost made everyone else's argument un-credible by saying that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

so them where did god come from. and please dont say he's always been, because hats the most lame, half assed answer possible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

When Moses was in the desert and he asked God's name, God answered "YAHWEH" which implies a state of being translating to something like I AM/WAS/WILL BE/HAVE BEEN. It implies that God is kind of outside of time, with no beginning and no end. Eternity is to God just a moment, but God can stay in any one moment for eternity. Because God isn't inside of time, beginnings and endings are kind of irrelevant. You ask a question and rule out an answer from the beginning, isn't that at least a little closed-minded of you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

just actin like my best man apollo. hey, why did you call yourself apollo, which is a greek god, if your not supposed to believe in any other gods?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't believe in other gods, but greek mythology has plenty of interesting characters. It's just like naming yourself chucknorris or darthvader online.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

theory means Idea that was proven using evidence when you're talking about science. In any other subject it's a guess.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

major misunderstanding here. Evolution says absolutely NOTHING about the origins of life. It only tells us how existing life evolved. Saying the one makes the other wrong is like saying the theory of gravity is wrong cause we don't know the origin of gravity.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Beastman314 was right (even though The Day After Tomorrow is not even close to credible). Scientists can use bubbles of air caught in ice core samples that they drill from either Arctic or Antarctic ice sheets to analyze the composition of the early atmosphere. The deeper they drill, the older the air caught in the bubbles is.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I agree that the atmosphere was once different. I'm not surprised at the findings which say so. The Bible says that before the flood there was an extremely thick layer of cloud (roughly equivalent to the amount of water in the oceans [genesis 1:6-7]), and the atmosphere would have to be different to support something like that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

In response to: "...if you look at genetic mutations today, they all affect the carrier of the affected gene in a negative way; how could we credit mutations with varied, functioning species that exist today? It just doesn't add up if you ask me." Citing here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/02tibet.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=science&adxnnlx=1278100827-z4L1JKLtdtuMolZmIbs9dQ "Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far." "...the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau."@201301 (Apollo): @201301 (Apollo):

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes... I said all but meant most. You cited one example of mutations promoting adaptability/micro-evolution (which by the way is completely different from macro-evolution/change to other species) but I could just as easily cite examples of mutations harming the carrier: Infant death syndrome, mental retardation, any of a large number of genetically passed on diseases, birth defects (and those are all general terms which cover dozens of conditions).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Whatever. I'm preeety sure this site shouldn't be about religious beliefs/prejudice.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

All this applyies, Unless! Your a pokemon.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A theory is something that's been put through an hypothesis, experimentation, etc etc and there is enough evidence to base off it to even call it a theory. That's way more proof than ANY religion existing today has provided. If you think it's "just" a theory, perhaps you should go back to science class and learn about all the multiple steps an hypothesis has to go through to get the glory of even being called a theory. And we're not basing it off higher faith because we can SEE scientists and we can SEE their research and we can SEE how it reacts in this world. I imagine later on in the future when we've had more time to study the effects of evolution (because we've just begun to scratch the surface), that this theory will change to law. And that's something more than any religion will ever be. If you cannot see the proof for evolution get back to science class.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Have they experimented successfully to show that it's correct? If I'm not wrong, scientists haven't yet been able to create life in any of the conditions in which they hypothesized life began. Yes, you can see scientists, but can you see the validity of their testing? Yes, you can see reactions, but has life ever come from those reactions? I imagine that in the future, when there's more information on evolution, scientists will still see that random mutations in a creature's genes will harm the creature, not make it a more advanced species. Once you have actual proof, I'll stop calling it blind faith and start calling it fact.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This is not a readily testable theory... The theory was based off of observations of animals. Like birds that are only found in the Galapagos... They are similar to birds elsewhere, but just slightly different since they have been isolated from the rest of the world and developed uses to suite their needs... The theory has since been updated and fixed correcting errors and by observing the genome of fossils and present day ancestors of those fossils. Hence the belief that humans evolved from apes since we share over 98% of our genomes. The fact that you call it blind faith means you don't have an idea what a theory is. Scientists test theories and put them through scrutiny. Instead of believing in a book written by prehistoric sheepherders believed that the world was only a few generations old. Theres no testing that is involved in religion. Not even a smattering of proof other than that book. That is blind faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I have every idea what a theory is, but there's a disturbing amount of conjecture and "we'll be able to prove that in several years" for evolution to qualify as a theory in my book. Not nearly all of the problems have been updated or fixed, there's still the matter of where life began - the largest issue in fact.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

evolution does not say we came from apes dumb fuck, says we shared a common ancestor at one point we split down the evolutionary tree, know ur shit b4 arguing it, especially against this guy who seems to know how to have a legitimate discussion

by Anonymous 14 years ago

lol, thanks for the compliment.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

if humans evolved from apes, wouldnt there still be part man part apes running around. i mean evolution doesnt just stop does it? "oh ok we've got enough people, steve turn off the ape-to-humanofier." (forgive the horrible joke telling.lol.) shouldnt we be able to still see the process happining, i know it takes millions of years and all that, but shouldnt there be some in between going on, like the famous picture of the monkeys slow transition into the human, shouldnt that still be going on if we are all still evolving. of course that would be if that is what scientist actually theorised.(thanks anon)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution is a process that is helped along by "natural selection". Species evolve according to their changing environment and it takes thousands of years for major evolution of a species to occur. Natural selection means that the certain individuals in a species who are "special" are now going to be able to survive in their environment because nature has "selected" these traits of others to do better. For example, if there was 100 turtle eggs that have hatched on the beach and 10 of those turtles were faster than the other 90 turtles. The 10 will be able to reach the ocean faster escaping the predators who killed off 70 of the slow turtles. Now that the 10 fast turtles are in the ocean and 20 slow turtles. But the slow turtles can't escape the other predators but since the fast turtles can the fast turtles will be able to survive and reproduce and make more fast turtles. Then eventually that whole species of turtle will be fast and there won't be any slow turtles

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And religion is perfect? Hmm...why don't you just take a step back and think about that for a few minutes. And, back to your point in the post before the above one, evolution is not just a set of random mutations. It's anything but. Why do humans have less hair than primates? Because we slowly began to find shelter that protects us from things that hair usually would. Then we begin to build our own shelter. See because of the human mind, we have become less dependent on things that other animals would die without.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That would be an example of evolution by the way.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Or do we take shelter because we have less hair? then build shelter because it's more convenient? It could just as easily have been designed that way. Just because we do something does not mean that something else happened first. If I saw someone studying, would It mean that they are taking a class? Not necessarily, they could just be interested in said subject. Just an example of faulty logic like what you just used.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Faulty logic? I don't think so. What makes more sense in your mind, although I can probably guess how you will answer, humans having to SLOWLY adapt and evolve so that they can deal with changing times, or that we were put on this earth kind of like little computer simulations? Simulations with a set amount of knowledge and whatnot. What if we couldn't adapt that fast? We could just simply die out because of lack of knowledge. But if we evolved, then we would have millions of years of knowledge. Not exactly knowledge but in the same sense of how a bird knows how to teach its young to fly. Over the years, these things have grown on eachother and become ways of living. Kind of hard to explain, but I hope you understand.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What's this about computer simulations and a set amount of knowledge? I never said, and the Bible never said, anything about Humans not being able to learn and adapt. The fact that we can learn does not mean that we evolved. But seriously, what gave you that idea?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I was trying to relate the two. What I meant was that if we had a creator who specifically designed us, then wouldn't it be like a computer programmer setting specific parameters for a simulation? We are smart creatures, but not smart enough to adapt that fast. I don't know how else to explain it really.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So, if we were created, we would have a set capacity of knowledge (like a cup that can only hold so much), but if we could evolve, we would have a variable capacity for knowledge (then we could change shape to hold more water). I think that's what you were getting at. But if we were created in the image of the all-knowing God, wouldn't we have an almost-infinate capacity of knowledge?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

scientific facts have proven that any mutations that occur in a species are random, they just help that particular organism survive better in their environment, so they live longer and have more of a chance to pass down their genes! crack open any biology book and read that!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

its called natural selection, scientific terms help prove a point not saying OPEN A BIOLOGY BOOK

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ever consider that seeing as god is all knowing of the past present and future, hense the term "all knowing", when he created us he was aware of all the changes of the world so his didnt program us like computers, he created us in such a way that we could survive, learn, and adapt to what ever happens to us because he knew what was going to happen to us.duh. when i look at all the incredible parts and functions of the human body and it was almost as if our body thought of every possible scenario of thing that can happen to it, and then made a way for us to survive it. theres no way we just evolved that way, there had to be a being behind all this that knew what humans would face and designed us to make it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you mean we get a small cut and can die from it by possibly a 100 different infections? yea seems like a perfect body to me. not to mention all the mental disorders

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That was a general statement. How small is the percentages of people who die from paper cuts? How many mental disorders are controllable with medication and therapy? Our body is amazingly built to withstand attack from 99.9% of all pathogens in this world, and to be able to bounce back from even permanent mental conditions.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@135658 (Apollo): word.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ok go into the forest by urself with a knife, cut urself somewhere and wander through them looking for random herbs that u are not sure will even help u before it gets infected. we have modern medicine now because we developed it ourselves, the human mind is the greatest mind. we didn't have it before which is why people died way more frequently, now we freak out over 1 death@135667 @135658 (Apollo): @135658 (Apollo):

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, the human mind is the greatest mind, but we cannot attribute our accomplishments to ourselves without giving credit to where we came from. Oh, and BTW I happen to know a few basic plants that would help me.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Why are you so against giving the human race credit?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not against giving the human race credit, but we can't take all of the credit. If we can do something, it's because we developed to be that way or were designed that way. That's all I'm saying.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Percentages may look "legit", but when they're not true, it defeats the purpose.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

thats sin. to sum it up pretty much anything thats bad in the world is the cause of sin.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

btw. god also blessed us with the knowledge to help our fellow man using medications that can trace back to herbes and plants and other natural things around the world. oh, and guess who created all those herbs and helpful plants? god.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

the human mind develops on its own, we discovered those herbs can be used certain ways, not God going "hey man pick that one!" if u think he made them then hes an ass for not telling us which ones are fucking poisonous and probably got a shitload of people killed before we found the correct herb. go put some poison ivy on an open cut faggot

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Why are you even in this conversation? All you are doing is restating your opinion without anything to back it up.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So then, by your logic, God is basically just using us as pawns in his little game. Maybe He is bored, who knows? What is the point of life then? Wouldn't it make more sense that we slowly, and I mean extremely slowly, developed all of this knowledge and evolved into what we are today? Think of a family recipe of some sort. It was passed down for generations and generations and slowly altered to make it better. It will never be perfected and each generation in the family might add its own little trick to the recipe. The person in the family who first came up with the recipe wasn't just born knowing how to make that food, they had to experiment with the ingredients and whatnot.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You fail to see the point of evolution. Yes, blind and random mutations DO harm the creature. HOWEVER, in the specimens where it DOESN'T harm the creature, or HELPS them, then those specimens survive more than those that don't. Over time, the specimens with the advantage become the norm. Also, you cannot create a 'test' to create life. Life to MILLIONS of years to evolve and form, and even more so to become what it is today. Thirdly, you cannot call science a religion. Religion is faith, believing in a higher power or sentience or way of thinking. Keyword being BELIEF. Science is based on KNOWLEDGE. Scientists do not have a 'higher power', they are the same as any other human. Theory is something that has been tested to the point where it can be thought of as true without certainty. Religion and the Bible, however, is based on BELIEF, as in the untested, unproven ideas that one possesses on a certain thought or idea. Science isn't believing. Science is KNOWING.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

if the specimen has a mutation, how is that passed on to it's offspring? Being a recessive gene, it is highly unlikely that the offspring will inherit it. and if there is only one species with that mutation and so many others without it, how will it survive long enough to create enough offspring to outnumber the others to become "the norm?" along with that, there are no fossil records to prove that a species evolved, only different forms of the animal themselves. if they actually evolved over a long period of time the fossils would show a smooth transition between those forms.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

there is a 50/50 chance recessive gene would be passed on and then its offspring would be a carrier of the gene and could pass it to its offspring.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

but there is also a higher chance of the mutated species to be killed by the thousands of other species that are not mutated. each new mutation only makes the species slightly more advanced than the original.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not calling science a religion; I'm calling the theory that says everything evolved from nothing religion because they cannot prove how life began. I called the scientists themselves the Higher Power, I did not say they had one (people take the conjecture of the scientist at his word, even though it's still conjecture). Science IS knowing. Science is also testable, repeatable and observable. The beginning of life is none of those things and therefore what you think about the beginning of life is based upon faith, whether it be in some form of a god or in some scientist's guess.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They can't PROVE it. Not yet anyways. But scientists believe that certain proteins and other chemicals combined to form the right conditions for life to form. We weren't able to prove that the earth wasn't the center of the universe 10,000 years ago either.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So: you believe something they cannot prove but claim to be true... that's faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They cannot prove it yet. But the idea itself can be proved and disproved. Thus, making it NOT faith. In reality, there is no such thing as proving, only disproving. Because faith is the belief in something which cannot be disproved, then religion cannot be disproved. But the human mind, at one point, has to make the decision of believing the evidence against religion or relying on faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If evolutionary theory is true, then it HAS disproved part of religion. Religion follows the same set of rules as any other thought in the world. Believing in something without current proof is different than believing in something that can be proven/disproven? Anything can be proven/disproven. The fact remains that faith is required to believe what you believe about origins of life and the universe.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

they've proven many parts of it real, others like the one you're getting to edgy about they haven't, but are working on. you need to read more about evolution if you think it's limited to the creation of life.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know what evolution involves: mutations changing species into other species with natural selection determining which species survive and which die off, punctuated equilibrium, constant adaptation, and so on... But the point I was making in this post is specifically about the creation of life and the all-around lack of evidence for any given claim.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

it has more proof than you book.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Considerable evidence has been found proving the Bible correct, such as lost cities found where the Bible says they are, evidence of a great flood found in places like the Grand Canyon, and records of people mentioned in the Bible. I do not deny that parts of the evolutionary theory are true, but my claim was, is, and will be that believing in something that makes claims about anything (specifically the origin of life) without proof requires faith to accept as fact. Is my claim false, or are you just avoiding taking a stance with only faith to back your claims?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evution was a theory 100 years ago. Today it is a fact. A theory that has been proven to be true do to irrefutable, overwhelming evidence is a fact. Evolution has mountains of evidence gathered over generations from all around the world that points to it being true, with the only counterclaim being that we don't have a fossil of every species that has ever lived.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

