ask the athiest

[Klashbash]

I would love to know how Intelligent Design is a theory in science.

 

[Guest]

You know - in really thinking about Insane Cyborg's post, I have to agree with the questioning - how IS Intelligent Design a theory on science???

 

[rickey]

think you for replying to my message I thoughts no one would i would also like to keep this friendly i believe in adaptation within a species but not evolution as a whole i want to know first off what evidence you have that leads you to believe in evolution also i have a basic question where did all the matter come fromthe big bang doesn't really explain it for me sorry for the spelling and grammer my key board is broken and i cant delete or erase any thing

 

[Sicander]

Intelligent design is a scientific theory that is actually accepted by a great deal of todays scientists. It states that the universe is so ordered so sequenced and so immpossibly complex that it must be the result of some sort of design rather than just random chance. It never states anything about God or ever at any point links itself to ANY religion. If it werent REALLY late I would get the actual scientific prosses of it down for you but, I gotta work in the morning so tootles.

 

[Klashbash]

Responding to rickey…

you for replying to my message I thoughts no one would i would also like to keep this friendly i believe in adaptation within a species but not evolution as a whole i want to know first off what evidence you have that leads you to believe in evolution also i have a basic question where did all the matter come fromthe big bang doesn't really explain it for me sorry for the spelling and grammer my key board is broken and i cant delete or erase any thing

At the very least you could minimize how big your font is. Well first here’s what Evolution is and isn’t: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html . Here is the evidence for Evolution:: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html .

Junk DNA

A surprisingly large percentage of the human genome is made up of DNA that does not code for anything. There are diverse origins for this so-called junk DNA: some of it consists of the same genetic "letter", repeated over and over thousands of times. Some of it appears to be genes, but no longer expressed, parts deleted by mutation; these are known as pseudogenes. Other junk DNA appears to have come from viruses that have permanently interpolated parts of their genes into ours. Still more of it is stretches of DNA that are parasitic on our genome itself, moving around and ensuring that they are faithfully copied generation after generation while not actually affecting our survival value. In essence, these genes, which are called transposons, are viruses that have become permanent parts of our genome. Nor is this junk DNA confined to humans. It can be found in virtually every organism, save the small single-celled ones such as bacteria for whom the energy cost of replicating their genes is significant compared to the energy cost to replicate the entire organism. While these simple lifeforms gain a selective advantage in efficiency and resource consumption by pruning this junk from their genome, in large multicellular organisms such as humans the junk remains to this day.

This is evidence for evolution because: While the sheer quantity might seem surprising, junk DNA has a very good explanation: it is our evolutionary history preserved in our genes. It contains bits and fragments of ancient genes coding for things we once needed but no longer do; it contains vestigial but still potentially functional genes that have been more recently switched off or damaged by mutation; it contains remnants of retroviral DNA left behind as a result of long-ago epidemics. Junk DNA demonstrates that we have a history extending far back beyond even the earliest organism that might potentially be called a human being, that our species itself is merely one of the latest results of a multi-billion-year process of molecular tinkering whose past experiments are still conserved in our genome.

Poor Design

Nature abounds with examples of poor or jury-rigged design. In humans, there is the blind spot (caused by nerves and blood vessels coming out through a hole in the retina and spreading over its light-sensitive surface, rather than simply attaching to it from behind) and the male prostate and urethra (a collapsible tube routed through an organ whose mode of failure is to expand). The human appendix, while it contains functional lymphatic tissue, has a completely unnecessary opening into the digestive tract, an opening that can become blocked and infected, leading to the bursting of the appendix, severe pain, sepsis and death. It would make much more sense to simply line the digestive tract with this tissue without any openings that can become blocked -- and, indeed, such tissue does exist (called Peyer's patches), removing any need for the appendix to exist as is. There is the classic example of the panda's opposable thumb, co-opted out of wrist bones rather than using the perfectly good fifth finger pandas already had. Some flightless beetles have useless wings sealed beneath permanently fused wing covers. Finally, in a somewhat amusing example, there is a species of lizard (genus Cneidophorus) that reproduces through parthenogenesis; every lizard of this species is female. Yet, before they can reproduce, the lizards engage in simulated copulation behavior, which increases their fertility by stimulating the release of hormones.

