[achampio21]

... Anybody watch the history channel yesterday. It was titled "Antichrist" and it taught me A LOT about the history of religions. Funny how christianity REALLY started. And does anyone know just how MANY gods were believed in BEFORE christ was even thought of? And explain to me how if God created Adam and Eve that God and christianity didn't come about until how many thousands of years later?? And what proof again is there that Jesus was the true son of God, because it looks to me that there have been about 10 or 12 antichrists and each time they die or don't turn out to fit scripture "JUST right" all of sudden everyone "forget" they called them the antichrist. But hey, the history channel also showed me that there is "PROOF" of Leonardo DaVinci coming up with flying machines, and machine guns and many many more inventions hundreds of years before they were actually built... Wait I know what you will say GOD gave him that brain to think of those things... but here's something for you to chew on...

THE FRUIT THAT EVE ATE THAT GOT HER AND ADAM KICKED OUT OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN WAS FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. AND IT WAS FORBIDDEN WHY? GOD DIDN'T WANT US TO BE SMART?

[sassyT]

sassyT and her approach is a perfect example of that. Asked for her objective supporting evidence for what she BELIEVES to be "true" she does not - can not - provide any support for that, so she attacks other world views.

I have given you ample objective supported historical, scientific, achaelogical and testimonial evidence for My Beliefs and you dismissed them and refused to acknowledge their validity without even refuting them with any evidence. The simple reason is because you are so zealous about your own religious BELIEFS that you are unwilling to at least acknowlege that there is objective evidence for Bible creadibility and you are unwilling to ingage in an intelligent debate about it. All you do is make empty subjective claims about what your feel about religion.

She demands proof for instance for a scientific theory as Evolution, every time suggesting that Evolution is completely incorrect. Even if there is freely loads of back-up support available for anyone who wants to see that.

Unlike you I do not believe Evolution is anywhere near probable given the unproven assuptions it makes on genetic mutation and the inconclusive, almost non existent fossil evidence. You admit that the so called evidence is not conclusive enough to make it a fact like gravity and yet you get mad when I say your belief in the theory is a BELIEF. Why? If you can't prove something factual but you believe it anyway... FYI that is a BELIEF.

Than she introduces straw man arguments by focusing on small sections of the theory that are not or poorly supported, and attacks them as being invalid. Time dating is a perfect example of that approach. In her belief all history has to fit into an approx 6000 year period , claimed by religious fanatics to be the age of the earth and the entire universe.

Lol.. I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old niether do I believe in the bogus 4.3 billion years you subscribe to. The FACT is the age of the earth is unknowable. If you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years.. that is your BELIEF based on the FAITH you have in the methods used to date it.
Radio Dating depends upon at least 5 unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS as a premise therefore its accuracy is highly questionable. Scientists started saying the earth was 70million years old until they realised evolution needed billions of years to make anywhere near possible. Now they claim the earth is billions of years old. How convenient. :rolleyes:

She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.

You are sadly mislead because a lot of your friends here have said and I quote "evolution is a fact like Gravity".. lol and therefore I asked for 100% factual evidence and I am yet to see it.

All that is stated is that Evolution explains the major lines of the development process from the first living cell to everything that is living today. A process backed up with lot's of supported evidence.

ANd I have also presented objective supported evidence against the theory.

Not 100% full coverage, as that is impossible.

It is very possible if it were true... If it were true we would have billions of sequential fossils of strange transitional animals from the last 4.3 billion years ameoba to man. How ever as Stephen Gould so articulately said fossils that have been found thus far appear abruptly and fully formed offering no support for gradual change.

It is already remarkable that fossils many millions of years old have been found and identified. And that earth layers are found that back up and confirm what other theories say has happened on earth hundreds of millions of years ago.
The same goes for a scientific thesis like the "Big Bang", also supported by loads of inter- and cross- linking evidence from many different sources.
In both examples the claim itself is just denied by her and her peers, and the focus is put on what support is not available, and not on what is available

Other scientist have rejected the Big bang theory and have exposed the flaws of the thoery that would make it utterly impossible. Just because you BELIEVE you came from a big bang does not mean I should believe the same thing without conclusive proof.

As per many previous posts : it is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. No problem.
I wonder however why people like sassyT refuse that same tolerance into the direction of those who do not believe in her deity/deities and who pursue different ways to search and explain for what happened and how that happened without any need for such deity/deities, and who over the last hundreds of years have produced (partly) objective supporting evidence for many scientific theory and thesis.

Everyone is allowed to believe what they want in peace and I just wish you Dawinists Athiests or Humanist would understand that and just leave us Theists alone. After all like I have said a million times before, This is a RELIGIOUS forum so don't come here to undermine our beliefs and expect me to sheepishly keep quite.
I will without fail, defend my beliefs and expose the flaws in yours.
If you don't like what theists believe then why do you spend so much time on a religious forum? :confused: You are the one who is forcing and shoving your beliefs down our throats. If I was at all interested in Humanism I would be on an atheist forum right now but I am NOT because I couldn't care less about what athiests believe. Apparenty you REALLY care about our beliefs and you have been trying to convert everyone to your BELIEFS by your propaganda that says your beliefs are backed by evidence and our are not. If that is what you really BELIEVE.. then good for you. Now move on.

