Some front line views of the war against God.

[mfqr]

Again this is wrong and very offensive, what part of im neither a creationist or an evolutionist dont you understand?

I don't see how it is offensive, I was pointing out a simple thing, and meant no offensive by it. But if you want to take it as an offense, go ahead.

What part of, I dont wish to debate the validity of the two dont you understand?

Well, since you have corrected someone else's spelling mistake, I will tell you that the comma you placed was incorrect. I don't know what you mean by what you say, though. To me it seems that you are arguing that intelligent design is just as valid and viable as evolution. Is that arguing validity? You tell me...

What exactly do you believe I have a lack of understanding about?

Evolution.

The fact that the theory of evolution is just as valid as intelligent design when applying it to how we got here? How is this a lack of understanding?

I thought you weren't arguing the validity of the two? You're right, evolution doesn't explain how we got here. Then again, it doesn't really aim to explain that. It aims to explain how we became what we are, not how the first unicellular organisms appeared on Earth billions of years ago.

You are one of the many ignorant evolutionists whom ignore the possibility of their own theory being wrong, it could be that intelligent design is true.

Am I? I didn't know you knew me or my beliefs. I never said intelligent design is completely wrong, I simply said there's no evidence to back it up. It's possible, sure. If you look at this universe, anything is possible. You're pretty quick to judge, my friend.

What you fail to understand is the theory of evolution you always take into context as being so obvious is basic "change", thats it, just change, since when does intelligent design say things do not "change">?

That "basic change" is called adaptation, I believe.

How on earth can you proclaim change (your perception of evolution) as a figuehead belief over intelligent design.

Because intelligent design doesn't have any evidence to back it up, that's why. I've thought about it - about aliens possibly starting things up here... but is there evidence of this? No, so why would I sit here and claim it to be a viable option, when it's obviously not? It's possible, as anything is, but it's not something that needs to be taught in school.

Evolution explains how life changes, it does not explain how this life got here, of course you can live your life believing things "just happend".

You're right... it doesn't. Things do "just happen," if you didn't know. Believing that something "just happens" doesn't mean that one does not believe that there's a reason behind it.

So I suggest you put your thinking cap on and show respect to the people who actually question religion and the oppsing theories to religion and creationism, do not always intelink creationism and religion.

Then you should practice what you preach, because I do question religion, and opposing theories. But I would not hold it as a viable option over something that actually has evidence.

People have castigated me for interlinking abogenisis with evolution (even though they can be interlinked), peopel on this forum have also castigated me for interlinking eugenics with
darwinist evolution, when they are linked.

Sorry, but maybe you should take your own advice and think about your own beliefs as well. Perhaps it's possible that they are correct and you are wrong?

So why on earth do you have the right to continuously link religion with creationism?

Why do I have the right to link these things? Well, I have the right to say anything I please, as I have a mouth (or hands), and it allows me to say whatever I please. Creationism is used in religion, if you didn't know. You should be mad at religion for spoiling and tainting the "theory" that you are defending.

The two can exist apart.

Good. Then I guess there's no reason to argue about it, huh? Considering this, you're just trying to push your beliefs on others. Don't say you don't subscribe to these beliefs. I think you do believe the things you're saying, but you say you don't so that you can increase your credibility. Too bad you destroyed that possibility with arguments like "we didn't evolve from rocks."

Having evolution does not by any means rule out any intelligent designer, an intelligent designer could have intervened during the process of evolution and/or have begun the whole process of evolution, just because you do not have facts about this, does not mean you can blindly rule it out.

Good, then there's no reason for a debate. I have not blindly ruled out anything. I'm open to all possibilities, even the possibility of there being a God. However, I believe it's pretty improbable that there's a God. Thus, I do not subscribe to the belief. And not to mention that religion is corrupt, and thus I will not subject my mind to such mind-garbage.

What? Firstly, why on earth should evolution rule out creationism?

You're asking this question again? You just love going in circles, don't you? Where is that going to bring this debate, which should not be debated, because supposedly they can coexist, right?

