evolution or creationism?

lol
make the effort GHoST, it's an even better read when you're stoned! Seriously, you can make the connections so much more easily....

I've been reading Jack Herer's book (here's a link) and I've come to a big, all-encompassing conclusion, relevant in almost any debate:

Knowledge is power. Those who already have power have ceaselessly tried, for thousands of years, to keep Knowledge away from the population. What is Knowledge? It can be anything: evolution, economics (where do our taxes go?), MARIJUANA, the difference between myth and history.
To Know is to have the power to destroy ignorance and stupidity, but the powers that be want us to be stupid and docile so that things will never change. Take charge, and gain Knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

lol
make the effort GHoST, it's an even better read when you're stoned! Seriously, you can make the connections so much more easily....

I've been reading Jack Herer's book (here's a link) and I've come to a big, all-encompassing conclusion, relevant in almost any debate:

Knowledge is power. Those who already have power have ceaselessly tried, for thousands of years, to keep Knowledge away from the population. What is Knowledge? It can be anything: evolution, economics (where do our taxes go?), MARIJUANA, the difference between myth and history.
To Know is to have the power to destroy ignorance and stupidity, but the powers that be want us to be stupid and docile so that things will never change. Take charge, and gain Knowledge.

---

I couldn't agree more... thats one of my motto's knowledge is power... plus its fun to agrue with people and make them look like idiots...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meek mike

Darwin said it so you all believe it. Just as the Bible says it so alot of us believe it. Two sides two different views. What does it matter what we all believe as long as we all believe in our opinion. Who are we all trying to convince. You folks don't believe as I do and I don't believe as you do. Lets move on. There is no proof on either side.

Rev. Michael T
Soldier for Christ

---

Evolution has been around far longer than Darwin, although he was the first to make note of its exsistance. Creationism has been around for a while but evolution has been around forever. Personally I believe in evolution, and I think creationism is complete bulshit. Ill go more in depth into why a little bit later in the post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The C vbmenu_register("postmenu_86538", true);

We can test everything. Aynthign and still not be 100% sure, we can be 99.9 percent sure. And then claim it's a law because we see no different.

But just because we soo no different doest mean there isnt. Scientific community sems to agree that nothing is %100.

We say things are law, but what if in a 99.9 percent probability that gravity is the was we've worked it out to be, isnt the way.

---

Most things that we believe to be true can only be proven to be 99.9% right, but there are some that are 100% right. It is 100% correct of me to believe that if I am to stop breathing for a time period of over 30 minutes I will be dead and never draw in a breath again. We dont need scientific evidence to tell us that, but it does help to prove a point.

Now, as for why I think creationism is complete bullshit. The theory of creationism states that EVERYTHING was created by ONE omnipotent being. The major problem here is that EVERYTHING encompases the very omnipotent being that supposedly created everything. Nothing can create itself. We might be able to clone or reproduce things that look like us and act like us but did we create ourselves? No, we created a copy of ourselves. Of course, many people ask "if god created everything then what created god?" I just take it a step further. Creationism would be completely impossible simply because of the fact that in order for something to create something else, the first entity must have been created. Thus making it no longer the first entity. The thing that made the entity that is given credit for creating everything would also have had to have been created by something. Meaning that this is an endless cycle. Thus providing more evidence for evolution.

Also, if the Bible, both OT and NT, are as historically accurate as Christians believe it to be, then why exactly is it that before our "creation", why does it not mention all the other great creatures that must have been "created" before us. Such as dinosaurs, and other reptiles, birds, fish, ect ect. It does state that birds and animals and fish were created, but it states that they were created for the human population to live off of and rule over.

Thats all I have for the moment.

Hail Thyself!

about your evolution theory bro...there have been many gaps supporting and discluding evolution as factual...there have even been scientists who nationally have said that evolution wasnt true but that the only reason they supported it was because there wasnt any way they were going to believe in God...