This is evidence for evolution because: In many ways, evolution is a limited process. It cannot create new structures out of nothing, but must adapt what is already there to serve its needs. It is also not a process with long-term goals; it operates to increase fitness only in the immediate short term, and cannot reach a peak of increased fitness by traversing a valley of decreased fitness. The result of these things is that evolution, while it will usually produce a workable solution to a problem, will not necessarily produce the best possible solution. Thus, we would expect to see examples of jury-rigged or inefficient design in nature, and this is precisely what we do see in many instances.

Fossil

Sorting of the Fossil Record

As even creationist geologists before Darwin recognized, fossils in the geologic record are not randomly jumbled together. Rather, there is a clear sequential progression: deeper down, in more ancient strata, the organisms we find are almost entirely unlike what is living today. Conversely, the younger the strata get and the closer we get to modern times, the fossils we find are more and more like the organisms living today -- in many instances we can track this gradual progression step by step through the use of transitional series, discussed below. It is even seen to be the case that species otherwise identical in nearly every respect are vertically sorted by extremely subtle morphological details. For example, in some Cambrian strata trilobites are found sorted by details such as the number of elements of their compound eyes; in Cretaceous strata from North America, there are deposits containing almost 90 different species of ammonite, all sorted and segregated with unfaltering precision.

This is evidence for evolution because: It confirms the single most crucial prediction of evolution -- that life undergoes change over time. The fossil record does not show random mixing or disorder, or species persisting unchanged for the entire span of geologic time, but a clear sequential progression in which some groups appear and supplant others, which disappear, and in which new groups are progressively more like today's extant species than older groups. While other explanations founder, evolution easily explains even the most delicate sorting: each layer in the strata represents thousands or millions of years of evolution, more than enough time for new variations to become prominent in a population.

Transitional Fossil Series

Perhaps the single most devastating piece of evidence in evolution's favor, transitional fossil series are those that capture the evolutionary transition between major groups of life. We can identify these fossils by noting that they contain a mixture of primitive and derived characteristics from the groups they are intermediate between. Among the most famous transitional fossils are Archaeopteryx and the other feathered theropod dinosaurs, which show the progression from reptiles to birds, and the hominids such as Homo erectus which hint at our own origins. There are transitional fossil series such as the therapsids (reptile to mammal) or the horse series that display smooth, fine-grained change convincing enough to sway any but the most hard-hearted creationist. Others, such as Acanthostega and the other tetrapod lobe-finned fish, provide clues to major events in evolution such as the first time animal life left the sea, while the whale series shows how it happened on one occasion when it returned.

This is evidence for evolution because: Fossils with characteristics intermediate between two major groups of life demonstrate large-scale evolutionary change over long periods of time. Transitional fossil series establish the evolutionary origins of and links between distinct taxa, including fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, and transitions within the mammals, including the most significant ones such as hominid to human.

Beneficial, Information-Increasing Mutations


While some creationists will grudgingly admit that a few mutations can produce beneficial effects, they will almost always fall back on their position that even apparently beneficial mutations lose, not gain, genetic information, thus making large-scale evolution over time impossible. However, modern genetics has again soundly rebutted this point by providing numerous examples of mutations that are both beneficial and increase the information of the genome. The most common class of these are duplication and divergence mutations, in which one gene is duplicated and the copy is then free to undergo mutations that cause it to take on a new function while the original function is preserved. Such mutations have been observed producing resistance in bacteria to antibiotics such as vancomycin; there is also evidence that they are responsible for the development of the vertebrate blood clotting cascade and the antifreeze proteins in the blood of polar fish.

This is evidence for evolution because: As mentioned previously, mutations are a key mechanism of evolution, the method of producing new inheritable traits. The fact that mutations that are both beneficial and increase information have been observed means that, in principle, evolution has the ability to produce great diversity and adaptation over time.