This is the body of the debate, why should you who believes the 'evidence' of human evolution or macroevolution overwhelms the evidence for creationism should therefore create a rule by which we rule out the presence of some kind of creator.

Nope, never ruled out some kind of creator. Though, I see no evidence for it, and thus it's not a viable option. Get some evidence, then we'll talk, not argue.

Why should it create an attitude by which we 'laugh' at people who believe in intelligent design, like I said before, and I wont get offensive and stoop to your level, but you dont understand the simple fact that evolution just is not powerful enough a theory to explain exactly how life arrived here, it is not even intended to answer this question.

Trying to turn the tables around? I've seen you be offensive on here, so don't go telling me that I have been offensive - I have not been. Of course, you can perceive things any way you wish, but then I'm going to question your perception of reality. Do you have to reiterate the same thing over and over again? Of course evolution does not explain how life arrived here... I don't think anybody is arguing you on that matter. However, I believe the basic element of this whole thread is the validity of intelligent design... which you say you're not arguing about (even though I think it's pretty obvious you are).

Your perception of evolution being filled with such obvious truth is simple "change", nobody here is denying this, certainly not me, things do change over time, animals adapt to their environment, businesses adapt to changing consumer and market trends etc.

Animals adapt to their environment... and that is essentially natural selection, which is part of the theory of evolution. I don't think that anybody here claimed that evolution was cold, hard fact. But it is certainly a much more viable option than intelligent design.

We do evolve, we do change but you cannot apply this aspect of change to the theory that we evolved from apes (human evolution).

Says who, Ted Haggard?

Well its funny you should make this assumption, you honestly sound like a 40 year old man still living by Carl Sagans: The Cosmos.

Well it's funny that you should make that assumption. I've never heard of "Carl Sagans: The Cosmos."

I hate to shoot you to death with a dose of MODERN scientific thinking which actually does support the theory of intelligent design, even with evidence of evolution.

Well, I'm still here, alive and kickin'. Are you going to come up with anything other than criticism to try and make a good argument? Or are you going to sit here and make unsupported claims that have no place in science?

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHATTTT?????

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAYYYYY!!!!!!

Did you just hear me? I said evidence of evolution (transitional fossils actually does not rebuke intelligent design and actually could go to lengths at supporting intelligent design).

Show us these lengths at which it goes to, to support intelligent design. I'd love to see this.

There is fossil evidence found in east africa if I am correct which is challenging the entire theory of evolution, infact this fossil evidence claims an overlap of about 500,000 years of which the two homo habilis and homo erectus co existed in that area.

Source, please.

I'd love to sit here and spend 3 hours replying to your 3,283,298,139 character post, but you're starting to bore me with saying the same old things over and over again (rephrased, mind you).

[Delta9 UK]

But I have a hard time believing in macroevolution when all of the transitional fossils that you speak of are nowhere to be found. Even though they're supposed to be everywhere.

I posted a large list of these fossils here a few pages back:
http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...ml#post1694563

There are loads of them, the list I posted is not exhaustive.

Darwin even stated that in order for his theory to be proven scientifically, there would need to be proof in these transitional fossils. So, why are we unable to find any? I find it hard to consider this science when the definition supposedly is the systemic knowledge of a matter, based around what is gained from experimentation & observation.

The only group pretending that transitional fossils don't exist are creationists I'm afraid.

Nevermind that, why am I ridiculed for believing what I do when there's this huge flaw in the theory that humans evolved from lower primates? It's a nice theory, yes...but, then again, so is the theory that we are created in God's image. It's hard, as a person of faith, to honestly believe that my Lord was an orangutan God before he evolved into a God in human form!

There is no huge flaw, Macroevolution is just as real too - with plenty of evidence (see my other thread on the subject -
http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...-examples.html for more details) the problem is people - not evidence it seems that anything that doesn't work for creationists is attacked. e.g. Microevolution is OK but Macroevolution isn't.

Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".

I hope no-one is ridiculed simply for believing something - the ridicule normally comes along when creationists use bad "science" to try and attack evolution.

I do hope that these debates somehow make some sense of what is a VERY complex topic (which is also not accessible to the majority of readers). I know I can get a bit hot under the collar myself in these threads so I'm sorry if any of this has gotten beyond simply stating facts.