While evolution=highly accepted Theories do not become laws. Laws are observations of phenomena in our universe. Theories explain these laws

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Theories, once they are accepted by a majority or the entirety of the science community, can become laws. The law of gravity was once disputed, along with truckloads of other things now considered "laws". Please, *do* watch what you're saying.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, gravity is still scarecly understood. The Newtonian view of gravity was turned on it's head once Einstein added his views, and even before then no one was really sure. So although I agree with you on evolution, using gravity was a bad example.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There is even enough evidence to make it a law! But if scientists made it a law, people would get mad.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Have they found ANY evidence at all of God? And by your logic, how did God come into being? And how about your logic of there being no proof of evolution? How about millions of fossils that date back to over 70 million years ago. That's enough proof to me.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No. No evidence of God at all. I have no idea how he came into being. I believe that God exists and always exists because that's part of my faith. no more and no less. Carbon dating... about that. They measure the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil relative to the current amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere to find the date. But that means that they assume that there has always been a constant amount of C14 in the atmosphere, and that there were even amounts in different areas under different conditions. See the problem with that?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You do realize that carbon dating can't bring us too far back correct? They use carbon 14 dating for things that were around when the earth had a constant amount of C14 in the atmosphere.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The earth didn't always have an atmosphere, just so you know.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I do believe I already stated my qualms about C14 dating. The whole earth flooded at one point, just so you know.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I never said that the earth never flooded, I just don't believe that God caused the flood.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know the earth had an unstable atmosphere at one point just as much as you know that the earth flooded at one point. It seemed like you were throwing out irrelevant, slightly controversial facts for no reason, so I did as well. That aside, if we look at these two facts in correlation, doesn't it seem possible that the earth at one point had a solid cloud covering (strange atmosphere), but then the first rain storm happened causing a world-wide flood? It would make sense. That would sound a whole lot like the ancient story of Noah's ark.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

(Anonymous)7 million years? how do they prove a thing like that?? they were not here 7 million years ago, so how do they know that that particular fossil is from 7 million years ago! and yes there is evidence of God, the Bible for one, then you can read things like the dead sea scrolls and learn that events from 2000 years that are recorded in the Bible also match up with the events from 2000 years ago in the dead sea scrolls, and that doesnt just happen!!!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A piece of literature is not proof. Please do some research on how they date rocks and fossils. Then come back and make an arguement. You should just let Apollo talk, at least he knows what he's saying.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

He's making a point about the validity of the bible, as proved by the Dead Sea scrolls, 'pieces of literature' which prove the accuracy of the scriptures to which they correlate. It would have been a good piece of evidence in favor of the Apostles not screwing with scripture if I had thought of it earlier...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There may be proof that someone existed, or something did happen, but can you prove that what the scriptures say is true? There is proof that a person called Jesus was crucified, but where's the evidence of anything else that's happened in his life? You cannot use the bible as evidence because the bible is a biased piece of litarature, a collection of books chosen to be put together as a moral representation of your faith. There are many other books that could have been added to the bible, but they were CHOSEN not to, therefore showing that it is biased.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of writings found recently in some caves near the Dead Sea (perfectly preserved) which have many of the same stories as are in the Bible. Biased against what/towards what?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I love you xD lol. And to the people arguing, there isn't any proof. Get over it. All scientists have are ideas and theories. Nothing is in set in stone. Evolution isn't a freaking 'fact' as BreakfastFan calls it. It's just another person's opinion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Its not really an opinion either. It can stand up to genetic testing and predictions proposed by Darwin. I agree it isn't exactly fact, but its close to fact that creationism. Creationism is based off of ancient texts, and archaic beliefs... We call native american creationistic stories "myths" for a reason. Nothing different between them and today's "modern" religions

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A persons opinion? What the fuck? A fucking opinion, thats what you fucking morons think a fucking theory is. A FUCKING OPINION!? Our public education system is failing.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"isn't any proof" theres more proof of our evolution than of your crazy ass idea about a man floating in the sky.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

First off, you are getting off subject. The point of this page is about Creation, not 'a man floating in the sky', which by the way is your own 'crazy ass' interpretation of religion because there is nothing talking about such a thing. All concepts of God are far from that. Second off, getting so mad at a girl about one word doesn't make you look very intelligent. Thirdly, what exactly is your 'proof' of evolution? Let's face it, a couple animals that look alike do not count as proof.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's interesting that you capitalized words that did not need capitalizing. If you want people to respect your opinion, you should be more careful about how you state it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I felt they needed extra emphasis.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

We've proved that fossils from over 100 million years ago exist and that the world was alive that long ago...so why are we still believing in a religion that says the Earth was only made 6000 years ago? Or did God decide to randomly throw some fossils down there buried in tons of layers of rocks to test our faith in the HOPES that one day humans would be innovative enough to find them and be able to understand them. And some say Evolution is faulty logic...I can't wait for the day when intelligence can once again reign supreme.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The only people that believe that the Earth is 6000 years old are die hard Creationists. The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. How could you possibly think that the Earth was created in one day. Did God have a Casio watch or something and say "Oh boy, I guess I should create a universe now". No, the perception of time was created by man.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's what the Bible says, and to be a TRUE christian you have to believe the Bible, you can't just interpret a straight forward scripture in a completely opposite way. That's like me saying 2+2=4 and you going, "No I think my interpretation of that will be 2+2=17" It's one thing to interpret the vague scriptures, but the Bible specifically says the Earth is only 6000 years old and God created it in 7 days. Don't believe it, don't be a real Christian. End of story. All those fake Christians piss me off. They try to act like "You're wrong for not believing but I don't really either. I just know God exists in my heart but I don't believe a word the Bible says even though it's supposedly the word of God but screw that I will think what I want because I believe in a higher being and that's all that matters!" Sounds ridiculously idiotic right?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I agree completely (No - almost completely, the 6000 is a rounded number; but that's a technicality)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

the bishop or whatever said around 6000 and another guy said at 9 : 00 am on that day

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, 6000 ±250 years or so.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

literature is very different from math.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

2+2=5. If I can prove this, will you change your interpretation? The bible is all about interpretation. To believe it in literal terms is, quite honestly, foolish. To believe that level of creation happened in 7 days is laughable (no offense). However, if you change your interpretation from a modern human day (24 hours) to a day in the eyes of god, which, for all we know could be millenia, then you can see how the bible, if interpreted logically, could match with scientific thinking. Btw, 2.4+2.4=4.8 Rounded, that makes 2+2=5.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I see a problem with your math. When rounding, you round one side and one side only, and then change the equal sigh to an approximately sign. so: 2.4+2.4=4.8 2.4+2.4(approximately equals)5 couldn't figure out how to do the sign.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And about the interpretation; if I decided to interpret all of the Bible & not take any of it literally, wouldn't I be believing in something other than the Bible? So what makes you think you can interpret parts of the Bible and still claim that it's the Bible you believe in? If you believe what the Bible says, you Believe what The Bible Says. And also, if a millennia was one of the "figurative days" spoken of in the Bible, how do you explain the "there was evening and there was morning the #th day" in Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31? AND, if God rested on the seventh day, does that mean He's still resting? it's not been that long since the Biblical "sixth day."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm an atheist, but i have to applaud you for that opinion. Either you're a believer or you're not. I don't really see a grey area there. Sometimes i have the feeling that "moderate" christians are just atheists, but don't have the guts to admit it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

the only problem i have with religion is that no one believes in Greek Gods anymore, they've been reduced as being permanently labeled as "myths"

by Anonymous 14 years ago

well they kinda are myths

by Anonymous 14 years ago

no they aren't and were never ment to be, you have no knowledge of the history and are sucked up in the labeling of them as Greek "mythology". it was an actual full on religion in all of Greece. who do you think the temples in Athens were for? they made em for fun? it was the official religion of ancient Greece. then Rome adapted it and changed some of the names into their own relgion. Ares(god of war) to Mars(God of war) then after Christianity's popularity rose at the time of the Roman Empires destruction, it basically vanished

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. Bitch.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So this post does not apply to you. No need to insult me.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

acutally this post easily applies to this person. Since you're the one bringing up "theories" of creation, and this person beleives that a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the world it totally applies. and as far as insults, i can see you've put out your fair share of them too. @135596 (Anonymous):I love you. Thank you for this great idea. GO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It has been proven that the Human body can adapt to situations (evolving). For instance, in Africa, people developed darker skin due to increased sunlight. This has been proven by science. There was no holy spirit that came down and changed their skin.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ever think god didnt have to change their skin, ever think our, whats that word again, oh yeah ALL-KNOWING god created them that way because,well... i think hes aware of the increased sunlight.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, plenty of people have thought of it, and then realized it was completely illogical...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No more illogical than the slow change of pigment over time. If we were INTELLIGENTLY designed, wouldn't we be able to adapt to our surroundings? It would make sense. Adaptability does not imply evolution any more than the changing colors in a mood ring show a change of the contents of that ring.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Er... humans originated in Africa. Therefore, the lighter-skinned humans lost the colored pigment in their skin from the *lack* of sun.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do you have any proof of your all-knowing god? Scientist's have proof of pigments in skin to change their color due to their surroundings, but they don't have pictures of some guy in the clouds with a beard,

by Anonymous 14 years ago

3. the platypus (they don't do much lol)-@135607 (litapd311): ahviously not friend. one, no cameras, two. we don't know what god looks like, hes not a man at all anyways, hes a being, so the picture is purely simbolic. the bible never says anything bout a beard.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

oh and creationalists have no problem with the theory of adaptation. of course god hooked us up with the ability to adapt so we could survive on my own. i was just too lazy to type that earlier.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

no one was there when everything was made. So,we know nothing for sure.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Exactly. Like the post said; practicing evolution is just practicing another form of religion because we cannot prove it one way or another.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ur right in the definition. its basically religion without the pageantry

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution isn't abiogenesis nor the big bang. You seem like a rather intelligent individual, so try getting the definitions right.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry for my inaccuracy; I've learned quite a bit from this whole shebang and will be more technically accurate in the future.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

proof of creation and the flood? 1.the grand canyon- you notice the different layers of rock in the grand canyon(google images it). evolutionists say that the layers were layed down over millions of years. but notice the sharp lines between the different layers of rock.if it had taken millions of years for the layers to form, there would have been considerable erosion. the surface between the layers would be uneven. instead they are sharp and clearly defined, indicating that the layers were layerd down quickly. there is a grayish-white layer on the canyon above sea level.its called a cross bed, a formation thats made when very fast water currents push waves of sand many meters high.this slant layer, combined with similar layers from texas to colorado, covers more than 200,000 square miles. a gigantic water catastrophe would have been needed to cause the fast currents required to form a layer that big, like a giant flood.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

2. fossils in the the layers- you learn in school that the fossils in different layers of the canyon show animals evolving from one period to the next over millions of years. but you see that in the oldest layers, only fossils of single-cell organisms such as bacteria are found.in the next layer ,which scientists say was formed about 3 mill. years later, we find complex animals such as sea urchins, jellyfish, and clams.evolutionists say these creatures slowy evolve from single-cell creatures, but if that were true, were are the fossils of the inbetween stages? it doesnt make much sense. what does make alittle more sense is that the different layers are deposits from a huge flood.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Are you an idiot?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

yes, they definitely are. An uneducated idiot.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The fossils in between didn't fossilize. It is hard for things to fossilize, and that's why there are no in between fossils. Also, if there was a huge flood, was it only in that area? According to you, wherever the flood hit there should be a canyon, but there is only one.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

He's not saying that canyons should be everywhere, just that the flood's effects are visible there. in canyons in other areas, similar rock formations can sometimes be found. You realize that if it's just as hard for one thing to fossilize as another, then there should be equal numbers of fossils for both things right? There are many fossils of the 'steps' but no 'in between' fossils. There should be at least one or two, but the lack of any of them should hint at something.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But, the earth has only a certain quantity of water, that changes form and all that jazz. So.. do explain where the water came from.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

from the Biblical story of the flood, it says that a great rain caused the flooding of the whole earth. So, there must have been an ocean of clouds over the whole earth, or some kind of thick could layer. In fact, it says in genesis "And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.' So God made the expanse and separated the water UNDER the expanse from the water ABOVE it. And it was so. God called the expanse 'sky.'" So, according to genesis there was as much water above the land as below it. (words capitalized to point out that it wasn't land that was created to separate waters, it was sky) Just a note: If there was an expanse of water over the world, that would effect the lifespans of all the creatures under it and changed the effect the sun had on the world; and if there was an ark, dinosaurs wouldn't have fit in it, so the flood probably wiped them out. Some things which people question about the creation story.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

so tired cause its like 1 am. ide type more but ive got to go to bed. my dads getting mad. but i do know many more examples of creation. there are even scientists who study the world just like evolutionists, to show ppl proof of all this. but i gotta tell you, ya cant just google this stuff. you google anything that has to do with religion and all kinds of insane things will pop up. you'll be lucky if you find any real factual info. peace out holmes.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You guys are all dumbasses can't you see the possibility that evolution was created by god? Boom now you're friends