Why must evolution and creationism be considered mutually exclusive?

I believe that we were created - or, rather, we placed ourselves into the physical world - and evolved to the state we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCarolina420

about your evolution theory bro...there have been many gaps supporting and discluding evolution as factual...there have even been scientists who nationally have said that evolution wasnt true but that the only reason they supported it was because there wasnt any way they were going to believe in God...

---

for god's skae, I keep hearing this stupid argument, yet I haven't actually seen or heard one single scientist saying this. Please give me proof, cause it's so easy to say "yeah, but there's this scientist who says this."

I want names, books, publications, credentials, and what not. I can say anything I want and claim to be a scientist too, you know? But the fact remains, there are NO gaps in the theory, and 99.9% of scientists worldwide accept evolution.

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

Here you go buddy...just one example...there's plenty more if youd like them

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . â??The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwinâ??s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.â?? . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Evolutionists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCarolina420

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

---

Yes, Dr. Schwartz, did say that, but did you look up who he actually is? He's one of the leading scietists in the field of human evolution, he's just acknowledging that there are gaps, as is to be expected in a theory that goes back BILLIONS of years.... You know, the Earth changes, things move around on the surface, of course some dingy old fossils are going to dissapear. At least quote someone who truly is against evolution....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCarolina420

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . â??The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwinâ??s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.â?? . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71

---

Again, Steven M. Stanley is a leading evolutionist, who came up with a neo-Darwinian theory, and you took one of his quotes completely out of context. So far, you haven't convinced me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCarolina420

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107)

---

this is the weakest quote supporting your argument, and manages to prove absolutely nothing... Anyone can say this, I say it all the time, and I 'believe' in evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCarolina420

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Evolutionists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95)

---

LOL, don't let the title of the book fool you, look it up on Amazon.com.... It's a book that does exactly the opposite of what the title claims (called irony) and destroys any claims creationists might make one by one...

Well, you managed to do absolutely nothing woth those quotes, I hope it didn't take too long to find them and write them down. My suggestion, if you're gonna quote from books, make sure you're quoting from people who actually agree with your point, not mine...

OMG, I just noticed something really funny...

NCarolina420, your last quote comes from a book who's real title is 'A Scientist Shows Why Creationists Are Wrong'... I can't believe I didn't notice this before. So you resort to changing quotes and book titles to suit your own purposes now?

See what I mean? this is the kind of proof creationists use to validate their point. Their so desperate that they take quotes out of context, especially when quoting scientists who support evolution (!) and they try to trick others by changing a word here and there. Well, the days of Religion hiding the truth are coming to an end.

actually the person i had received that quote from had sent it to me wrong and had typed in evolutionist instead of creationist....either way it still contradicts evolution to its core so even the evolutionists are simply saying that it is not true...and since your all about quotes and stuff why don't you send me something that validates evolution id sure like to see it...but you won't find it...(and not from the humanist manifesto I or II because there is no proof from that hurrendous book)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCarolina420

it still contradicts evolution to its core

---

how does it contradict itself? :confused:

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . â??The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwinâ??s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.â?? . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71

read that..."...their evidence contradicted Darwins stress on minutes, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation...their story has been supresses." jus one example

^ that doesnt mean anything, no one said darwin had everything right just the basic idea and concept of evolution (he was alive before breakthroughs in the field of genetics). creationists have the burden of proof, all they can do is try to mislead others about what evolution actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCarolina420

actually the person i had received that quote from had sent it to me wrong and had typed in evolutionist instead of creationist....either way it still contradicts evolution to its core so even the evolutionists are simply saying that it is not true...and since your all about quotes and stuff why don't you send me something that validates evolution id sure like to see it...but you won't find it...(and not from the humanist manifesto I or II because there is no proof from that hurrendous book)

---

Are you living in an imaginary world???