Microevolution and Macroevolution

Among the strongest evidence for evolution is that it has been seen to happen, both in the form of variation within populations, called adaptation or microevolution, and in the form of the emergence of new species, called speciation or macroevolution. Speciation, while it is often inferred from the fossil record, has also been observed and documented in currently living creatures. For example, fruit fly breeding experiments have produced reproductively isolated sub-populations under diverse conditions in the lab. Speciation has also been observed to occur in nature, for instance in the case of new reproductively isolated groups of cichlid fishes forming in African lakes after isolation from the parent population.

http://tilapia.unh.edu/WWWPages/malawi/Malawi.html This is evidence for evolution because: It is evolution, directly observed. When two populations of the same species are split up and become geographically isolated, there is no gene flow between the two groups. Thus, microevolutionary events (adaptations) that occur in one group will not be spread to the other, and vice versa. Over time, so many of these adaptations may accumulate that the two groups become reproductively isolated -- a point is reached where, even if they were rejoined, they would not be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Macroevolution (speciation) has now occurred. Once reproductive isolation has been achieved, the final step is trivial. Again, adaptations that appear in one population will not spread to the other. Extrapolated over geological time, the result is two entirely separate species that share a common ancestry but bear little or no resemblance to each other. This is the sum total of evolution -- nothing else is required but these small steps, and every step along the way has been directly observed in nature.

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory btw, they are completely seperate.

Responding to Sicander…

Intelligent design is a scientific theory that is actually accepted by a great deal of todays scientists. It states that the universe is so ordered so sequenced and so immpossibly complex that it must be the result of some sort of design rather than just random chance. It never states anything about God or ever at any point links itself to ANY religion. If it werent REALLY late I would get the actual scientific prosses of it down for you but, I gotta work in the morning so tootles.

We already went over this; if you’re going to keep repeating yourself I’m just going to claim a win by default.

 

[rickey]

you did do a good job of showing text that might point toward evolution you failed to answer my fundamental question, where did all matter come from and how did all of this dead matter come alive. without answering this question all of the evidence you cited is useless

 

[GoingNova]

We interrupt this debate bring you the following important message:

PLAY NICE! KEEP IT CIVIL! :eusa_danc

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate. :eusa_ange

 

[Klashbash]

Responding to rickey…

you did do a good job of showing text that might point toward evolution you failed to answer my fundamental question, where did all matter come from and how did all of this dead matter come alive. without answering this question all of the evidence you cited is useless

Where the organic matter came from is completely irrelevant to the Evolution Theory. The Big Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory do not need one another and are completely sound by themselves and that’s how they have been. Evolution has been directly observed under the microscope, this is not an opinion but simply fact.

For the record, I don’t believe in the Big Bang as of yet. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have sound evidence but I’m too lazy to read or care about a big explosion that created small organic matter. So yes I can’t provide evidence of what created our first ancestor but neither can you and to just go to “god did it!†is a giant unsupported assertion. To claim god did it, you need the proof that he did it. We have been on the Earth for over five million years and there has yet to be any solid proof what so ever of any supernatural event.

Science has always constantly revealed to us what was previously unknown. Humans once thought that god(s) moved the sun from the sky and back up again. Humans once thought disease was caused by Satan. Why do you need an answer right away to every unknown?

 

[rickey]

How is where organic matter came irrelevant if I can explain where organic matter came from and you cant then how do you think you are right. I think a bunch of stuff coming from god sounds better than a bunch of stuff coming from nowhere

Evolution has been directly observed under the microscope, this is not an opinion but simply fact.

you are correct but you see I do believe in mutation within a species (the only place where it has been observed)

 

[Klashbash]

Responding to rickey…

How is where organic matter came irrelevant. without that what do you have to evolve from. if I can explain where organic matter came from and you cant then how do you think you are right. I think a bunch of stuff coming from god sounds better than a bunch of stuff coming from nowhere

Evolution becomes involved when the first organism starts to evolve; it has NOTHING to do with how that first organism came to be. ROTFL, oh alright then it came from an invisible pink unicorn are you happy? You see an unsupported assertion is NOT better than saying,†I don’t know†because what it is, is saying a statement without any proof behind it what so ever.

"I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him." ~Abraham Lincoln

you are correct but you see I do believe in mutation within a species (the only place where it has been observed)

Rephrase the statement.

 

[ski2bfree]

There is a theory that states the lipid bilayer of a cell was developed by the tumultous atmosphere in the early life of the planet. I don't know if I believe it, but it is a plausible explanation. It's been reproduced in a laboratory by mixing the chemicals believed to be present in the atmosphere however million years ago and introducing large amounts of electrical current. I'm not supporting this theory, but I'm just saying that it is a potential explanation of creation for an atheist.