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah... That makes total sense. And what do you mean, "now you're friends"? That just seems random.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ok all you idiots who think there is no proof of evolution: how did we get all the breeds of dogs, cats, horses, etc.? from selective breeding which is simply a fastforwarded version of evolution. and yes there is proof of this written in historical documents. you're all going to feel stupid when evolution is proven.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Dude you just sparked the next World War. Way to go.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*phew* I always thought the next world war would be a zombie attack or nuclear annihilation. I'm glad it ended up being so low-tone. But this ^ whole thing is just people sharing their opinions and ideas, a great debate on the nature of life, where Men are Real Men, Women are Real Women, and the mettle of all will be tested with fire and hammer until at long last all the imperfections are beat out and all that remains is a work of truth.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

religion is theory as well, if what you say is true

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That it is. We admit to having faith in what we believe to be true, because we know it's not provable. The problem I have with evolutionists is that they won't admit that what they believe isn't provable. They claim to know the scientific, unquestionable answer - just because they're scientists - but their answer isn't any more valid than ours.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

that is true. Sorry for misunderstanding you

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I can admit that evolution isn't 100% provable atm. But what boggles my mind is that it is placed in the same "opinion" level as religion. Religion is based off a book wrote years ago that was passed down from generations...every day sciences makes more and more discoveries about things religion could ever tell us. Science can give us new things in the future....what can religion give us in the future? Nothing...because religion can't move forward, can't study the world. It's stuck in time and should stay in the past.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Since when has the time something was discovered determine it's importance? Geometry was discovered before Jesus lived, yet it's still immensely important. The importance and validity of something determines how much it can tell us. So what if scientists know the distance to and size of a new star? What happens after death, how we should live our lives, and the existence of God are all more important in the long run (eternity) than all of these new discoveries, which will only help us for as long as the earth lasts (not eternity).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I didn't say what time it was discovered means anything, I'm saying religion can't do anything for us, all it does is provide "hope" that we may live forever. Geometry (and science) still helps us to this very day even though it was discovered a long time ago. You didn't understand my point. So what if scientists can discover new things about our world? Wow, if that's not the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my life. And about the bible saying how we should live our life...you are a sad person if you need a book to tell you that. Like it's that hard to figure out how to be a good person without it... And your philosophy is only based if God exists, so you're going to waste knowledge on the hope there is God and there will be an eternity. I guess you don't like science making antibodies for us to stay alive, because that keeps us away from eternity right? Your way of thinking is definitely not logical, no matter how much you try to say it is.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What I was saying is that what we believe affects our eternal welfare, while science only affects how pleasant our stay upon this earth is. My point in listing those three things (life after death, how we live, Existence of God) was that science can't help us in those areas. Just a note; how many people (religious or not) do you know who are "good people?" Just because we know HOW to live good lives does not mean that we do. Everyone sins. Nobody's good. I'll be the first to admit my guilt, and also the first to say that my guilt has been taken away by the Lamb of God. IF we aren't eternal, and IF God doesn't exist, do you know what happens to me when I die? The exact same thing that happens to you; nothing. IF we are eternal and God doesn't exist, we would still end up in the same afterlife, whatever that would be. IF we aren't eternal and God exists, He would be a cruel God and we would still end up in the same place. {continued}

by Anonymous 14 years ago

IF we are eternal and God does exist, then we would want to know what God says about living, so that we could live in a way that pleases Him. Living the way the Bible says to live would then be the ONLY acceptable way of life. Just because I believe that I'll see God in the next life does not mean that I want everyone to die faster, or that I want science to stop finding wonderful cures and methods for fighting illness. "to live is Christ, to die is gain." (Philippians 1:21) This means that while we are alive, we should live as Christ; healing, teaching, loving, and caring. To die is gain, because our trials will be over, and we will be in a land of eternal rest, where the streets are made of gold and where we can talk directly to God. And for all of the logic students out there, notice the use of ad hominem in sections 2 and 3 of his comment.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know a lot of good people, both religious and non religious. Just because somebody "sins" doesn't make them a bad person. There are plenty of people out there that are prideful, that get angry, that swear but are still good people. Nobody's perfect, but there sure as hell are a lot of good people in this world. And also I have a question based on your statement, was your purpose for finding faith based on your fear and/or inability to accept death? (honest question because I get a lot of people who claim to believe in God but yet that's their only reason why, not because they actually believe; and your statement in the previous reply makes me wonder) Also I don't see what my usage of ad hominem has to do with logic? Being passionate and emotional does not counteract logic, but usually believing in fairy tales do.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ad hominem is when you argue against the person, not what they're saying. "Nobody's perfect, but there are good people." I'm inferring from this that you believe that living in a way that helps more than harms makes someone good. However, if by having one sin you could be separated from God, then living a life like that would still mean that they are separated from God. Even Jesus said "Why do you call me good? No one is good - except God alone." (mark 10:18) This sets the standard of 'good' very high. Those who accept the gift that Jesus offers us - forgiveness - are considered to be 'good' in God's eyes because Jesus took the punishment for their sins. No, I did not find faith because I could not accept death or feared it. I felt that, in my own life, God had proved himself to be true through the answering of prayer and through other Christians' actions.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know what ad hominem means, I still don't see what that has to do with logic, my points were clear. But really not to sound mean, I do try to respect other people but I'm sick of arguing. You will probably never try to look outside your religion and I will never try to look into your religion. I think religion is a waste of huge time and it gives false hope to people, and you think it's the basis for everything. There's no way either of us can "win" this argument and for the sake of trying to keep peace, I will discontinue this conversation...for now at least. I may come back if I feel a need to step in.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Religion is not a theory. The whole point of religion is you believe in it without evidence or reason but on faith. Unlike scientific theory

by Anonymous 14 years ago

i have faith in scientific theories.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That, per definition, isn't possible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

having faith in a theory isn't possible? Faith is strong belief in something that hasn't been proven or can't be proven. the scientific theories haven't been proven.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Religion is belief without SCIENTIFIC evidence or reason. There's plenty of spiritual evidence, and plenty of personal reason for religious people to believe what they believe.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A or of comments :O and most people that put "no way" it's because they prob didn't understand itt and yess I did YYA'd it :)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I also yea'd it, now that i see your point. I thought you were stating science is wrong and you are right. I didn't know you realized that idea of religion isn't perfect. My bad.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, technically I think it's perfect, but I recognize that faith is required. My main purpose in making this post is to show people that faith is more of a part of their lives than they may think.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay then. Nice conversation. BTW, I am a fan of your posts.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Thanks.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

one of the greatest post of all time IMO.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

We can't know for sure. We can only trust what seems the most plausible theory. More likely than not, both of these theories are completely wrong and the beginning of life is beyond comprehension.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

agnostic? yeah, there's no way to know for sure, unless you have faith (believing completely without proof). More than likely, some theory out there is right, and we just have to find which one. I personally believe in the creation story because it answers the questions I have in a satisfactory manner.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm probably a little late jumping on this bandwagon, but here's how I feel about it. (Sorry if some of it is redundant, as I haven't read all of the above comments). First of all, we do have comprehensive evidence of evolution. Fossils, skeletons, and other natural records prove this. We may not know precisely how life began, but we can at the very least deduct that life forms adapt to their environment and that the life on this planet now is different from the life here one million years ago. Second, "proof" is an inaccurate word. "Evidence" would be more fitting in this case. Evidence can point to many things; we may or may not be drawing the right conclusions from the evidence, but I do believe that we are on the same track. (For example, a broken window is not proof of a break-in, but coupled with other factors, a case could be made for a robbery). Third, you're right: they don't know how life began. But they don't claim to know either. The truth is that no one knows.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Look at the comprehensive evidence for yourself and you'll find that it's not as exact as you think it is. They take fossils of different creatures which look similar and claim they came from common ancestors, but they are missing many of the in-between fossils for many of those chains of evolution. Evidence may be a better word, but if it is as you say and evidence can point many directions, then my point about believing in evolution taking as much faith as believing in creation still holds water. There may be things which make you think that the broken glass and overturned furniture means a robbery, but it could just as easily have been a wild party your teenage kid threw while you were gone. See what I'm saying? Neither side has enough evidence to claim that they KNOW for sure exactly what happened, so I just wish that evolutionists would stop calling everyone idiots for not agreeing with them when they are in the same boat as everyone else.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well I'm glad that we agree on one thing: that no one knows how the universe or life began. I am turned off by anyone who claims to know from either side of the spectrum. However, I prefer to side with the side who is actually seeking an answer instead of relying solely and rigidly on an ancient religious text of questionable origins. I prefer that side that will admit that it is wrong and upgrade its views according to new findings. I prefer the side that appeals more to my intelligence and curiosity rather than unsubstantiated faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

One side (Christianity) believes that it already has the answer, so why should it change if it's right? The other side (evolution) believes that it already has the answer, but changes it's answer when new information comes in. Just because they change when they hear something new doesn't make them more right, it just makes them fickle. Would new evidence change how God created the earth thousands of years ago? No. Would new evidence change how life came into being or changed form to shape the complex infrastructure of our planet today? Apparently so; but that makes it a better theory?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So then you /do/ believe that the Christian way is the one definite truth? That's disappointing; I thought we agreed that no one knows. Upgrading your views based on new experiences and evidence is not fickle; it is mature and objective. Staying rigid to an outmoded philosophy does not make you right; it makes you stubborn and immature. When you were a child, you may have believed in the Tooth Fairy -- but that was okay, because you were a kid. But now you are an adult, and have outgrown the Tooth Fairy. Would you call an adult who has changed his position on the Tooth Fairy fickle as well? It's like this famous biblical quote says: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11. Another quote: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

We agreed that it's impossible to know based upon evidence. I happen to believe everything the Bible says based on faith, not evidence, because I have seen enough 'evidence' to convince me that the Bible is truth. It's a simple question of what happened, and Christians believe that God created everything, which can still explain all of the new evidence which pops up. Does a new fossil or new element change the fact that God created everything? Evolution is constantly changing its theory because it's constantly realizing that it's been wrong about something this whole time. I still don't see how that makes it better. Believing in something like the tooth fairy and then realizing that it doesn't exist isn't fickle; it shows 'faith like a child' in something extraordinary and the disappointment of life. Fickle would be two friends talking, friend1, "Hey I loved that movie!" friend2, "I thought it was kind of dumb." friend1, "yeah me too." {cont.}

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What does a verse about growing up and believing things differently once we have the ability to understand things better have to do with being fickle? Or were you intending to use it in favor of your tooth fairy argument, and call me childish for thinking what I think about God? It's talking about the perfect replacing the imperfect, about truth replacing lies, about the complete replacing the incomplete. The Christian view of creation hasn't changed because it is the complete and perfect truth. Evolution changes because they're always replacing lies (with other lies). A quote from a man who didn't believe in God, stating that he doesn't believe in God. There are many christian men I could quote saying something to the effect of "the more I study the world and find out all of the detail in every little piece of it, the more I am feel obliged to believe that there IS a God, and one who was kind enough to give us the ability to reason, think, and sense this world."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ah, I misunderstood your position before. Alright, but your argument that the creation story is resilient against new evidence does not hold water. For example, the Bible implies that the world is much younger than we now know it is. How does the creation story compensate for that? "I happen to believe everything the Bible says based on faith, not evidence, because I have seen enough 'evidence' to convince me that the Bible is truth." Why? Why believe the Bible? How do you know it is the word of God and not the word of man? Why not another religious text? Your argument against seems to be akin to, "this evidence didn't convince me, so I'll go by the other default which has no proof." You are incorrect to say that Galileo did not believe in God. What he was implying was that God is more clever than many religious people seem to think he is. Why give us curiosity if only to answer all of our questions? Why give us intellect if all the answers are so easy? [Cont'd]

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Evolution is constantly changing its theory because it's constantly realizing that it's been wrong about something this whole time. I still don't see how that makes it better." Key words: it realizes when it is wrong. Science is nothing but trial and error, about seeking the answers and finding what works. We wouldn't be typing out this conversation from miles away from each other if it weren't for scientists who weren't afraid to challenge religious dogma and pursue their studies. That fact that is admits when it is wrong proves its objectiveness and maturity. Just because someone says they are right and you cannot prove that they're not does not mean that they are, in fact, right. I don't see what you're example on being fickle has to do with anything, because that is not how the science community works at all. New theories aren't just accepted willie nillie. They have to have a reason to be believed. [Cont'd]

by Anonymous 14 years ago

One way of looking at religion is that it was early science. Given what they knew about the universe, it fit well within their means to believe in the creation story because it answered questions in a neat and conclusive way. By extrapolating themselves, they hypothesized a god that felt human emotions (like jealousy, anger and love) and went further to propose that such a being would want sacrifices and praise. When you put yourself in that mindset, it might makes sense. However, by today's standards that is philosophy, not science. Nothing was tested or observed. It was all a proposition. In many ways, many modern theories are also philosophy (like the controversial m theory), but evolution is not one of them. We have fossil records of transitory species and can link skeletal structures throughout an animals' history. It is not proven, will never be proven (unless time travel is developed), but there strong evidence for it, unlike the lack of evidence for creation.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And look at all of the other things in this universe for our curiosity! Everything from the furthest star to the tiniest bug has some thing about it which we can study further. The point is; the Biblical account has not needed to change because it's story has explained everything which comes up, while the evolutionary theory is constantly changing because it doesn't now and won't likely soon have the answers to questions about the origin of life and the universe. You had quoted something about changing from childish ideas when becoming a man, but that didn't show a fickle nature. The example may not have relevance to the scientific community, but I was looking for a more accurate description of a 'fickle nature' than the one you provided. However, scientists do have a tendency to discard previously held beliefs when new discoveries come up, so they are somewhat fickle in nature. cont.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The answers which were given to the Israelites in the desert still answer all of today's questions. If the God they came up with had human emotions, it would have been more like Zeus than a God who gave humans a rainbow after flooding the earth. The only reason they sacrificed was to repent/celebrate holidays (there were regular sacrifices, but those were for repentance/atonement for the community). Most other gods require sacrifices to keep anything bad from happening to their worshipers. The hebrew God is like no other God, and as such must have come from something other than human imagination. But, yes what you say about religion is true of many other tribal/ancient religions. Nothing was tested, but we may observe now that even without testing it still provides valid answers to questions of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Cont.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"It is not proven, will never be proven (unless time travel is developed), but there strong evidence for it;" strange how you know that it's not conclusive, yet you believe in it. It's like something which I've mentioned before; faith. As much as you may dislike it, you are putting your faith in what some scientists as much as I'm putting my faith in an ancient book which has never been proved wrong by something which itself did not require 'Faith' to believe. Just a note; on my screen, these comments are mixed up. The fourth one was my first, and one, two, and three are actually two, three, and four. I wish I could put this where you would notice it before getting to the last part of my argument...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Thank you for using logic!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The Bible mentions a separation of the waters called the "sky" (genesis 1:6), which lasted until the flood in Noah's time (1000 years about). This would mess with the assumptions that the earth's atmosphere was somewhat constant, and thus the methods of testing used by scientists in today's world. I believe the Bible because I have seen miracles, felt God's presence, and spoken to a demon. The only thing which explains what I experienced is the Christian Bible, so I read through the Bible and am now convinced of every word in there. Yes, many religious people underestimate God, but that's their problem; not mine, yours, or Galileo's. The reason that God gave us the answers which are the most important is that we would not have found them out on our own. Would you want to go through life not knowing how to receive forgiveness and Heaven? Cont.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