Look for a recent National Geographic magazine, I think it was last October or November, or around there.... The cover story is about evolution. Have fun reading it. I have it here, but I won't type out the entire article, but suffice to say that it's pretty convincing.

heh, actually I had already typed some exerpts from the article in a topic a while back, I managed to find it:

Exerpts from National Geographic:

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamilia with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun and not vice-versa, offered by Compernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomimc theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observationand experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally--taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

[...]

Orchids, wondrously adapted for controlling their pollination by insects, intrigued Darwin. The parts of their strangely modified flowers, he saw, correspond to the flower parts on simpler plants, suggesting evolutionary change. One species that caught his eye was the Madagascar orchid Angraecum sesquipedale, with its 11-inch-long nectar receptacle. He predicted that somewhere in Madagascar, a place he never visited, must live a moth with a proboscis 11 inches long, adapted to harvest the orchid's nectar. Forty years later two entomologists revealed the Madagascan sphinx moth Xanthopan morganii praedicta, confirming Darwin's forecast. Such mutual adaptation--the moth to the flower, the flower to the moth--is called coevolution.

[...]

Nightmarish illnesses caused by microbes include both the infectious sort (AIDS, Ebola, SARS) that spread directly from person to person and the sort (malaria, West Nile Fever) delivered to us by biting insects or other intermediaries. The capacity for quick change among disease-causing microbes is what makes them so dangerous to large numbers of people and so difficult and expensive to treat. They leap from wildlife or domestice animals into humans, adapting to new circumstances as they go. Their inherent variability allows them to find new ways of evading and defeating human immune systems. By natural selection, they acquire resistance to drugs that should kill them. They evolve. There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrenchInhale

I believe in creationism and I feel evolution is hog-wash. Also, did you know that there have been a lot of scientist who have tried to disprove creationism and have ended up believeing in it and being converted? Just thought I would throw that tid bit in there. Peace.

---

Oh shit, I hate this debate (check this).

Wake me up when is over, or just let each to theirs

Why not both??? What if God set everything into motion and let it all play out. Maybe the Genesis chapter in the bible is a way of explaining the exsistence of the Earth in a way that people could understand and believe thousands of years ago? What do you think people would've thought in biblical times, if you tried to explain geology and evolution? :)

on offence, but that god stuff is bull$&!%... Evo is the only logical way we are all alive on this mother fucker right now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HughESan

on offence, but that god stuff is bull$&!%... Evo is the only logical way we are all alive on this mother fucker right now...

---

You say no offense, but we know you don't mean it at all. I mean you just did say that God is BS. Your post is so intelligent that it convinced me to stop believing in God, instantly! I now refer to the Earth as "this mother fucker" :rolleyes: At least other people post decent arguments and opinions about their views, but yours just made me laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawleaf

You say no offense, but we know you don't mean it at all. I mean you just did say that God is BS. Your post is so intelligent that it convinced me to stop believing in God, instantly! I now refer to the Earth as "this mother fucker" :rolleyes: At least other people post decent arguments and opinions about their views, but yours just made me laugh.

---

hmm, I see you're religious... Anyways, picking fights on web site forums is something only retards do, you know, just kind of a heads up... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HughESan

hmm, I see you're religious... Anyways, picking fights on web site forums is something only retards do, you know, just kind of a heads up... ;)

---

Show me where in my post I decided to pick a fight. Then check my profile and read the post I typed just before I posted this one. Are all your posts so intelligent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawleaf

Show me where in my post I decided to pick a fight. Then check my profile and read the post I typed just before I posted this one. Are all your posts so intelligent?