[Mr. Clandestine]

There is no God, its a figment of your imagination, just like the countless other Gods invented by man.

Well, gee, now that you put it that way... :wtf:

So, that's it? I'm just supposed to take your word for it...and not bother questioning why I believe what I do? Who gave you the authority to disrespect me and countless other Christians by labeling us "stupid/weak minded"? Who made you God?

By the way, I've questioned my faith innumerous times...and still came to the same conclusion each time. It's much more comfortable for me to believe what I do, than it is for me to believe that snide, caustic little punks like you are right. What are you honestly expecting me to say? "You're right, I'm wrong...and it was just plain ignorant of me to stick by my beliefs."? Are you expecting me to feel ashamed, and live in regret for ever believing that I may have actually been right? Sorry, but your personal opinion on this matter means very little to me, as well as anyone else who's not afraid to stand up to arrogant people like yourself. Especially when the opinion is presented in such a rude and insincere fashion. Using your logic, I could just respond with, "There is a God...a Christian God, and He's not just a figment of my imagination, unlike the countless other gods invented by man.", and the justification would be all mine. Not that I would actually just tell you that out of the blue, because I pride myself on not being evangelistic, and pushing my beliefs on unsuspecting people.

Tell me, how can a God invented by man exist anywhere other than our imaginations?

No, you tell me how you know for an irrefutable fact that MY God was invented by man. Then I'll have the courtesy to respond to this pathetic and malicious inquiry.

As for your impressive little list of Egyptian mythological "gods"...I'm willing to bet that I could make an even longer list of mythological Greek gods, many of whom faded into obscurity in the hearts of the populace after a few hundred years, or less. Modern day Greeks and Egyptians view the followers of these gods as more akin to a cult, as opposed to an actual organized religion.

And you're the one who's ignorant of history if you're actually trying to convince me that Jesus Christ never walked on this earth in human form. Regardless of whether or not you believe Him to be the living Son of God. Maybe if you actually took the time to read up on some Roman history, you wouldn't look so foolish right now. You could start by researching right around the time that Roman procurator Pontius Pilate was in power, to...oh, say, around the time that the Romans crucified a man named Jesus in Palestine. This is the same time that (ironically) a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" is specifically mentioned...several times, and in the same context that the Bible speaks of Him. Labeled a blasphemer for claiming to be the Son of God, and eventually crucified for his crime. You also don't have to believe in His miracles, virgin-birth, resurrection, etc. I'm not trying to force you to do such a thing. Also, since much of the authoritative Roman texts aren't widely translated in the English language, you could also look up the works of these historians who lived right around the same time as Jesus: Tacitus (Annals XV.44), Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine), Thallus (as recorded by Julius Africanus, A.D. 221), Suetonius(Life of Claudius 25.4), Josephus(Antiquities XVIII.33; XX.9.1). You're not going to try and tell me that they never existed either, are you?

Now, please, in the future when you're attempting to belittle a Christian...at least have the courtesy to be courteous, and if at all possible, knowledgeable of the subject that you're trying to argue.

[Canadian_Cron]

Here are just a few definitions of 'theory':

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. a belief, policy, or procedure proposed as the basis of a specific action:

4. an ideal or hypothetical set of principles, or circumstances - often used in the phrase "in theory..."

Used in this fashion, many atheists would probably consider organized religion a theory, as opposed to a faith. One definition of faith is simply - confidence or trust in a person or thing. So, with that in mind, I'll still stand by my statement.

As for your deductive reasoning about evolutionists, I'm sure there are plenty of them who say 'don't steal, commit murder, commit adultery, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc'. This has more to do with standard morals and ethics, than it does with the teaching of a religion alone. Well, except for the sex before marriage/masturbation part. That's predominantly a Christian set of morals, I believe. But, even then, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who abstain from sex before marriage so that they'll savor the experience more when it finally does happen. :wtf:

And there are plenty of conditions necessary for one to believe in a theory. Even though parts of it may not be backed up by actual fact, it still has to be compelling enough for someone to believe that it may be true. I'd say that the concept of eternity and divine salvation are pretty compelling to most people...even though they cannot be properly explained, and are difficult to grasp. You're right that 'theory' and 'faith' have separate definitions, but in this case, they can still coexist in the same sentence!