[Part 1] @149874 (Apollo): I will admit that the creation story wraps up most questions nicely, however that does not mean that it is true. What is does is akin to saying, "well, instead of this long and complicated problem, what if the question is just 2+2=x?" Simplifying the problem by changing it and making up an answer does not produce a valid answer. Then of course there is the one question it cannot answer: if all complicated things require a creator, then who created God? I do not have faith in science. I agree with a lot of it because it makes sense to me; agreement is not equal to faith. If a scientist tried to convince me that there is an invisible and undetectable unicorn occupying the same space as me, then I would ask him to support his claim. When he fails, I would point and laugh at him most likely. He could try and tell me that he can feel its presence, but how does that prove anything to *me*? I am skeptical about everything indiscriminately. [cont'd]

by Anonymous 14 years ago

[Part 2] @151314 (SalientK): I feel that I also need to bring up the elephant in the room. Aside from the creation story, there are many other questionable things in the Bible. It seems to contradict itself a lot. On one page it will advocate sexism, racism, slavery and stoning people to death. On another, it will tell you to love your neighbor and donate all you have to charity. How can you claim to believe every word of that? Isn't it paradoxical? I have heard some say "oh, that's just the Old Testament, which no longer applies." How did the universe's Creator and most Perfect Mind make such a grand mistake? Okay, sure, you could say that it was us that changed and not Him, or that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ changes everything. There are still bad things in the New Testament as well. And in any case, you did say every word -- New Testament or Old. [cont'd]

by Anonymous 14 years ago

[Part 3] @151334 (SalientK): This seems to only prove to me that the Bible was written by man. The social views reflect perfectly the ones of nearly all ancient civilizations. You say that the Hebrew God could not have come out of a human imagination, but I think that you underestimate the power of human imagination and creativity. Omnipotence is not that hard to imagine in a world filled with struggle. It's easy to imagine your greatest wish. That is not to mention that many religions before Christianity have a very similar story.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It does not make the question simpler; it still explains all existing creatures and fossils. It explains the beginning of the universe (with just as much evidence as the big bang theory). It explains the nature of animals and of man. Science does not look at a more complicated world than religion looks at. I cannot tell you who created God, because He has always been. When Moses talked to God in the desert, God told him that his name is YHWH, which translates to I AM but implies simply a state of being; God Is are was were will be has been is being. So you don't believe in unprovable things, yet you believe in something as unprovable as the Big Bang and life piggybacking on the back of crystals (or whichever version of the origin of life you believe)? cont.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

As for the matter of paradoxes, I cannot explain it as well as the bible itself can; Romans 5:12 through 8:8 talks of the difference between the Law (old testament way of life) and freedom (the new testament way of life). If you still have questions about Old vs New testament living after reading that, feel free to ask. (biblegateway.com is a good place to read the bible online; just search romans 5 on the site and you'll be able to read through chapter by chapter.) The Hebrew God was and is different from any God, in that He offers forgiveness instead of threatening people so that they won't do wrong. It seems every other religion out there either provides guidelines for living (but no forgiveness for messing up) or speaks of the wrath that god has when upon those who mess up. The Hebrew God is unique among deities, and that implies either madness or truth, and it holds water in arguments against other gods/lack of any god, so I don't think it's madness.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Just to be clear, I have not subscribed exclusively to any one theory on the beginning of life. I believe in evolution only to the extent that animals adapt to their environments and that the fittest animals survive and reproduce, but not so much that complex life evolved from microbes. To be honest, the idea of a god does not seem that far fetched seeing as how the universe is stranger than any of us could possibly imagine. What I'm getting at here is that it is silly to devote oneself to one answer to a question so impossibly grand and to claim that answer as the undeniable and perfect truth. Sure, let's say that the creation story is true. But why does it also bring along with it the religious baggage, such as worship and rules for life? I do not believe in any obvious divine intervention. Our hypothetical god has most likely left us to sort things out for ourselves. Any omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving god would not allow for this to happen.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Adaptation: is that necessarily part of evolution? I'm not saying we can't change, just that life didn't begin randomly. We were designed intelligently, to be able to adapt to our surroundings. I devote myself to the answer which I believe to be true, because if I didn't I would have to devote myself to something which I Don't believe to be true. Forced worship is not worship, so if you want to believe in some god but don't think it deserves worship, don't worship it. I give all I can to God as an act of worship because I am convinced that He has saved me from sin, death, and myself. The rules which God gave are to help us to live life to the fullest, not to keep us from being happy. Even the little things in the old Law (like not eating pork) were there to show the Jews how to stay healthy. That shows that God cares for our well-being. Divine intervention: Miracles happen every day, but we can choose to look at them as miracles or as part of everyday life.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I am not sure if anyone else has said this BUT in science A Theory has already been tested and remained the same after any experiments. the reason Evolution has not been made a Law yet is because it is still being experimented on. What u are thinking of OP is a Hypothesis, something that is must be tested to be proven true. So the Evolution Theory has been proven to be true and is just waitng to be made into Law. If anything, Creationism is just a hypothesis because there is no science to prove it to be true, Where Evolution has YEARS of Science experiments to back it up

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It has been said, debated, and if you look at all the comments, you'll see that the evidence for evolution is not enough to classify it as a theory. on top of that, I would go so far to claim that the evidence gathered so far is all postulated and unscientific because of biased research, seeing as there is no way to test the theory through the scientific method.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@145538 (Apollo): NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Why doesn't anyone understand!!!!!!! WHY?!!?!?!?!? Theories do not become LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!! Laws are observations, theories explain them!!!!!! Newton saw that apples fall towards the ground, simply put, he proposed the law of gravity. He also developed his theory of gravity which explains the law. Einstein came along and debunked his theory of gravity with relativity, but the law of gravity remained the same. Theories do not become laws.@145538 (Apollo):

by Anonymous 14 years ago

evolution is not a religion of any kind. it is simply stating that organisms over time can change. wow.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know this post has changed from religion vs. evolution, but i have to say that evolution is a theory, (a well tested hypothesis that the majority of scientists believe in) and a right one too. the real reason people dont like it is because it makes man seem less important, just like how they thought the sun revolved around the earth. and this is just them continuing that, after all man was "made in god's image"

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What do evolutionists say about the beginning of all matter and about the beginning of life?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That is exactly why evolution IS a theory. Scientists don't know what began what we call life, but they are trying to figure it out. Other parts of evolution are well tested, if not proven. (Trying not to insult you here) I find it much more plausible that something (I dunno, maybe from another universe or something, or crashing astroids) created the first organism rather then a superior being. There is proof of evolution with bacteria and viruses because they can mutate and reproduce so fast. Man is just upset that he is constantly being lowered to new levels; first he was at the top of the ladder, made in God's image, but soon he slunk lower and lower on that ladder to the point where we have primate ancestors.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

how is it more plausible that rocks bumping together in space is more plausible than a God, a superior, intelligent being (maybe even from another universe) creating us? What surprises me is that many evolutionists say "they're trying to figure that one out right now" and consider that a valid answer. You still don't know how it happened, so until you have an answer about something, please just admit that you don't have the answer. You do not know how life began, but knowing how life began would imply a great number about things about the existence of God, about the nature of man and other life, and those things would imply other things... so as I said in the OP, "Evolution is all based on theory; they don't Actually know how life began..." so you have as much of a chance at being right as I do.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

religion is not a theory

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know that, but both evolutionists and creationists lack cold, hard evidence for their claims. I was just saying that a theory that has not been proven to be completely correct in every aspect still takes some faith to believe, just like what religious people believe takes faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you too lack cold, hard evidence for your claims of a superior being that's his own father and is a spirit. If you want to go according to books, I'm sure we can find you a nice long science text book. :)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, I said that "BOTH evolutionists and creationists lack cold, hard evidence for their claims." I also said that "what religious people believe takes faith." The spiritual side of things will never have any cold, hard evidence because it's not observable in a scientific way, it's not repeatable in a scientific way, and it's not measurable in a scientific way. Even though there's no way to prove it, I know it's there, and I can't explain it other than by saying that I know through faith. I've studied many science textbooks, But still don't feel as though they answer the question of life in a completely satisfactory manner.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

First of all, evolution is something else than the source of life. Evolution is the progress, not the source, and there should have been life before it could evolve. There is lots of proof of evolution itself. Then there is how life began. This is not only based on theory, but it is more based on probability... :/ I wouldn't say that is religion however, it's more math than religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So they mathematically calculate something they can't observe or repeat? Scientifically speaking, that's still guessing. It's all just as unproven as Christians belief that God spoke and it was.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It is actually observable/repeatable, they are actually trying to do it. I don't think you can call it guessing. As I said, it's math, it's based on probability, just as rolling a dice. The change is just smaller. Would you call rolling a dice a religion? I think not. Besides, claiming everything unproven is like a religion is just ignorant.That would mean that Einstein's theory of timetravel is also a religion, which it isn't.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They are trying to prove it... but have nothing to show for their testing. I could calculate the probable place where a submarine will surface next, but if it doesn't come up right there, what's the point of mathematically calculating how to shoot that exact spot in the meantime? They believe strongly in something which they cannot prove; That sounds like faith to me. I didn't say that believing in something unproven is religion, I said 'having faith in a higher power about the beginning of life without any actual proof" was religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"They believe strongly in something which they cannot prove; That sounds like faith to me." That's the whole point, it is possible to prove it. :/ For example that submarine of yours. Maybe it doesn't come up right, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It is possible to Test it. there's a difference between testing and proving. I could say that I'm proving that gravity pulls me sideways sometimes by continuously dropping things and expecting them to fly towards the wall, but my testing would most definitely not prove me right. Yes, it is possible that I'm right and the submarine comes up where I guessed, but isn't it also possible that someone else's prediction (contradictory in most every way to my prediction) is correct? You can't base your views of life's origin 100% on guesswork and predictions like that and NOT call it faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Look, when there is a chance that life will be created under certain circumstances, this is not 100% guesswork. It is a chance, a probability, math. It is provable. When something is probabel, it is not impossible, therefore provable. The fact that they didn't yet prove it doesn't mean it isn't provable. When you have a 7000000 sided dice there is a 1/7000000 chance that result will be 687. When you keep rolling your dice and it won't give 687, it doesn't mean it is unprovable/guesswork etc.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So basically, you're saying that scientists have guessed at the most likely way that life began, and even though they have not proven any of their conjectures or hypotheses they are more accurate than blind faith?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Look, I'm just saying that that point of view on the origin of life is scientificly explained. I'm not saying it is more accurate, better or anything. And what I was saying is that you can't call it 'another form of religion' because it is scientificly explained. I believe in a higher power, I just do not believe in organised religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm just saying that things like the earth being the center of the universe have also been scientifically explained without proof before. I understand that scientists have conjectured things about the beginning of life, but there is no fact backing up what they say so it is, in essence, based upon faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This post makes me sad. When is this horrible debate on religion going to stop? Amirite is for posts that ALMOST EVERYONE should agree on. Not for fighting.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Amirite is for opinions. Debates are simply the sharing of opinions combined with logic and persuasion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Opinions that the majority agrees with. That's why its called Amirite instead of "doyouthinkimrite". Yes I understand, but we've been debating religion for a while now. It's starting to bug me because there will never be a winner. You have your faith, I have mine. Can't we find a new debate? Instead of the Atheists hating on us and vice versa?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

http://www.amirite.net/about (first section) As a Christian, I see it like this: I know a loving God who forgave me of all sorts of things, who took away my guilt and shame, who even died for me so that I would not have to die in Hell, and who loves everyone else just as much. I don't mean to hate on anyone, but I do stand for what I believe (which I hope isn't interpreted as cruel intent). If I can spark an interest, or at least an awareness in others of this loving God I know, then I have done the most loving thing which I can.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, I agree completely. And I understand that you want to spread awareness, but some stubborn, ignorant people will not listen and take it as you "shoving religion down their throats."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

...er. I guess gravity is religion too? And that the earth rotates around the sun? They're all scientific theories. ...And apparently Darwin's finch research and fossils don't count as any sort of evidence? You can't PROVE anything. How do you know you're even alive? The sensation of being "alive" could just be all in your mind. Some things just actually have evidence surrounding them. Now go away.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Gravity is a testable theory, and I'm pretty sure that the sun revolving around the earth isn't theory, but rather fact. Darwin's research does not provide answers as to how the first life came into being (what I said in the post), and I don't think that any other more recent scientist has proven how life began. What happened to life once it was appeared on this earth is not what I think takes faith; rather it's the story of the origin of life which takes faith because no-one can prove how life came into being.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@198601 (Apollo): hmmm, there's this thing called DNA that proves darwin is right. religion (of people being created) is just to try and understand how life exists. and to the IDIOT who said that the GRAND CANYON is proof of Noah's arc is the dumbest person I've ever seen, It happened in another CONTINENT.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

DNA proves that mutations happen, not that one species formed another. Noah's flood was a world-wide flood. Genesis 1:6 says that the sky separated the waters below from the waters above. This implies that there were equal amounts of water in the oceans and in the sky. So when it started raining for the first time, the flood which occurred was global, going by what is written in the Bible and evidence gathered from places like the Grand Canyon.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

wow. No evidence of evolution...where have you been? There's fossils, carbon dating, etc, etc. Saying that there is no evidence for evolution is just wrong and ignorant. And I guess there's proof of god and that he created the earth. Those stupid evolutionists and their stupid fossils and their stupid carbon dating. Everyone knows that the bible is right and a completely realistic history textbook that holds all the answers. Not scientists, god holds the answer. Please...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I hate how this site is always fucking shoving religion down my throat.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

and by the way, the definition of a theory is an explanation for a set of facts, not believing in something without proof. That's faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Post of the day? Really? I think the site admin is just trying to start something. :/

by Anonymous 14 years ago

wow... 239 comments Controversial subject, but your wrong

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*you're

by Anonymous 14 years ago

....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........................'...../ ..........''............. _.·´ ..........................( ..............................