 

[rickey]

The beginning is the one place where you have nothing to back up your story. OK so we will ignoring it for now. That aside I do have proof. First probably of no meaning to you, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is enough for me. It is entirely obvious that he is real once you accept the truth and let him into your heart, but don’t take my word for it. Secondly Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. Except microevolution witch is testable, observable, and demonstrable and fits perfectly into my theory. Consider this link that proves down the theory of carbon dating

link here

Also there is evidence in the entire lack of solid evidence for evolution. The text you cited a few posts back was leaning toward evolution pretty heavily, but wasn’t backed by studies. Assuming that it was. Assuming that it was fact witch most (but not all) of it probably is, it did did not point indefinitely to evolution.

Before you compare your so called, science (evolution) to religion (creation) consider that evolution IS a religion. Both Creationism and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. My relationship with the creator is based almost entirely on faith just as is evolution. It takes a lot of faith to believe bacteria taught themselves to breed after emerging from a pool of sludge and over millions of years turned into you.

Please take a look at this link I think it might some up your theory, and might be a little humorous. Also please feel free to reply with any changes to the theory on this link

link here

I hope that relationship with the pink pony goes well

 

[rickey]

In a reply to ski2bfree I would like a reliable source documenting this experiment

 

[NetAtom]

I am going to respond as briefly and clearly as possible to some major points made.

Allah is not the Christian god. I thought for a long time he was, also, but read in a Christian book by Pat Robertson "Bring It On" he was one of many, and the god of the moon, who later become the only god of the religion. Please check it out for yourself via research if its important to you.

Buddhism is not a religion - if by religion there needs to be a god. Gautama was about extinction of self, thus ending the cycle of suffering, Samsara. Nirvana is not heaven. It is absolute extinction of soul/self, ultimate peace and stillness and absolute end to suffering. Buddha was a self-proclaimed enlightened man, not a god, and the people that worship him are misled.

I recommend a book called "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Lee Strobel. This is a lawyer who decided to put God on trial, was an atheist, and during the course of his "trial" realized everything he believed was based on misinformation. For example, the man responsible for launching the Big Bang Theory saying now that the research was severely flawed and now he believes it is impossible. There's LOADS of science vs Christianity in there, and you might be surprised what you find.

I am very intellectual, too much so really. I studied many, many religions extensively (not just read a text book and considered myself an expert) from Satanism, to Buddhism, to Christianity and just about everything in between. There are numerous biblical passages about seeking god with your heart AND mind. I encourage everyone to do the same, but to use both, for without each you are nothing more than a paraplegic limbo dancer.

You will, if you haven't already, find lot's of fantastic things if you haven't given up the journey to find the truth. There will be a lot of things that will never be explained by science (e.g. Sodom and Gamora, Noah's Arc and the Flood, etc), though they will have an endless number of theories. Some scientists will use the word miracle. Others will inundate supposed miracles with so many theories you forget your mother's maiden name trying to swallow it all.

Theories rise and fall overnight, and not a word in the Bible in how many thousand years has been proven false. There's a lot in there to aim at, and shots continue to fire, but I have yet to hear anything but flaccid theories.

Voltaire once made a prediction that Christianty would be extinct within a 100 years. After he died, his house was converted to a printing press - for Bibles. If you really think you are open and intellectual, read Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Don't surround yourself with the books and blurbs that only reinforce what you want to believe - and bibical quotes that are out of context, and theories that even the creator of the theory doesnt believe in. Check out some books contrary to your beliefs once in a while with an open mind. I am doing just the same thing now, researching the relationship between mind and soul (prompted by "evidence" that Love is nothing more than a chemical in the brain).

As human beings, I think we should not be embarassed that there are things we do not know, but always be open to the fact that truth is not always what we believe as being true.

 

[rickey]

Allah is not the Christian god. I thought for a long time he was, also, but read in a Christian book by Pat Robertson "Bring It On" he was one of many, and the god of the moon, who later become the only god of the religion. Please check it out for yourself via research if its important to you.

are you implying that chiristans had MANY GODS? because if you are than YOU ARE WRONG. to moast chiristans the bible is the only absolute athority on our religon. those who beleve that the bible isent the only religous book to my knolage still dont beleve in, or never have beleved in meany gods. those who did or do ARE NOT CHIRISTANS. if you want to learn more about chiristanity read the BIBLE.