It may just be that there are more conditions necessary for a person to believe in a faith...however much sense that makes.

no, in a theory u believe it or you dont. theres no other conditions involved you either believe that man evolved from the great apes or they didnt, end of story (no morals or ethics involved).

a faith/religion is much more complex than that. a faith has a bunch of moral values (ethics) attached to it. like the 10 comandments is the basic foundation of the christian faith along with the idea that god created the world and man. if you believe in that religion you will follow most of them (as well as other practises by the church) and also some practises and ethics that people who do not have that faith wouldnt normally follow.

and yes im sure that most people who arent religious dont comit murder and all that as well, but thats not beacuse of the ethics or morals that would be involved in the theory of evolution. they made those choices based on what they think not because the theory of evolution told them to, and thats one difference.

another difference is that a theory is not stated as a fact, and if you listen to any religion they're not like ok we think but were not 100% sure that god created the world... they state it as a fact that god did create man and the world.

theories are not stated as a fact, and they let you set you own morals and ethics, a faith or religion tells you what they are or should be and states their views as facts.

[Mr. Clandestine]

As we learn more about genetics, we begin to understand how a small genetic mutation can result in a huge change in the organism.

But, it still would not be feasible to assume that the species of the organism could ever be changed into an entirely difference species by a mutation, small or large. In this respect, I could also consider myself a scientist. Because until I see definitive proof that a horse managed to evolve into a cow due to a random genetic abnormality, and even then...see it replicated, I still find plenty of reason to doubt the authenticity of the theory.

By the way, on the face of it, what I said was very disrespectful, and I want you to know I was just joking around!

Don't worry about it. :thumbsup:

I knew you weren't trying to deliberately be offensive. In fact, as soon as I posted that little comment, I was just waiting for someone to come back with a similar quote! No harm done.

[Mr. Clandestine]

I posted a large list of these fossils here a few pages back:
http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...ml#post1694563
There are loads of them, the list I posted is not exhaustive.

I remember reading those, but I won't lie...I'm familiar with very few of the species in question. Certainly not familiar enough to pose any kind of rebuttal. But, from what I do know about the theory of macro-evolution, transitional fossils that definitively prove that a certain species evolved into a more complex animal are still undocumented. In order for the theory to be proven, there would need to be fossil discoveries that show gradual changes in the structure of the skeleton of the fossils. Hypothetically, scientists can speculate and artists can draw what these fossils should look like, but I'm still under the impression that these specific fossils have yet to be discovered.

Stephen Jay Gould, respected evolutionist and former paleontologist, once stated: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

[BeforeYourTime]

To know that bacteria do evolve, yet deny evolution is the sign of a small narrow mind.

Evolution: Fact and Theory by Richard E. Lenski, Ph.D.
HHMI News: Evolutions Mirror in a Fishs Spines
The Short Proof of Evolution


In the end there can be only one answer.

God does NOT exist, never has , never will.
Carbon Dating has already proved this.
To deny carbon dating is to accept you are ignorant to the point of insanity.

[Delta9 UK]

I remember reading those, but I won't lie...I'm familiar with very few of the species in question.

That's totally understandable but certain ones are pretty famous - Archaeopteryx for example is well known - and creationist even claim it is a hoax - all 11 of them

Really though there are so many examples now that it isn't much of a debate within the mainstream scientific community.

But this is exactly what I mean when I say this topic is not really accessible to the general public - IMHO creationists in the media use this to their advantage.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Really though there are so many examples now that it isn't much of a debate within the mainstream scientific community.

But this is exactly what I mean when I say this topic is not really accessible to the general public - IMHO creationists in the media use this to their advantage.

The media would have you believe that there is a huge debate on the validity of evolution, but there are very few scientists who are actually debating it, only people who havent even studied evolution are saying there should be a debate.

[greg23]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAYYYYY!!!!!!

He's got you there.