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Just a theory? you know what else is just a theory? Gravity. That seems to be working out for us. A theory means a hypothesis that has with stood years of testing and scrutiny AND is backed by evidence. Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence, unlike religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I love you. Thank you for using logic.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I realize that there are many theories out there which are undeniable, but if evolution is one of those then answer me this: how did the first living organism come into being?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

From space. Possibly a single cell organism that landed on the planet on an asteroid, or something like that. It then evolved into us.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Really? You still haven't answered how the first living organism came into being. That bacteria on the asteroid; where did it come from?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's impossible to determine. God, I suppose.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But if there's a God, isn't there other facts to consider, such as what God Himself says about the beginning of life (which contradicts the evolutionary theory completely)?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You have no idea what God said himself. Also, the Bible is basically up for interpretation. By now we know that the Adam and Eve story is just that: a story. It has purpose as a teaching tool, but it isn't something to actually believe. And by God, I don't necessarily mean the God we know of on Earth. I just mean some supernatural being from somewhere else.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How do you know that it's just a story? What makes you think it's up to interpretation? If we're taught something, aren't we supposed to believe it? This supernatural being, where is it and what does it do? Sorry for being overly inquisitive, but I'd like to know what you think.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know it is just a story because of what we do know for a fact about what the Earth was like when it first formed. I really don't want to go through all of the scientific evidence, but Earth would not be able to sustain human life when it was first formed. For example, each day in the story could represent a time period. The reason the story was taught to people was because they didn't have an explanation for how the Earth was formed, so they made one up. The ancient Greeks did the same thing. As for the supernatural being, I can't explain any details about it to you. I know nothing about it. All I know is that there is some sort of force out there that is powerful enough to create life.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And how do you know 'for a fact' what the earth was like when it was first formed? If each day represented a time period, what about the seventh day? Has God been resting through all of the earth's existence since the world was created? it was Moses who wrote Genesis, and He spoke with God face-to-face (Exodus 33:7-11) so it wasn't people making up a story about how the earth was formed, it was what God had told Moses about how the earth was formed. This supernatural being powerful enough to create life, does it have any desires for how we should live our lives (since it created us)?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do you think it is just some coincidence that there haven't been any unexplainable miracles like some of the ones in the Bible in modern times? And how are we supposed to believe that it was Moses who wrote Genesis, and he did really speak to God? And, even if both of those questions are unimportant, when Moses did speak to God in Exodus (Burning bush, Mt. Sinai), there is no reason to believe that God told Moses how the earth was created. Finally, this supernatural power didn't create us, it created a single cell that evolved into us.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There have been many modern miracles mirroring those in Biblical times; I've seen people healed of various diseases, talked to a demon, heard of several people being raised from the dead (wasn't lucky enough to be there for that one), and heard from God. As for Moses having been the one who wrote the first five books, there are many verses pointing to just that (Exodus 24:4,7 34:27 Joshua 8:32 Joshua 23:6 I Kings 2:3 I Kings 2:3 Mark 12:19 Romans 10:5), some referencing Moses as the writer of the Law (which is the 1st 5 books). If this power created a single-celled creature only, did the creature evolve on its own-outside of the laws/will of said being-or was the evolution overseen by this power? If the first, what gave the organism the power to do so? If the second, then everything was still essentially created by said power, and I can still ask "This supernatural being powerful enough to create life, does it have any desires for how we should live our lives?"

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Doctors have healed people of diseases. No one has ever been raised from the dead (depending on your definition of death.) What did the demon and God tell you then? As for everything you said about Moses, you still ignored my most important point: when Moses did speak to God in Exodus (Burning bush, Mt. Sinai), there is no reason to believe that God told Moses how the earth was created. As for the creature, it must have reproduced asexually. After years of multiplying, the ones that gained an advantage from a mutation would survive longer and reproduce more, so that mutation would become dominant. This process would repeat trillions of times until mankind would be created. While I cannot answer any questions about details about this creating power, seeing as it is only a conjecture, I assume that the power wouldn't have any plans for mankind seeing as it didn't create humans and didn't even create a species capable of free-thinking.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Miraculous healing; no doctors involved, just prayer. There are in fact many recent stories of people coming back from the dead, or of being protected from death. I've heard of six near where I live just recently (the last year).The demon told me what it wanted out of the person whom it possessed, and what the person whom it possessed thought. It said some things which the possessed person does not know, and confirmed that he does not know afterwards. God has told me things about who I am/will be. Moses met with God more than just those two times; he spoke with God face-to-face on a regular basis in the Tent of Meeting (as mentioned in the verses Exodus 33:7-11) So you would say that the powerful being created a creature which developed and changed outside of the will of the creator. What gave the creature the power to do more than the creator created it to do? It was either the creator's design that the creature change, or something else allowed it to do so.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do you actually believe that mankind was created a few days after the Earth was created?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes. on the sixth day.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I really can't take you seriously anymore than, seeing as you clearly pay no heed to scientific fact, and will only believe what your church shoves down your throat.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I could just as easily not take you seriously for believing what society shoves down your throat. Why don't we take one another seriously for the course of this debate?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry man, but you're a nutjob. I'll answer your above question, but you're seriously not in a rational state of mind. "So you would say that the powerful being created a creature which developed and changed outside of the will of the creator. What gave the creature the power to do more than the creator created it to do?" It wasn't *outside* of the will of the creator, it just wasn't included in its will. The creature gave it the power to reproduce, obviously, as that is one of the seven necessities of life. The rest happened without outside help.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

GOD? god is just another something to figure us out. I f it weren't for science you'd probably still think the world is FLAT. Apollo, God HIMSELF. you're saying god is a boy! I think god is really just carma. PurpleKneeSox, there is this thing called DNA, as I said before that PROVES evolution. you can't argue, yeesh!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Himself because Jesus was a man, and I wouldn't know which pronoun to use otherwise. it's spelled karma, and the idea of reaping what you sew is biblical (Proverbs 11:18 He who sows righteousness reaps a sure reward. Proverbs 22:8 He who sows wickedness reaps trouble). DNA does not prove evolution, it proves random mutations.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@198607 (Apollo): WILL YOU PLEASE STOP FIXATING ON ONE FLAW OF AN OTHERWISE PROVEN THEORY! DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT ABOUT THE BIBLE? I MAY ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE JUST TO FIND YOU A FLAW AND THEN I WILL FIXATE ON IT UNTILL YOU GIVE UP.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry I offended you, but it's an important part in my opinion. Go ahead, once you have a good argument against it, come back and I'll be happy to defend it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I agree. There is so little evidence for evolution, it's ridiculous that they teach it in schools as fact.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ur parents mustve voted for bush ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........................'...../ ..........''............. _.·´ ..........................( ..............................

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Couldn't be bothered reading over 200 comments, but the original post seems very wrong to me. I always understood evolution to be the process by which species change slowly over great lengths of time. Trying to discover the original cause of life, or how it first began would be a completely different area of science. You can agree with evolution in its entirety and still believe that God directly created the first form of life and thus indirectly created all life. Or if you prefer there are a number of scientific theories as to how life first began. If you are going to criticize evolution, which you are certainly most welcome too, please know that the question of how life began is completely irrelevant.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Generally, the theory of evolution also includes Darwin's other ideas, such as natural selection, which are highly disputable.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The answer is a@198363 (PurpleKneeSox): I would love to see you try to dispute natural selection.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........................'...../ ..........''............. _.·´ ..........................( ..............................

by Anonymous 14 years ago

LOL Try to give a well thought out and organized argument, with tangible evidence, against any one of those entities that you just mentioned.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And also, how life began is really not irrelevant. Between whether life forms began from a random bang into complex life, or whether a Creator fashioned the most intricate of beings, there is a large gap.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution does indeed include natural selection. Evolution is the change of species while natural selection is the process by which it occurs. And yes there is a large gap between a random bang and a creator; this is an important question and it should be addressed, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Guys guys guys, Chicken...Egg the real question is which one came first...go!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

chicken

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's exactly what I was thinking

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Scientists are not a higher power. Nobody worships them. They're people. We just AGREE with them.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

exactly

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"we just AGREE with them." that's my point. What can ANYONE today know about how life or the universe began? there's no proof one way or the other, so believing that life happened randomly takes just as much faith as believing that life was designed, but instead of putting your faith in the a deity as the higher power you put your faith in a scientist as the higher power. What I mean by "higher power" is just someone/something which you believe unquestionably.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Without any proof". That is actually not what a theory is. Theories have evidence that suggests, meaning that it is most probable, that something happened in a certain way. Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven or disproven.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I support the intelligent design theory, which states that evolution did occur, with the help of God in the beginning.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Agreed. I am a practicing Lutheran, but I know that to discredit evolution is ridiculous.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't know whose right...All I know is everybody should respect other people's religion/beliefs. Who knows, maybe we're both wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Clearly you need to educate yourself more because they do know how life began and scientists everywhere are saying that evolution is becoming less and less of a "theory" and all the facts point to saying that evolution is true. Anyone who agrees with evolution doesn't have "faith" in a higher power (scientists) they agree with all the facts that prove creationism is an idiotic theory lacking any kind of proof and that evolution is true. Read some materials such as a book called "Why Evolution is True" and then you can go ahead and try to stick up for the stupidty that is creationism.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You read "Why Evolution is True", but read nothing containing the faults of evolution. If you knew anything about it, you would know how lacking the theory of evolution is in decent evidence.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Retake Biology. Evolution is fact, not theory.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Errr...no...it's a theory. There's no such thing as a "fact" in science. Gravity is a theory, too.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Gravity is a law

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Or do you not believe in gravity either?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

errrr .....ur not a fuckin dog...why are u growling? You are wrong, plain and simple.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Name a few of these faults of evolution please.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

To begin with, evolution states that species are always changing and gradually improving. Why aren't there half-evolved monkeys running around? Why have species we see around us stopped evolving? According to evolution, species are always changing. There are missing links everywhere; according to evolution, a wingless bird eventually became a bird with wings, for example. If this is true, there should be fossils of half-developed birds around, with a half wing, or the stub of a wing. But these don't exist. This is just one of the many gaps in evolution.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The things around us ARE evolving. But it is hard to notice, because it is such a gradual process and we don't know where the process is taking the species. Also, there are fossils of species that are in between what once was and what will be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How about the fact that the oldest fossils we have are fully formed? It doesn't make sense that, without a Creator, life forms could just appear in their entirety at random. It's illogical. One part of a system doesn't function on its own and form the rest of the system later. Like the circulatory system; the veins didn't form on their own, and then surround the heart. It had to be created together in order to achieve the functin of keeping a human alive. Furthermore, evolution does not solve the issue of how life came to be, unless by the theory of permordial goo being zapped by lightning, which is altogether ridiculous. Living things do not come out of nonliving things, especially not in a brand new, unstable environment that was earth millions of years ago.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*function

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"How about the fact that the oldest fossils we have are fully formed? It doesn't make sense that, without a Creator, life forms could just appear in their entirety at random." The oldest fossils we have aren't fully formed, because they continued to evolve. Also, the first organisms must have been single-cell, which can't fossilize. "One part of a system doesn't function on its own and form the rest of the system later." Why not? You can form a perfectly serviceable species that will also improve and adapt over time. "Like the circulatory system; the veins didn't form on their own, and then surround the heart. It had to be created together in order to achieve the functin of keeping a human alive." Right, because if it happened one piece at a time, the pieces would be useless until they were together. But they would never get a chance to be together, since they can't evolve if they can't exist in the first place.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I said that the oldest fossils we have are fully formed; not fully developed. If the earliest organism was indeed a single cell, where did it come from? In response to the below post, where did the functioning creature come from, then?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I said this in one of my other comments. The original functioning single-cell species (probably) came from space.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Where did space get it, then? You can't explain the origin of the single cell, which is the main point here.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

^^^That question has not yet been answered, and I doubt it will be anytime soon. Let me say now that the only logical answer to that question is that an intelligent Being created a life form, at the very least, a cell, and from then on parts of evolution are possible. Anyhow, I'm done arguing this. It is becoming far too confusing to scroll through all these comments.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't think you understand the concept of evolution. It does not mean that a creature developed piece by piece. It means that a functional creature formed from a slightly less functional creature and then evolved into a creature with increased survival methods.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Also, if I were you, I wouldn't use Wikipedia in intelligent arguments; it's an unreliable source.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The information on the article I cited is entirely reliable. You just completely ignored it because it debunked half your argument.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I didn't ignore it; I simply decided to pursue the other half instead. Prove to me that your article is reliable with reliable sources.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That is a reliable source. What is unreliable about it? It has links and references to credible scientific journals. Everything in that article is completely legitimate.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Then why not use those references, instead? I can guarantee you that no great debaters ever refer to Wikipedia as a support for their arguments.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because those articles don't feature the article in wikipedia. The articles have pieces of information which were put into one article.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I guarantee you that you wouldn't prefer that I cite the compilation of scientific journals that wikipedia uses. It would take you hours to decipher the single point each reference was used for, while wikipedia assembles them all together in a comprehensible manner.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"To begin with, evolution states that species are always changing and gradually improving. Why aren't there half-evolved monkeys running around? Why have species we see around us stopped evolving? According to evolution, species are always changing. There are missing links everywhere; according to evolution, a wingless bird eventually became a bird with wings, for example. If this is true, there should be fossils of half-developed birds around, with a half wing, or the stub of a wing. But these don't exist. This is just one of the many gaps in evolution." no. evolution is not just improving creatures. it also screws creature over, the reason it seems like it's only improving creatures is because the ones screwed over die before they can actually evolve.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, natural selection does not worsen a species. The reason why some species go extinct is because they were UNABLE to evolve, not because the evolved worse.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

don't get mad that that book is biased. Have you read the bible? talk about a biased book! if you're not with us, you're going to hell, screw anyone else's point of view, we won't include their opinions of us, what we do to them, or give the facts about how many people we've killed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