---

Trying to win a fight argument over the net is like being in the special olympics, even if u win, you're still a retard :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HughESan

Trying to win a fight argument over the net is like being in the special olympics, even if u win, you're still a retard :)

---

You should really be more original in your posts. If you are going to keep dodging with your answers and can't handle an argument, don't post BS you have no proof of. I may have no proof for you that there is a God, but you certainly have zero proof that there isn't one. Leave it at that boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawleaf

Why not both??? What if God set everything into motion and let it all play out. Maybe the Genesis chapter in the bible is a way of explaining the exsistence of the Earth in a way that people could understand and believe thousands of years ago? What do you think people would've thought in biblical times, if you tried to explain geology and evolution? :)

---

I couldn't agree more, Sawleaf. What's more is that I don't understand why religious types reject evolution so flatly. It's a beautiful system, it shows that we all have common ancestors if you go back in time enough, and that we are inextricably tied to Nature, even though we're destroying it right now. Besides, though I don't believe it myself, what if God himself set everything motin in the first place?

To me, Adam and Eve are the first two molecules that we can consider as 'living'. Even when God creates Eve from Adam, that could just be a fancy way of saying Adam's cell split into to 2 cells, Adam and Eve. LOL, I'm going off the deep end, I know, but my point is that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible in any way. You just need to go deeper in your interpretation of it, and not take it at face value. I said it once, and I'll say it again until I get banned: The Bible was NEVER meant to be taken literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawleaf

You should really be more original in your posts. If you are going to keep dodging with your answers and can't handle an argument, don't post BS you have no proof of. I may have no proof for you that there is a God, but you certainly have zero proof that there isn't one. Leave it at that boy.

---

One more thing... Okay Do you even watch the Discovery channel? God Is non sence, there are so many factors that prove the universe was created by a Type of "Big Bang"... so nah...

Yeah I love the discovery channel. But the Big Bang theory is just that. A theory. Theory doesn't equal fact. What caused the big bang if there was one? I can tell you've never had a spiritual experience or any dealings with paranormal. Science can't explain hauntings or paranormal activity at all. Science isn't the answer to everything. If you believe it is, then you should open your eyes, science is still extremely limited by current technology. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

The Bible was NEVER meant to be taken literally.

---

Exactly! It's more of just a guide book, with stories told to teach lessons. I do believe that a lot in the bible actually happened, but it is mostly set in a way that man would be able to understand at the time it was written. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawleaf

You say no offense

---

Actually, he said "on offence" which is even funnier. :D

The Big Bang theory is just a theory, true. But the idea of God is even less tangable and realistic than the Big Bang theory. So whats your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maryjanemama

Actually, he said "on offence" which is even funnier. :D

---

whoops, sorry i had no Idea, "NO" offence, but god is still non sence and thinking such a thing exists is like believing in santa... this post is gettin lame, all of you people are extra religious so next time a bible thumper comes to the door im gonna tell them I like Satan then tell them to fuck off extra hard...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

The Big Bang theory is just a theory, true. But the idea of God is even less tangable and realistic than the Big Bang theory. So whats your point?

---

My point is that this argument that is always going on in here is stupid, because neither side can prove they are correct. I never post and say there is a God, although I do believe in the Lord. But so many people post that God doesn't, with zero proof. If someone could disprove God and all the spiritual and paranormal things I've experienced, then I would stop believing, but I have yet to see the evidence that he doesn't exsist. :)

HughESan, do you even own an AK?

mwah

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawleaf

My point is that this argument that is always going on in here is stupid, because neither side can prove they are correct. I never post and say there is a God, although I do believe in the Lord. But so many people post that God doesn't, with zero proof. If someone could disprove God and all the spiritual and paranormal things I've experienced, then I would stop believing, but I have yet to see the evidence that he doesn't exsist. :)

---

Exactly! There's no evidence that he does, and no evidence that he doesn't. We have exactly the same point of view, only you believe in him/her, and I dont.. We're both sitting on the fence, but youre leaning over to one side, and me the other :)

You can argue till your blue in the face. This is the shit that starts wars (besides money & women). No one can prove anything. God, aliens, monkeys morphing into humans. It's all a matter of faith. Even the Athiest must beleive in something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawleaf

HughESan, do you even own an AK?

---

I live in winnipeg, not los angeles...