Quote:
<H4>Exodus 20

The Ten Commandments

1 And God spoke all these words:


2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. 8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.

</H4>These are the ten Commandments I think that these are enough to counteract your argument if you need more ask me or read the bible its every where in there

 

[Klashbash]

The beginning is the one place where you have nothing to back up your story. OK so we will ignoring it for now. That aside I do have proof. First probably of no meaning to you, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is enough for me. It is entirely obvious that he is real once you accept the truth and let him into your heart, but don’t take my word for it. Secondly Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. Except microevolution witch is testable, observable, and demonstrable and fits perfectly into my theory. Consider this link that proves down the theory of carbon dating

link here

Oh yes it’s entirely obvious that he is “real†once I discard reason and logic to believe in him. Unless you present me evidence, I’m not going to believe in him. Okay, you just told me Evolution is false but Microevolution is real even though they are the EXACT same thing except Evolution deals with larger creatures and they follow the exact same scientific process of course.

I invite everyone to take a look about who “Dr.†Dino is and what he is about:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
http://www.brentrasmussen.com/archives/2004/04/dr_dino_raided.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
http://www.nmsr.org/hovind.htm

Carbon dating:

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

Oh ho ho, this is interesting. I found an editorial I wrote my friend Hiro to about “Dr.†Dino. It was created on Monday, December 20, 2004. Keep in mind the links at the bottom are pretty old so some of them may not work. If you notice, I was a bit more aggressive during those times =P.

Note: Here is a thing a sent to Hiro(Christian) about his hero Kent Hovind. Kent is a Christian man and Hiro thinks he pwns everybody in debating which is clearly wrong.

Hey Hiro, I did a little study on your Kent Hovind. Not only do other Creationists try to get away from him, he doesn't even have a real PhD. He has also been arrested on two cases. One on ASSAULT and another one was something about building placement at his amusement park. He also believes dinosaurs are still alive today and that the Lockness monster is real. He also thinks a certain pill cures cancer, yet he is smarter than scientists alike? The pill he claims cures cancer has been proven not to cure cancer as well as it is deadly to take if taken often.

It’s nice to note he believes the King James Version is the only real Bible, now we don’t have to play even more mindless games. Kent also claims that Adam and Eve lived to be 900 years old because they were vegetarians. Funny, I don't see any vegetarians living to be 900 years old, plus it has been proven vegetarians actually live LESS. Not only that, but God even said that his creatures were made to eat. There is no proof what so ever that Adam and Eve are vegetarians; in fact God would be extremely disappointed in this.

Anyways though, Hiro you are in NO way a free thinker. Here is a list of a "few" websites showing how dumb this Kent is as well as exposing him as nothing but a fraud (see bottom). All I did was put in Kent Hovind in Google to do a study on him, funny how all the sites came out negative against him don't you? I don't think I saw one site that promoted him (except maybe his own website and a few advertisement sites just for his books.)

I would be much more amused if your Christian hero was someone that didn't bullshit out of his mouth every second. His $250,000 thing hasn't been taken away from his friend (He doesn't even have the money, his friend does.) because Kent wants a certain kind of evidence. He doesn't care about facts, figures, computer simulations or anything like that... he wants the proof to be to recreate the big bang theory itself. Which we all know is impossible. Face it, this guy is a creationist who's pretty much universally looked down upon by both sides of the issue. Other creationists frown upon this man and have extreme dislike towards him.

Kent is known to use arguments abandoned by Creationists for years. I would even go far to say the Bible itself is more convincing than this man and most people agree that the belief in the Bible is normally a question of faith. Face it, this man is a sad joke and insult to intelligent Christians everywhere. If I had to sit through one of his speeches, I would be speechless too from listening to the sheer stupidity in this person.

I'll give you an easy quote that I found by Kent which is probably the most hypocritical statement ever said. "People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true." Isn't the same exactly said for the Bible itself? Hypocrite alert! In one of his speeches he actually claims the UFOs are actually demons/Satan driving it. This is just utter nonsense. What he says is based on assumptions and lies. There is no proof what so ever that UFOS are driven by Satan in the Bible and the Bible doesn't even say if there is life on other planets or not.