" "To begin with, evolution states that species are always changing and gradually improving. Why aren't there half-evolved monkeys running around? Why have species we see around us stopped evolving? According to evolution, species are always changing. There are missing links everywhere; according to evolution, a wingless bird eventually became a bird with wings, for example. If this is true, there should be fossils of half-developed birds around, with a half wing, or the stub of a wing. But these don't exist. This is just one of the many gaps in evolution." sorry, i didnt finish. not all animals are fossilized, why do you think they're so rare. plus, not every scentists in teh world show you every single fossil they find, i am so sorry about that, but you need to deal with it. ok, idk about birds, but look at humans they have lucythe hobbits, neanderthals, and so many more partly evolved humanoids, with prof from genetics and fossils that we come from primemates

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's not at all what the Bible says. The Bible talks of taking care of your enemies, the poor, the weak, those in need. It talks of loving your neighbor, believing in a God who loves the world enough to die for us and save us from hell. The people who go around killing "in the name of God" don't understand the Bible, and don't deserve to be called Christians.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I didn't say anything about that book being biased, did I? I said that books like that merely point out the highlights of evolution, while lacking acknowledgement of any flaws. I also agree with what Apollo wrote about the Bible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"You read "Why Evolution is True", but read nothing containing the faults of evolution. If you knew anything about it, you would know how lacking the theory of evolution is in decent evidence." in technical terms, you're saying the book is biased. does the bible "acknowledgement of any flaws" in creationism? no, it say he made this, he made that, lalalalala, man screwed up, lalalala, jesus, lalalala, we kill jesus, lalalala, you get the idea.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, in 'technical' terms, I'm saying that the book doesn't display any of evolution's faults, only glorifies its highlights. As I said before. Biased and lacking are two entirely different terms.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ok, phase as you will, but you failed to answer the second part of my statement. in case you forgot : does the bible "acknowledgement of any flaws" in creationism?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Does the Bible acknowledge any flaws in creationism? This isn't a sensible question, or a sensible comparison in the overall point you are trying to make. The Bible is the primary source we have that states that creationism took place; it isn't arguing for creationism, or trying to prove arguments surrounding it. It's stating that it happened, and it is the burden of its readers to decide whether or not they believe it. The book "Why Evolution is True" is NOT a primary source that states what happened; it is merely arguing one point of view. Your comparison is therefore not valid.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

do a little research for me. find out how many times the bible has been translated, then we'll talk.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It doesn't matter how the Bible was translated (I'm aware of that, by the way), it is still a primary source, and it's not arguing anything. It's stating what happened, as I said, and it is up to the reader to decide if they believe it or not. The other book is an argumentative. It states the author's feelings on sources like the Bible or other primary sources. It's not a hard concept to grasp; you're comparing apples to oranges.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The book "Why Evolution is True" is the perfect book for you to read since you clearly need to let go of the stupidity that is creationism. I used to be Christain but when I questioned my faith I did legitimate research on things that supported evolution. And *espcially* after reading "Why Evolution is True" I rejected the church because its teachings of creationism is simply ridiculous. There is no almighty God who created and rules over everything. Life came into what it is today thanks to evolution NOT GOD.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Started in Aramaic/Greek, translated to latin, then Luther translated it from Latin to German in the Enlightenment, and other languages followed; the first in english being the King James version. After the King James came the New King James, then the New International Version, then many other more modern translations (but there's still the latin from which to translate).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, before you go posting things, please get your damn facts straight. Evolution is fact, NOT theory. I repeat, Evolution is FACT, NOT theory. Looks like you need to retake biology smart ass.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, they teach in schools that evolution is fact. It's not. There is no sufficient evidence for evolution, therefore it is a theory ONLY. It'd be helpful to everyone if you didn't swallow everything your teachers tell you; do some research.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not talking textbook here. You dont know what you're talking about. I'm not one to believe what everyone says, I'm not gullible. Face it, you are wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Not really, actually. You're talking like you understand this all, and yet you're not offering any evidence, any proof to support your claims. No one is going to want to discuss it with you if you just rush in claiming "I'm right! I'm right! And you're wrong!" Provide some decent evidence that I can actually interact with.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I've done my research PurpleKneeSox, do yours.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, they teach in the Catholic church that creationism is fact. It is not. There is no evidence whatsoever for creationism, therefore it is baseless babble ONLY. It'd be helpful to everyone if you didn't just swallow everything your priests tell you; do some research.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, I'm not Catholic, and I never said that creationism is fact. Why are you assuming things and putting words in my mouth...?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And also, creationism is a theory as well. Get your facts straight.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, for it to be a theory, there would have to be evidence of its existence.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Intelligent design is evidence of creationism. Where the large gaps in evolution occur, creationism fills.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, intelligent design is not evidence of creationism. That is like saying that the fact that Albert Pujols is on first base is proof that he got a single. It shows the result, but not HOW it occurred.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution is theory, however theories do not become laws. Laws are observations theories explain them, I think you are not understand hypothesis vs theory. ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........................'...../ ..........''............. _.·´ ..........................( ..............................

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do you feel better about yourself now?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

yes.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Good for you, then. Next time find a less childish way to express your feeling, kay?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How about my rational argument: Evolution is theory, however theories do not become laws. Laws are observations theories explain them, I think you are not understanding hypothesis vs theory.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm going to help you out a bit here. Parts of evolution, like the creation of organisms, is purely a theory, however other parts ARE proven fact. If people truely take the same amount of time researching evolution as they do studying the bible they might see that. Side note: People defending the bible: Please, do you yell at us for not reading, memorizing of studying the bible until you have done do research about evolution, and everything that includes evolution, such as genetics, extinction, cell mutations, ect. Please and thank you. If you do this I will try and do the same.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

(Stacy*Hope): I studied evolution and everything that includes evolution before posting this on the site. If you don't want to read the Bible, then don't; just don't attack the Bible without having read it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think everyone arguing in this thread should read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. :) Though it is a bit violent, it makes quite a few valid points to the belief that if religion and science weren't so stubborn, they could coexist quite nicely. :P

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There is much proof on evolution, while there is none at all of creation. You Religeous people can say that the bible is fact, but to modern society and science, it isn't.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not talking about the Bible here, I'm talking about Evolution. There is no proof of macroevolution, save some questionable transitional fossils and hypothesis. Plus, you have no proof as to the origin of life.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I may have no proof to the origin of life, but neither do you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Then we agree. Both of our beliefs require a certain amount of faith because we both lack proof.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But, by your definition, religion is just a theory too, based on a book rather than thousands of minds and hours of research. And you act as though evolution is limited to how life started, but it isn't. Evolution includes extinction, development of species, diversity of species, and so much more that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I was stating my opinion that evolution, if it cannot answer the question of the origin of life, is based on faith. The other aspects of evolution are irrelevant to this argument. And, yes religion would technically be a theory too. I don't deny it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@198912 (Apollo): No, religion is not a theory and evolution is not faith. Faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven. Evolution can be disproven, but it hasn't, which is why it remains an accepted theory today. Theory is something that has proof to support it. Religion does not have proof that can't be accredited to science.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You twist my words. I said that because it couldn't answer the question of origins it was BASED on faith. There are some valid points in evolution (such as microevolution) but that does not make the whole of it correct. It cannot be disproven because it is mostly hypothesis ("this fossil could be a transitional fossil," "this species could have evolved this way" etc.), so arguing with it is like arguing against someone who constantly asks "but what if...."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evidence still repeatedly points to evolution, however, making it a theory.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evidence supports different parts of the evolutionary theory; this I do not deny. Some parts in particular I have problems with, namely: origins & macroevolution. It says nothing about origins. It's 'evidence' of macroevolution is shaky at best.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

... Dinosaurs... that is all.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

evolution is more than just creation dumbass. its everything involving genes, and there is SO MUCH FUCKING RESEARCH ON THAT. DEAL WITH IT. YOU JUST CANT FACE THE FACT THAT RELIGION IS A TOOL BEING USED LESS AND LESS IN THIS GROWING SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I simply meant that, because it cannot answer the question of the origin of life, it leaves as much to faith as any religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Lol at the amount of comments this post got XD Oh these religious topics do stir up the blood.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ok whoever just said they're a practicing Lutheran, reread the catechism and then reconsider becoming staying Lutheran. I realize that believeing in evolution does not mean you don't believe that God created it all (just that he over saw the creation) However this would make him a deistic god, and he is quite clearly shown to be a THEISTIC god in the bible. Also if some of you could read the above posts (specifically Apollo/TheRomanianAssassin's posts) Then the same accusations/arguements dont have to be repeated (which is rather unentertaining reading)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The theory of evolution does not state how life on Earth began, it merely states how life forms changed over time into new species. Also, by calling scientists a "higher power," you are implying that it was the scientists who created life/the evolution of life. If anything, the struggle for survival within every species is what causes life to evolve. I would also like to point out that we have SO MUCH more proof for evolution than for creationism. For example, the Bible says absolutely nothing about God creating animals that went extinct before humans appeared on Earth. But we have discovered the remains of these animals, and by studying them and the possible descendants of these extinct animals, scientists have proved evolution again and again and again. And you've never read anything in the Bible about dinosaurs, have you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

the very definition of a scientific theory, c/o merriam webster: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it's been tested and proven repeatedly. If it were proven to work everywhere in the known universe, it would become a scientific law. your assumption of the definition of theory ("...without any Actual Proof") is incorrect. please understand what you're saying before you say it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

balls

by Anonymous 14 years ago

LMAO!!! ^^

by Anonymous 14 years ago

haha that works. whatever makes you happy, man.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

By calling scientists a "higher power" I simply meant that they're believed without question; seen as an authority on the subject of the origin of life when no one today can possibly be an authority on that subject. Small changes in a species to help that species survive are possible, but changes from one species to another are highly questionable. Job 40:15-24, Job 41 (called the leviathan and the behemoth, but obviously some kind of dinosaur). Also, the dinosaurs were probably just some of the wild animals referenced in Genesis 1:24-25

by Anonymous 14 years ago

i don't mean to be offensive, but how can you or the church be authorities on how life originated when "no one today can possibly be an authority on that subject"?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Did I claim to be an authority? I have stated what I personally believe, but I have always tried to state it as my own views and not as what everyone should believe. I just want evolutionists to stop claiming to have all the answers and calling religious people 'crazy fanatics' when in reality both views require faith and neither have proof.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, I can understand that you don't claim to be an authority. And I can understand that believing in evolution does require believing in certain things without proof. However, parts of evolution, since it is a scientific theory, have been proven. That's what a theory is. And I don't believe you are a crazy fanatic, just to clarify. I understand that some do, and that that can be rather frustrating.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

OK, well, I used to be a born and raised apostalic who believed that all women who wore pants were going to hell because they were only supposed to wear skirts. My mind was so biased bases on what the church was teaching everyone that I never even gave evolution a second thought. Then when my parents got divorced they decided to go to different churches that weren't apostalic and my views completely changed. They didn't go all crazy and shout all over the place, yet they still called themselves Christians. And my other church believed in speaking in tongues, but this church said you didn't need to. I also realized that a lot of the other stuff my old church did and said was really... unreasonable. Then, I changed churches AGAIN and they also had different views with different bibles. So then I got to thinking about all the different religions in the world. I wouldn't say I'm an atheist, but I'm a bit antagonistic. Every religion thinks they're right, but there's no absolute way to know

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ppl need to stfu, over 300 comments!? WDF.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

yeah really! you're all having this huge debate over this, when in all honesty, who gives a fuck?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

honestly i think it's fun and mentally stimulating. other than that it's completely pointless, though. nobody on either side is going to leave with a different view, most likely. when it stops being fun, i go away. haha.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

God loved us humans all so much, that he sent Charles Darwin to explain our origin.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Gravity is also a theory too. But do we deny the law of gravity?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

For all the religious folk: why don't you test your faith, and drive with your eyes closed?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The issue that noone has addressed is the fact that a theory, in scientific terms (AKA in respect to evolution), is a set of statements that have undergone extensive research and tests, and are proven to be true. Like in mathematical terms, a theorem (or theory) is proven to be true. The word theory has more than one meaning, and those who mistakenly apply the definition that defines a theory as based off of speculation and guesswork are unfortunately mistaken. So to say that evolution is without proof is undoubtedly and completely wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

LOL, I love how there are 400+ comments on here like people have nothing to do with their lives besides debate origin theories which will in no way ever influence someone's opinion of something. XD And, if the OP reads this, your post is so true!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

OK sp there no way I am reading all these comments, but one question? Has anyone gained any insight from all this back and fourth bickering, from either side?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Probably not, haha =)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I have. I read every comment here, and appreciate all the input. I've learned a lot from everyone and from needing to know enough to reply to everyone, so as challenging as it is to defend my position I've enjoyed all the discussion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Though I can agree with you to an extent, there are some major flaws in your logic. Hopefully these have been discussed already. First of all, by the definition of "religion" in any online or paper dictionary I could find, you cannot accurately call evolution a religion. Second of all, you say evolution is based solely on theories. A theory is, more or less, an idea that has been proven through test after test. If I'm not mistaken, the theory of evolution has been proven to exist countless times with indisputable evidence. For example, take a look at the history of Olympic sports. Records are being broken year after year; often times, significantly. How can you deny that life on earth is evolving, improving, changing? Thirdly, the theory of evolution does not once try to depict how life began. Unless of course, you're talking about the beginning of man. In that case, there is very promising evidence showing that we evolved from monkeys. That, I don't necessarily believe. (Continued)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Lastly, and most importantly, I want to emphasize the fact that I accept your opinions and beliefs, and am in no way trying to change who you are or what you support. I just simply believe in science and believe it to be indisputable in many cases. Religion, however, is obviously not. Although I truly do wish you the very best and I accept the fact that people will believe what they want to, I am sincerely interested in your opinions on what I have said. Thanks.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

In the OP, I admit that I was off on my definition of a theory, but I hold my claim that it's a religion. Religions answer questions about life which shape our views of the world. For example, if you believe that humans were created by a caring God, then human life has immense value but if you believe that human life was the result of some kind of accident mutation, it loses some of its value, and the value of life implies other things and so on. Noting my mistake about theories, my claim that evolutionary theory says nothing conclusive about the origin of life still holds water. What happens after we got here is less important than the original material from whence we came, in my opinion. And as to the progression of a species (breaking records every year), I agree to an extent. I believe that species can change/adapt in many ways, but I don't think that those changes could lead to one species becoming every species we see on the planet, or even {continued}

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't think that those changes could lead to one species branching off into even two separate species. By not trying to depict how life began, it ignores one of the three most important questions out there (where do we come from, who are we, where are we going). A theory about the nature of all life shouldn't bypass the nature of the first life. The spread of life explains some about the diverse life on this earth while still explaining nothing about the life on this earth (because it "does not once try to depict how life began"). Do you see what I'm trying to say about the problem with the theory? It may sound nice and scientific on the surface, but when you look deep enough you realize that you just have to close your eyes and ignore something as big as the origin of life; something which I find very unscientific. Thank you for your courtesy, and I hope you find my opinions at least interesting.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I haven't read all of these, but I have read enough to say my piece. I am kind of baffled at the fact that this has turned into those who believe in evolution and those who believe in Jesus. First of all, the original post referred to religion in general. That must mean all religions, right? Why is it that only Jesus and the Christian God were talked about? I'm not Christian. But, the Church (which, btw, wrote it) has admittedly left things out of the Bible. Don't take the Bible literally. Look it up on CNN if you want, it's a fact that there are unpublished chapters in the Bible, due to inconsistencies deemed by the powers that be (the Church, not God). As far as evolving from monkeys, that's not what the theory of evolution says. Evolutionists have found DNA evidence that we were derived from a similar ancestor as chimpanzees. This was done by analyzing data from Lucy, a fossil. Look her up as well. Lucy is an important part of evolution. (continued)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

She was an upright walking human precursor. She also had many features typically attributed to monkeys. I am a biologist so I explain things assuming that must are familiar with the way a phylogenetic tree works. However, basically, one creature led to the development of the next and on down the line, with branchings were there are genetic deviations. This is done for every phyla. Last, I don't understand if you are disputing that there is no basis to evolution, in general, or our derivation from chimpanzees. I believe that if you just did a little bit of anthropological research, you would revoke a lot of what you have said. There are cold hard facts, from DNA analysis to dirt analysis to simple observation, that evolution is “real.” Fitness is a huge part of our world today, even with humans, e.g. heterozygous advantage of sickle-cell anemia. Scientific theories are based on facts.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

(N_Arora) To even transform from a hypothesis to a theory, there must be decades of indisputable proof to back it up. Even gravity is a theory. Most of Einstein's works are theories, e.g. the theory of relativity. Very few things get turned into laws or principles, because there must be centuries of facts to back those up. Here are some sites you might find interesting: http://www.crystalinks.com/lucy.html http://iho.asu.edu/node/44 http://iho.asu.edu/lucy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7772052/The-Vatican-Archive-the-Popes-private-library.html

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Firstly, thank you for your time and the evidence you provided. I'm sorry but I was too tired to read through the links completely (I skimmed them), so if I say something addressed in one of those just tell me and I'll look through them again. About religion: I am Christian and prefer to only make claims which I can back up with full knowledge of what I'm saying so I present that side of the religious spectrum only. If you wish for me to research what Buddhists or Muslims or any other religion believe about evolution/creation I'd be happy to, but I wouldn't be able to back my comments with a full knowledge of their beliefs. The basis which I spoke of was the origin of life; evolution leaves a hole in their theory at the very beginning. (my comments immediately above your first comment go further into that) Lucy is one fossil which could easily be an extinct primate species that has nothing to do with human ancestry.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The chapters which were removed from the Bible were not necessary for the teachings/message therein (they were just interesting stories). The Bible still contains prophecies, miracles, forgiveness, and teachings which all convey the same messages about God and humans.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

the chapters removed were b/c there were deep contradictions. N_Arora said the same and there is proof of that. the last link provided might be of particular interest to you. i just read through it. there may be proof jesus christ was in fact wed to mary magdalene. *gasp* i am an anthropology major, and i study lucy and her ancestors very closely. read more about her before just writing her off as an extinct primate species. yes she was part of one, but they are also a predecessor to humans. read the research. don't make arguments against someone who has provided clear, and, from what i can tell, credible proof. not trying to start an argument here, sorry if i offended. just sticking up for someone who apparently knows what they're talking about. you are absolutely entitled to your beliefs though. just didn't want you to be so jaded...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@200679 (RS): from what I can tell from reading the articles about Lucy, she could easily have been some deformed/mutated primate (because so much is missing). Just wondering, but have they found others like Lucy, or is she the only one? As an anthropology major, you'd be the most likely to know. "And here too – depending on how much faith you have in the novels of Dan Brown – lies proof that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and continued their own earthly line.... If there is anything among the tomes about Jesus getting hitched to Mary Magdalene or about St Paul making up the Resurrection you won’t find it here. That, however, doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t there. The truth is that no one really knows just what exactly is in the archive." Key words being novels & no one really knows. My opinion is that Dan Brown is just another conspiracy theorist, but a popular one.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't see why this post is so bad. It's a debate. Something most people these days can't do civilly. I applaud both the creationists and evolutionists who were able to keep a cool head and express their beliefs in a civil manner. That's very rare to see these days. I have read EVERY comment. And this was very informing. :) However there is a LOT of repetition when trying to challenge Apollo. Really, what I've gathered is that BOTH parties are at fault by the definition that people judge by. And that the point of this post is to give the understanding that we're all in the same boat. However both parties are taught to believe that they have the true answers. (Don't attack me please. I'm not saying either is wrong.)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Why do all you religious retards say shit when you don't know what you're talking about? I took only ONE year of biology and can argue down every single one of your points. I was going to explain the difference between a scientific theory and a personal theory (on love for instance). But to reinforce it, a theory is RIGHT under a scientific law, which is fact, can't be disputed. So back to you guys being retards. Pick up a fucking book and stop wasting your time spewing bullshit you pulled out of your ass!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I just have to say that religion is only good to teach morals and give hope for people who need it and anyone taking it further than that (such as using it to prove studies on Earth) has become a puppet and won't accept anything other than what they believe.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution is not a theory; there's proof of it. Fossils show us how organisms looked back then, and we see how similar they are to today's organisms. But, Those organisms are not here anymore, so this says that they have to have changed over time, which is the definition of evolution. Believe me, the creation story of the bible never happened. It's a good moral lesson, but it never happened.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

In addition to my last comment, I think the OP has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. If your going to post a statement, get some proof behind it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My statement was specifically about the beginning of all life, the basis for the rest of any theory about how life developed. I have a problem with theories which try to explain most of something but ignore important parts. I don't care nearly as much about what happened once life was here than I do about how life got here.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

yayyy fighting like little children!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Just to say, no, we do not believe scientists are a "higher power". We are not worshiping them, but we accept their evidence. Theories, to become scientific theories, must have evidence behind them. Otherwise they are just ideas disregarded by the scientific community. It takes a lot for them to become theories, and they must have strong evidence to support the idea. And just so you know, gravity is a theory too. Are you going to doubt that?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

In the Post, I was specifically talking about the beginning of life, for which no one has any proof. You seem fine with accepting their guesses about that without any evidence.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There is some proof. That's how it became a theory. EVERYTHING in science is a theory once it gets enough evidence.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Proof of how the first life came into being? Proof that the Big Bang was in fact random? No; and how could there be?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That'd be a cute idea if it weren't for the fact that scientists are human.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

are you an IB kid? lol

by Anonymous 14 years ago

EVERYONES ENTITLED THEIR OWN OPINIONS. So I think no way-ers should stop wasting their lives writing paragraphs to YYA-ers when in the end, you're all going to stay strong to your own opinions anyways (:

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The people that are in agreement with the original post are also "writing paragraphs" to those disagreeing..... Just because you are on one side, you cannot assume that the other side is attacking you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I just want to say, that is not the definition of a theory. Try again please.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution is a theory and a fact also.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So where did the first life come from?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You know, I'm not god. I do not know everything. and in my opinion, I don't think I need to. I believe in evolution, and I believe in creationism. I believe they both go together somehow. But until I die, I prefer not to worry myself with questions I know people on earth can't answer.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's very inaccurate. I don't go home and pray to Darwin every night. And how are scientists higher powers. They're still just humans. Go ahead and believe what you want. Who knows if scientists will ever compile enough info for you people that just refuse to believe, but if you actually did some research instead of dismissing the whole idea...and I think we can agree that evolution is a MUCH more solid theory. There is no evidence that proves God to be real, isn't that right?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

By 'higher powers' I meant someone who's word is accepted without question; an authority on the subject. I've done enough research and still have my doubts. There aren't enough transitional fossils, species today are dying off faster than they're appearing (because they're not appearing), and there are many scientists out there who are studying things from the evolutionary perspective instead of from the scientific perspective (bias).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Two points: 1.) Scientists are not a higher power. Every scientist is questioned. That is the definition of science. 2.) Evolution *is* science, so looking through an evolutionary perspective is look through a scientific perspective.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yet scientists can make claims like 'life came from an asteroid' or 'life came from another universe' without being questioned. Evolution is a branch of science, yes, but some of it's claims are unscientific. How can they make claims about the origins of the species based upon the few fossils available, without knowing if they're some extinct species or some step in the evolutionary process, and call it science? There enough evidence missing that the credibility of the claims made are questionable. And about studying things from the evolutionary perspective I mean that they study things looking for proof of evolution instead of studying things looking strictly for facts.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"they make claims about the origins of the species based upon the few fossils available," No. They form hypothesis, which are a part of the scientific method. Scientists don't look for proof of evolution, but they don't find anything else. It may seem like they only look for proof of evolution because that is all that they find.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*hypotheses

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And yet it's a theory. All of their guesswork has become recognized as fact, but it's still just guesswork. They find proof of evolution because they're always looking for similarities between species, when they could also just be similar species who don't have a common ancestor.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's educated guesswork that has not proven wrong, and after a while this becomes a theory. It's not immediately a theory. But if they recognize a similar species, they will obviously look into it, it's human curiosity. It's like seeing two people that look very alike and live in the same area. One would assume, or at least ask if they are related.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's just it. Because two species are similar they assume that they're related. Similar DNA does not imply the same ancestor any more than similar looks implies relation.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It does not insure the same ancestor, but it is more likely.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How life was created is an entirely different issue from how mankind was created.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

from your point of view.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It wasn't an opinion. Humanity began billions of years after the earth was created, not six days after. Your belief is entirely self-centered and just plain wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Maybe the reason that species are dying off and not being created is because of us... Before, there were no superior animals like us that control the whole earth, but now, we are killing off species with hunting, burning of forests, global warming, fishing, etc.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Guys. Search up near death experiences. This shows that there really is a God, and he did create the world.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They have scientific explanations for the "tunnel of light" that people see. It has to do with how much carbon dioxide is in your body at the time, if that's what you're talking about.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"when the brain shuts down there is a frenzy of short-lived activity in the temporal lobes. This creates the tunnel-of-light illusion that many dying people have described. You then experience a period of heightened fantasy, as opium-like chemicals are released by the brain. Your brain “tricks" you into reliving memories of loved ones and constructs a fantasy world leading you to believe that there is an afterlife. In reality, it is a figment of your imagination, created by the brain to make the process of dying more acceptable to you."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

yea but some people actually say they saw a figure!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Did you even read what he just wrote?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think people believe in creationism because it's easier to believe that it was just some being that did everything. Evolution is a lot more to comprehend, and humans want a simple explanation.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

only its about positivsism and rationalism if you do not have faith to those philosohpies evolution is not reasonble as religions.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A scientific theory is not the same as the word theory you use in casual conversation; Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. the hypothesis of evolution could be discredited, but a THEORY is based on proof.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

seriously? gravity is a theory. I believe 100% gravity exists. You clearly misunderstand the word theory in a scientific context. Please try again.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

(...): Gravity is a law. A theory describes a law, and multiple theories describe the law of gravity. Thus, making gravity a law.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Forgot to add this: Laws are made up of multiple theories that describe a certain phenomena.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

probably been said but i dont have the time to read everything but a scinectific theory is based on sets of data otherwise known as FACTS.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

religion is a system of beliefs that you follow. Evolution isn't that at all.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Right.... Evidence towards your religion? Right, a fucking book that was written by men who had no way to verify their hallucinations. Evolution, on the other hand, has millions, if not billions, of years of evidence. Take a look at the fossil record, when those are carbon dated, guess what, they're older than 6,000 years. And what about homologous structures? Why does a whale have digits in its fins if it doesn't ever need them? I would say that they are vestigial and therefore, they help support evolution, and scientists agree.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The definition of a theory is something that has SUBSTANTIAL proof, but can never be fully proven. Gravity is technically just a theory-everything we've seen so far obeys it's laws, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything obeys it's laws. But are you really going to doubt gravity? There's really just as much proof for evolution...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'll say right now, I don't know alot about religion. Please bear with me. I honestly think evolution is only called a theory because it's so controversal. Most scientists would say that it's fact, they just don't want to insult anyone. What I don't understand is if religious people think God created everything why don't they just think that God planned all of this to happen? I would settle for that if I were religious. I'm sorry guys but it's just another topic that argue about seemingly just to argue about. The evidence is there. When scientists have good evidence of something it's perfectly fine and you agree with it. But when scientists have evidence of something that interferes with what you believe in there is absolutely no bending room whatsoever. It's automatically wrong. It's pretty obvious I find it annoying when people refuse to have open minds. Feel free to tell me your opinion- I will listen! Just don't get angry. Peace.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You IDIOTS evolution is a theory not fact.Evolution is maybe true but noone can prove it %100 today.If it is proved %100 some day then Religion wont fall.Religion doesnt say that life began in 1 seconds.It says GOD created life and Evolution's first step is unexplainable.Noone knows where did first cell come from

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Heh .Atheist were thinking the universe is not getting larger.It is constant.At the beginning of 19th century.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution is not wrong at all.Maybe God created evolution and then God put souls into human.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That doesn't line up with what God says happened.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No.God doesnt say that everything happened in one second.And God doesnt say that Human came to world in one second.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It doesn't say everything happened in one second, but it does say everything happened in seven days. Genesis 2:7 "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." That's straight from non-living to living, which isn't how things evolve.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