Let me just make it simple for you. Anyone that believes in the Lock Ness Monster is clearly delusional especially since he still believes dinosaurs still are roaming on this planet. Gee, you would think someone would've captured one by now? He doesn't have a shred of evidence of anything he says. I can't say I am even surprised for you listening to this guy. Hiro, you're a good friend. But god ****, I want you to free think and not be set on a belief that has no evidence what so ever.

By the way, here's a "few" links I easily found while I searched Google to do some research. Hell, this list doesn't even include all the forums found bashing him to death. I'm wondering did you happen to catch my hero Farrell Till vs. Kenny (Kent)? I liked how Kenny kept wanting to change the topic and did slideshows so fast you couldn't even think about what he was presenting you.

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm
http://www.nmsr.org/hovind.htm
http://stupidevilbastard.com/archives/2003/01/29/kent_hovind_shows_us_why_creationists_are_considered_quacks.php
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=7&fldAuto=106
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/hovind.htm
http://members.aol.com/ibss3/hovind.html
http://students.washington.edu/~ckthomps/kenthovind.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind3.htm
http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind.htm
http://www.skepticnews.com/articles/02/03/17/1724208.shtml
http://www.holysmoke.org/kh.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9639.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/kent-hovind-questions.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/bewareof-kenthovind.html
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/solar_mass.html
http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/hovind.htm
http://www.truthtree.com/atheism/rant7.shtml
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/KentHovind.htm
http://www.skepticslv.org/about_kent_hovind.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CA/CA341.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2148_unmasking_the_false_prophet_of_9_1_1999.asp
http://www.irregulartimes.com/quaking.html
http://ntskeptics.org/2001/2001october/october2001.htm
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html
http://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/archives/1996.06/msg00033.html
http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/thosekrazykreationists03.html [/quote]

Here’s some interesting Creationism links:

Introduction - http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/creexplained.html

Why Creationism? - http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whycre.html

Why Creationism Isn’t Science - http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html

Your next statement starts HERE (Quote thing is acting up):

Also there is evidence in the entire lack of solid evidence for evolution. The text you cited a few posts back was leaning toward evolution pretty heavily, but wasn’t backed by studies. Assuming that it was. Assuming that it was fact witch most (but not all) of it probably is, it did did not point indefinitely to evolution."

It’s one thing to say that my evidence is “lackingâ€, it’s another to PROVE it is which you have completely failed to do.

Before you compare your so called, science (evolution) to religion (creation) consider that evolution IS a religion. Both Creationism and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. My relationship with the creator is based almost entirely on faith just as is evolution. It takes a lot of faith to believe bacteria taught themselves to breed after emerging from a pool of sludge and over millions of years turned into you.

What philosophical premises would that be? I’m sorry I didn’t know actually seeing organisms evolve (Microevolution) took a lot of faith. “A pool of sludge†huh? You would think a Christian as yourself would be more respectful to life but I guess not.

I refer you to here about whether Evolution is a religion or not: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/atheistevo.html

Please take a look at this link I think it might some up your theory, and might be a little humorous. Also please feel free to reply with any changes to the theory on this link

link here

You have to post the same link twice because…?

I hope that relationship with the pink pony goes well

Thank you.

"The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know
this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't see her."

http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/

Related:

http://www.geocities.com/ipuprophecy/ipu.html



Responding to NetAtom…

I am very intellectual, too much so really.

You will, if you haven't already, find lot's of fantastic things if you haven't given up the journey to find the truth. There will be a lot of things that will never be explained by science (e.g. Sodom and Gamora, Noah's Arc and the Flood, etc), though they will have an endless number of theories. Some scientists will use the word miracle. Others will inundate supposed miracles with so many theories you forget your mother's maiden name trying to swallow it all.

You’re ASSUMING such things as Noah’s Arc and the flood being true just because the Bible told you so.

Theories rise and fall overnight, and not a word in the Bible in how many thousand years has been proven false. There's a lot in there to aim at, and shots continue to fire, but I have yet to hear anything but flaccid theories.

The theories of Gravity, Evolution and the Big Bang have yet to fall “overnightâ€. Good, I’m glad that none of the words of the Bible has been proven false because it shows exactly the type of people you are.

“Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane -- like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!†~ Mark Twain

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest anything that is cruel."

Thomas Paine The Age of Reason

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.†~Thomas Jefferson

Proverbs:

Beating your children with a rod is a sure sign of parental love. 13:24

Beat your children and don't stop just because they cry. 19:18

Beat your children hard and often. Don't worry about hurting them. You may break a few bones and cause some brain damage, but it isn't going to kill them. And even if they do die, they'll be better off. They'll thank you in heaven for beating the hell out of them. 23:13-14

Beating your children will make them wise. 29:15

Beat your servants (slaves), as though they were your children. 29:19

If you mock your father or disobey your mother, the ravens will pick out your eyeballs and the eagles will eat them. 30:17

Ezekiel:

God will cause the fathers to eat their sons and the sons to eat their fathers. 5:10

God says that he will mercilessly slaughter everyone by killing one third with plagues, one third with famines, and one third with wars. If any somehow survive, he'll send "evil beasts" to devour them. Finally, after he's done killing, he "will be comforted." 5:11-17

God plans to decorate the land with human bones and dead bodies. 6:4-5

God makes his presence known by killing people with famine, disease, and war. 6:7-14

God repeats his plan to pour out his fury on everyone, promising again to have pity on no one. By so doing he says that "ye shall know that I am the Lord that smiteth." Indeed, who would behave so viciously? 7:3-9

God says plague and famine will grip the city while war rages outside. And anyone who tries to escape will live a shamful life and be robbed blind by people sent from God. Then, a wicked nation will invade, taking their homes, desecrating the temples and humbling the leaders. No matter what, they're screwed. 7:13-28

God promises again to slaughter everyone. He says that he will ignore them when they plead with him for mercy. 8:18

Psalms:

If God doesn't like you, he will burn you to death. 21:9-10

Happiness is smashing your little children against the rocks. 137:9

2 Kings:

Elijah proves that he is a man of God by burning to death 102 men. 2 Kg.1:10, 12

God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head. 2 Kg.2:23-24

Matthew 10:34-37

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law- -a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. "

“What do you truly lose from believing in Jesus?

Time, money, pursuit of objective truth, your reality anchor, the ability to rationally debunk flawed statements about the world, being open-minded to alternative possibilities, the scientific method of claim evaluation, requiring proof within reasonable doubt to accept something as true, the ability to discern fact from fiction, and on and on the list goes on.

But yeah, other than all of that, what do you have to lose?†~ Dark Magneto

I refer you to the following:

Divine Blackmail - http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/divineblackmail.html
Thoughts in Captivity - http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/thoughts.html
Terror of the Truth - http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/truth.html

 

[GoingNova]

Insane, you are obviously a non-religious person. I can not argue with you because I have faith in my religion. Faith when it comes to religion is not factual, in fact it is just the opposite, it is believing in something without proof. If you choose not to believe, whatever your reasons, I respect that. That is your choice. All I ask is that you respect my right to believe what in whatever religion I choose. You don't have to think it is wise, heck, you can even think I am an idiot, that is your choice <but kindly keep those types of thoughts to yourself LOL>. The bottom line is, we both have a right as US citizens to believe what we wish. :eusa_ange

 

[rickey]

First evolution is a religion in the since that it takes just as much faith and in my opinion more than any other religion. It doesn’t need a ruler, temple ECT to take faith you managed to get around answering my question about where it all came from. You are obviously know a little more than me on this subject being that I am 16 ant the only knowledge I have about evolution I have is from science class the bible (all the evidence I need) and a series of tapes by Kent hovend. You and all of your links did a good job of bashing him and his amusement park but discredited little of his evidence. I admit I did not read all of the links but they seemed to be all pretty much the same. I challenge you to get a hold of at least one of his tapes and watch it all the way through. If you’re going to bash him at least see his side of things. So until you tell me where it all came from I have got a better argument than you do

About microevolution I mint evolution within a species. I.e. lions and tigers, eagles and hawks act. And bacteria mutating

 

[NetAtom]

rickey: I said that the Allah was one of many, i.e. the Islamic religion. Christianity has only had one.

Insane Cyborg: good stuff! Gonna do some reading.

 

[Guest]

Holy COW, Cyborg! That's one hell of a post!! VERY interesting.....