In Quran It Says It Happened in 6 Phase

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Then muslims shouldn't have a problem with evolution. Being a Christian, however, I don't believe in the Quran or evolution; the Bible says that the world was created in 6 days and evolution takes much longer than that, so either the Bible has lies in it (the world wasn't created in 6 days) or God didn't use evolution and instead did what He tells us that He did (creation like in Genesis).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

why is "actually" capitalized?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Emphasis.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

good, i thought there might some deeper point i was missing out on.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

When did "actual" become automatically capitalized, when did it become okay to criticize of someone else's belief when I clearly can't criticize yours, and when did you come to understand the Theory of Evolution so profoundly that you can call scientists a higher power on behalf of all of the rest of us. 40% of the world is Christian, and that number falls daily, cling to your belief all you want, it won't faze me or any of the rest of the intelligent, ever-growing group that are evolutionists.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm glad you took the time to comment, perhaps we could discuss some of the things you said right there?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Which point(s) in particular?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The way I see it, you're as free to criticize my beliefs as I am to criticize evolution (for without criticism how will truth be found? it's logic). I capitalized actual because I wanted people to notice it more (that's not debatable). I have listened to lectures by some of the 'great' evolutionists and scientists who are proponents of evolution, I've heard about it in school, I've studied it from many angles (I won't say every because there's always a new way to look at things, but still many), and after doing all of that I realized that most people just accept the conjectures of scientists on top of their data collection without looking into the validity of said conjectures — or in other words they look upon the scientists as some sort of 'higher power' who is allowed to make confusing conjectures because they were involved in the data collection and have studied what people before them have thought. ~Continued~

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If you only believe in the validity of the Theory of Evolution because of what you've seen and studied, then you aren't one of the people who accept scientists as a higher power, but if you accept it because 'it's scientific,' (meaning scientists have conjectured it, albeit unscientifically) then you too accept them as a 'higher power.' Lastly, I'm not one of those Christians who doesn't actually know what I believe; I know my God personally, and I know that God loves me and that God loves you. I know that a year ago I was smart and depressed, considering suicide even, but now that I know God I'm full of joy like no knowledge could make me, like no person could make me, and like nothing on this world could make me. I live for an invisible God, fixing my eyes on what is unseen because what is seen is only temporary but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You'll find that less than 1% of all Evolutionists just pick up Evolution "because it's scientific", in fact I know that many Evolutionists fight a long internal battle against whatever religion they were raised on. It is for that very reason I can dispute your religion (as you have given me free reign to do so) with little doubt, because I know after long, hard thinking that goes on when someone switches religion, one can have little doubt. I don't assume you have ever truly wondered if your religion was correct, not simply a casual thought, but more a profound wonderment of other religion and whether any could be even vaguely correct. Of course I must ask the one question that no one can truly and undoubtedly answer, and that is: If there is a god how did he begin, what made him to make us.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

As I said, I'm one of those Christians who knows what I believe and who my faith is in. Did you read what I wrote just above your comment? I went through a long internal battle (depression) against the "religion" I was raised upon, then found Jesus and peace. Why put religion in quotes? Because "religion" is a way of thinking and of trying to do things on our own. That's not what Christianity is. Christianity is loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself; a relationship with God in every sense of the word relationship. Did you read what I wrote? I have studied the best of the evolutionists and found only more questions and fewer answers. For example; if you add up all the factors that have to be just right for this planet, this universe, to support live (presence of water, distance from star, kind of star, axial tilt, type of atmosphere, type of crust, type of core, amount of dark matter,... Continued

by Anonymous 14 years ago

force of gravity being what it is, strong and weak nuclear forces being the precisely right value, properties of water, life "happening," etc) you come up with almost 1/∞. They say that's because there have been an infinite number of universes. How can they prove that? How can they test that? They've said that the universe is constantly expanding; how does it collapse and big bang again if it doesn't collapse on itself? How did life begin in the first place? How can they be sure that the transitional fossils they've found aren't defective creatures of a known species or some extinct species? How can so many people settle with "we'll figure that out eventually" as a valid, scientific answer to these questions? Isn't science supposed to collect data then draw conclusions, not search for data to fit the conclusions? So how's this whole thing scientific at all? Think about all that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well taking all that in I can only say that not only have you gloriously sidestepped my question, but have also managed to undermine everything that has ever been discovered or theorized with a simple, non-mathematical, uneducated equation, that could never be work out by the greatest of mathematicians. So just answer my original question "What made God?", then while you're at it explain to me why you believe in a religion that is in fact a well-thought-out, made-to-be-monopolized-upon, conglomeration of other pre-existing religions, with no real originality. Historically that is all Christianity is, in fact, even one of it's "Holy" books is copied and pasted off of another religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I didn't say who made God because no one made God; He's eternal. You may laugh at that, but either God or matter is eternal, and with a universe that's only so old and which isn't currently collapsing on itself, how can we assume that matter is eternal? If Christianity is made to be monopolized, why is it that the church I've seen God moving the most is a warehouse with some chairs and a plywood stage and not a 14 million dollar building with light shows that put some concerts to shame? Because that's not what it's about at all, it's about recognizing our need and getting to know the God who saves. What do I mean by 'seen God move the most?' I mean that God has changed lives dramatically. What do I mean by that? Drug addicts are now completely clean through Jesus, Porn addicts are now free from that through Jesus (me included), the depressed and hurting are filled with love and joy in Jesus, and more. Continued.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Now, if Christianity was a copy and compilation of other dead religions, how could this happen? If Christianity isn't real and original, how can people find freedom and joy in Christ like they have found nowhere else?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@1023677 (Apollos): You can't deny that the Old Testament was created wholly by Judaism, and many of your Christian idols are Pagan, Roman, & Greek, that is not an opinion, it's a fact. The Cross is an ancient Roman torture device (I'm sure you knew that), Sunday is the Holy Day of the Sun God Ra, your depictions of angels are mainly Pagan Cherubs, & I can name many more. In fact, the image of God as and old, grey-haired man is exactly the same depiction as the Roman Juno, and the Greek Hades. To answer how people are "healed" by "Christ" (existence debatable) I'll use a scientifically proven example: If you give a man a sugar pill, & tell him it will heal his disease, his own willpower will take over & he will essentially cure himself: The Placebo Effect. The same applies to faith, it's even been shown that telling someone their "cure" is a Placebo will not affect their healing process.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes the Old Testament was created by the Jews, but it wasn't stolen from them. Christ came to fulfill what is written in the Jewish Law, not overwrite or do away with, but fulfill, which means that only in Jesus can humans obey the Law. Those other symbols you mentioned aren't worshiped by Christians, some churches don't even have those symbols in them. You say you attend Church, so you know that a Christian is just a forgiven sinner; artists who wanted to change what they were doing so that it glorified God more probably drew from what they knew (other religions) to depict (as accurately as they could) the "religious symbols" they were painting. Also, the fourth commandment is to not have any symbols which you worship, so if any church does worship the cross or praise the paintings of angels, they break God's commandment. Continued...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There are as many cases where placebos don't work also, but I've seen a prayer offered in faith cure a sick person on the spot and I've seen a life handed over to God freed from addiction the same day. How do you explain that with science?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

For the record, the Church I am unwillingly forced to go to is exactly the "party" you described, and note I said "made to be monopolized upon" some believe in Christianity so profoundly that they know nothing of how others twist & corrupt what is believed to be (& many times is) a pure & just system, despite my own disbelief.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

When something (art for example) is twisted or corrupted, it becomes something else, and it's worth changes. Christianity is the same way. When the words of God are twisted or corrupted, it's not a word of God it's hypocrisy or blasphemy You know the part of Christianity that isn't corrupted by hypocrisy, that's great! I searched for so long after encountering God to find a church devoted to God, but there you are already in the midst of one! Now, as I've said, the twisted and corrupted parts aren't the same stuff as the pure parts; like Matthew 7 says, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" continued...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So those who belong to God are those who know God and do His will, who take up their cross and follow Jesus; those who follow Jesus are called Christians because they're Christ-like (the literal translation). The corrupted and pure aren't the same, just like O2 and CO2 aren't the same. Why should the pure worry about the corrupt (other than by trying to purify it)? It doesn't corrupt it by being in the same space as it just like O2 doesn't turn into CO2 by being in the same atmosphere. I'm saying all of this to try to show you that God is uncorrupted and that it would be worth your time to give your time to God.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm going to bring this entire conversation to a halt. Stop trying to convince me "God" exists with things that have not been scientifically proven. You (As all Christians I have talked with on the subject) have been citing and referencing the Bible and other works by Christians, all of which cannot be considered objective, and cannot be proven therefore it must be thrown out for a valid debate. Moving on: Unlike chemical balances, humans are swayed by others, thus making your "Pure/O - Impure/CO2" argument invalid. I refuse to believe that if there is a god he/she/it is totally and incomprehensibly corrupt. Creating the hell that we live in can only be done by an unbiased or malignant part, there is no room for benevolence.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can't give me a quandary that reads: "If God is who he says he is in the Bible", for two reasons, I don't believe anything in the Bible without undeniable proof, and even following your logic, the Bible was not written by "God" but by man, which means none of it can be proven. I don't believe that any of the horrible things I mentioned should have happened, regardless of "what was in their hearts", because I have morals, something that Christians tend to overlook "because God is perfect". Innocent newborn babies (and unborn children) died in the Holocaust/Rowandan Genocides/Religious Crusades, were their hearts evil? None of these people deserved to die, excepting heinous criminals, in my opinion because I value human life more than some old book that's somehow attracted a cult following.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know you want this conversation to end, so I'll let these be my closing words: Yes, I agree completely that the innocent dying is a horrible thing, and in fact pray for that to end in America too (abortion). It's clear in the Bible that God can't stand the shedding of innocent blood. On the other hand (which you don't want to hear), God promises that children under a certain age always get into heaven, and that people who suffer much in this life will have rewards in the next. Like I said; God is Just. He won't just let the innocent suffer and then forget about them, he blesses them in the next life.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

...And just like that, we reach an unbreakable impasse.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*I believe*

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Source Unkown

by Anonymous 14 years ago

God is able and willing to destroy evil. God's just waiting to destroy it for our own good. Think about it; If God destroyed evil while most of the world lives lives that God would consider 'evil,' he would have to destroy most of the world! God wants people to turn from their sinful/evil ways to him (repent) so they can experience the life that's in him and not the death that's in worldly things. God has promised to destroy evil. In Revelations, God shows John what will happen in the last days of the world; seven years of God pouring his wrath out on the world, then the destruction of the antichrist, the devil, sin, death, and hades. God is already victorious over evil and death. When Jesus died on the cross, he took the sins (evil) of the world upon himself, and when he rose again he claimed victory over death. Why did God come to this world and die? because he loves you & me and wants you & me to have freedom from sin and have eternal life. ~Continued.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Where did evil come from? Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit which God commanded them not to eat (human nature, disobedience, pride). Evil comes from us when we do things which God doesn't like. Evil comes from us disobeying God's gift of His Law. How can God's Law be a gift if evil comes from it? Because only once we know what evil is can we receive grace and life from Jesus (and the life which we receive is infinitely more abundant than life before we die in our sins); sin increases so that God's grace and love may abound that much more! Note: God's grace enables us to follow the law, it isn't a pass to sin whenever we want "so that grace may increase." It's still about doing what God wants, but we can't do that without God's grace. I'm summarizing the first few chapters of the book of Romans. If you want a more thorough answer to where sin came from and why it's here, you can just read Romans. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Excuse me if I don't think an entire half of the population should be made inferior (females by the church) because an ancient book, written by men no less, said the first woman ate an apple. People die every day of poverty and hunger, if there is a God, we should all hate him for causing all of this.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Inferior? God loves females as much as males, but says that they are under man's authority (genesis 3:16). It also says (which may be even more unfair) that men should care for women like Christ cares for the church. Now, All are under Christ's authority, and All are loved by Christ; so if women are under the authority of someone acting like Christ, how are they different from anyone else? If men have to care for women like Christ cares for the church, how is that demeaning? Christ gave up himself, even dying, so that those he loved could live fuller lives. Now, I don't know the statistics, but from what I've seen the church is more actively involved in fighting poverty and starvation than any other group. What causes starvation and poverty? Most often, it's corrupt rulers and wars, and seldom (in comparison) is famine a cause of starvation. So how can you blame God, who is active in fixing it and not with those who cause it?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And God knows everyone and what they've done. God is a just God, so if He decides that someone deserves a famine or poverty (which isn't actually a bad thing, I mean luxuries don't make people happier or better people), who are we to argue? We don't know what people have done or their hearts like God does.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No one, & I repeat NO ONE, including the most evil ,corrupted individuals to be found in the universe, deserves what some people are forced to endure in their lives. I don't care how zealous you are, The Holocaust, The Rowandan Genocide, The Crusades and so many others things NEVER should have happened.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How do you figure? Do you know what people deserve? Are you the Judge of the World? Didn't God protect many, even in the times of the Holocaust and Rowandan Genocide? Was it God who killed those people or was it people who separated themselves from God? Didn't the people who did those things get punished in the best way that the world knew how to punish them? Let's assume that God is who He says He is in the Bible; God knows people's hearts, God knows what people have done, what people will do, what Eternity is like, what the punishments he will give them will do for them (make them reconsider things/harden their hearts), and therefore what is Just. If, for example, someone won't repent/change and steals constantly, God knows that and would be justified in punishing them in any way that He knew would change them, or in a way that would benefit others if He knows that they won't change.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think it's kind of hilarious that this is still going on 10 months later. And, Apollos, if I were you, I wouldn't argue about blind faith when your evidence is bible verses. Just sayin'. And lastly, there is evidence of animals adapting to their environments and there has been for centuries. That's just my 2 cents and I shall leave this post before half a dozen hard core Christians attempt to murder me with words. Thank you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The evidence of Christianity is this: when you live by the Bible, the things that the Bible promises happen. I am confident that The Bible is truth because it has been true in my own life in every way. I know you don't want to start a flame war, and the good news is that I'm the only one who sees when you post something new on here and I promise not to flame you intentionally in any way.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Atheists: 1 Christians: 0

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Is that the count of each group who've been on this post in the last month?

by Anonymous 14 years ago