[asking]

You are sadly mislead because a lot of your friends here have said and I quote "evolution is a fact like Gravity".. lol and therefore I asked for 100% factual evidence and I am yet to see it.

SassyT, You have provided no evidence in support of your theory of Creationism by God. How about another challenge: Please provide "100% factual evidence" that Newton's ideas about gravity are correct.

To help you, I am providing Wikipedia's description of gravity, below. Gravity should be easy for you to prove since it's somehow "truer" than evolution, at least for you. If you cannot prove either gravity or creationism, how do you justify demanding proof of evolution?

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses:

F = G \(m1 X m2)/r^2,

[asking]

If i was at all interested in Humanism i would be on an athiest forum right now

Um. Just for the record, there IS no atheism forum. There is also no evolution forum.

But the topic of evolution comes up with startling frequency on the religion discussion lists even though it is about as religious a topic as trigonometry...
Asking

[Credendovidis]

I have given you ample objective supported historical, scientific, achaelogical and testimonial evidence for My Beliefs and you dismissed them and refused to acknowledge thier validity without even refuting them with any evidence.

That is not true, and by repeating that suggestion again and again while you know it not to be correct you are now lying !
You have NEVER provided OBJECTIVE supporting evidence for the existence of your Christian deity ("God"), and for "God" being the "Creator". You have posted loads of subjective religious based wild claims, but I did not ask for that.
I also repeatedly explained the difference between objective and subjective support, and refer to that difference frequently.

Unlike you i do not believe Evolution is anywhere near probable given the unproven assuptions it makes on genetic mutation and the inconclusive, almost non existant fossil evidence.

You are fully entitled to believe otherwise. But your belief in that respect has no value to the reality of the situation that there is loads of objective supporting evidence to support the scientific Theory of Evolution.

Babble ... babble ... babble

I have warned you repeatedly that unless you make your posts short and to the point, I will only address two points of your post. I simply have no time for your frequent verbal diarrhoea of words that are posted to hide the emptiness of what you really say.

:D

·

[Credendovidis]

Asking , Tuscany , achampio21 : all good points !

Asking : And what about Newton's question on (spinning) water in a (spinning) bucket? That is even today an unsolved problem ! :)

Tuscany : indeed let's be glad for different opinions : that keeps it interesting! The problem is in too many closed minds! ;)

Champ : I could not watch that, but there have been many religions over time, each suiting the need of unsolved questions people had in that period. Only a couple of them became main religions. Just by pure chance! :rolleyes:

:D

[asking]

I would just like to add that just because someone believes something different then you that does not make their views wrong. Just different. There is nothing wrong with differences of opinions, but a truly compassionate person does not judge harshly those people whose views are different from their own.

True. In the case of whether a piece of music is good or bad, there's plenty of room for opinion (although music critics might disagree :) ), and in the case of a particular scientific experiment or set of data, there's room for disagreement about what it might mean.

But I hope it's obvious that not EVERYthing is a matter of opinion. And just because some people disbelieve something doesn't make the issue a matter of opinion. There WAS a holocaust in Europe during World War II. US astronauts DID land on the moon, whatever some people may argue. People can be totally wrong despite holding passionate opinions.

We can feel compassionate towards people who hold seemingly bizarre opinions about known facts, but that doesn't have to mean politely agreeing with what they say.

[asking]

Credendovidis wrote:

She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.

I did, I confess.

I could qualify it, but not much. I would say that evolution is as much a fact as any other accepted scientific dogma, including gravity, the cell theory, germ theory, and thermodynamics. Physicists' use of the word "law" to describe their accepted theories is primarily a cultural difference between physical science and biological science, not an indication of any difference in credence given to germ theory and Boyle's law by practitioners.

[shatteredsoul]

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE. What you see to be quite clear and obvious to you is absolutely baffling to someone else. HOW could everything NOT be different for each person? Each person is different in that, they analyze, interpret, understand and hear things that are unique to that individual and thus, their perspective varies with each person as well.

THis is why everyone does not think, feel or act the same. IT is another amazing trait that humans have. WE may disagree, or disbelieve something but that doesn't make it any less true or accurate for someone else to agree with or believe.
If that were the case, why doesn't every scientist or doctor agree on different theories or methods of treatment or how to find cures..

NOT ONLY ARE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS, PERSPECTIVES OR OPINIONS NECESSARY, THEY ARE CRITICAL TO EACH SOCIETY IN ORDER TO GROW, LEARN AND ADAPT TO NEW INFORMATION.

WHAT ABOUT IN ELECTING PEOPLE, SHOULD WE ALL HAVE THE SAME OPINION ABOUT WHO TO VOTE FOR AND WHO IS A WORTHY CANDIDATE?

COME ON, THE STATEMENT OF "BUT I HOPE THAT ITS OBVIOUS THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION" , IS NOT ONLY ILLOGICAL, ITS PROFOUNDLY UNTRUE.

RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVES ABOUT LIFE, RELIGION, POLITICS OR ANYTHING IS IMPORTANT, SO IS BEING OPEN TO IT. NO ONE EXPECTS EVERYONE TO AGREE. THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE WRONG, YOU THINK THAT IF YOU AREN'T AGREEING WITH IT, YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING IT WHEN REALLY IF YOU JUST LISTENED MAYBE YOU WOULD BROADEN YOUR OWN AWARENESS AND COME TO MORE EDUCATED OPINION, PERSPECTIVE OR ONE THAT IS MORE MATURE.. (you don't have to agree with it to do that either.. )

Moreover, music is a great example of what can be viewed by each person as drastically different. To one person it is just noise and to another it is athe sound of an artistic genius. AS with beauty, everything and everyone (as well as our perception of it) is in the eye of each beholder...


Just as one may have faith in religion, or a creator, or a greater existence, another may have faith in Evolution, no creator and nothing existent greater than us. EACH cannot be proved or disproved and thus we are all trying to figure out what NONE OF US can truly know for a fact. What makes the most sense to you, in your experience is what you believe, it is the same for everyone else. FAITH in not believing is still faith..

I AM NOT A RELIGIOUS person, I AM NOT A THEIST, A DEIST or any other label, so don't put me in that category I AM SIMPLY ME.

[asking]

Look Asking i don't care who came up with the theory

If you are going to critique an entire field, let alone dismiss it, you should know its major ideas and where they came from! This is basic scholarship. You've taken a lot of trouble to learn stuff; you should get it right. Eldridge and Gould's 1972 paper contributed virtually nothing to modern evolutionary biology, simply recapping allopatric speciation, known for decades earlier, which explains how speciation can occur rapidly--reproductive isolation, followed by intense selection pressure on small populations with lots of genetic variation. You say mutations contain no information, but presumably you accept that genetic variation does exist--that a gene may come in many different forms. This is a measurable fact of modern genetics, not a theory. Once that genetic variation is in place, any process that favors one allele over another will lead to genetic change--i.e. evolution.

Some creationists have argued that there are no examples of artificial selection leading to new species, but that's an objection based on word definition. In fact, a chihauha and a great dane would CERTAINLY be identified as separate species--and therefore new species distinct from wolves or dogs--if chihauhaus and great danes were found in the wild. So we HAVE created huge changes in the form of animals to make new species in a very short amount of time. Some breeds of dogs (e.g. beagles and Irish setters) are even reproductively isolated--that is they cannot breed together and make fertile puppies. Reproductive isolation is one definition of a species. By any biological measure, an Irish setter is a new species created by the hand of man.

but the bottom line is the fossil evidence was abrupt and offers no support for gradual transition

This is simply false. The fossil record offers support for both stasis and gradual evolution. Even if all evolution was rapid, as you seem to suggest (instead of often gradual or morphologically static), how would that help your case? Rapid evolution offers no support for Special Creation.

Now, if you could show that the first dinosaurs appeared before a likely ancestor--say the first fish--you could provide evidence that would undermine evolution. But no one has produced any evidence that species and families appeared out of order in the fossil record.

No, what he was trying to do was make an excuse for the "missing link".

Could you please define "the missing link"? What would this missing link look like if it existed and which two fossils would it link?

Fossils cannot show evidence of descent with modification even in principle.

That's a good argument, because, literally, it's true. But molecular genetics can show evidence of relatedness. And the larger patterns in the fossil record DO provide evidence of a pattern of descent with modification. Mammals are descended from "mammal-like reptiles" of the fossil record, which are descended from amphibians, which are descended from fish. Molecular evidence supports this. Comparisons of anatomy independently confirm this. And studies of developmental biology (embryology) confirm yet again, and also independently.

In the fossil record, the first amphibians don't show up until after the first fish; the first mammals don't show up until after the first mammal like reptiles, and the first humans don't show up until after the first apes. It's clear that the fossil record is ORDERED in time. A Creationist theory needs to account for why that might be so, since an all powerful god could easily make the first mammals long before the first fish. Why would HE create the illlusion of a time-ordered sequence of events if there wasn't one?

And, also, why would God make all those side lineages you mentioned that end in extinction? Was he punishing bad whales or termites for committing crimes against nature? How can you explain such an obvious pattern of species generation and extinction, proliferation and death? Is such destruction of life really the work of a loving, all powerful god?

All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata so do Plants. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner said "… I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history for even one group of modern plants.

Read the full quote and you'll see that once again he is bemoaning the absence of fossil plants. Plants fossilize poorly because most of them are soft and rot too fast to fossilize.

Here's the full quote from Corner, which shows that he believes plants evolved if you can follow his somewhat complicated prose.

The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh)

When Corner says "to the unprejudiced" it's a pretend politeness. He really means "to the ignorant," but is being tongue in cheek. It's a subtle joke.

Evolutionists said the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago until it was discovered in the waters of Madagascar.

I thought I lost my sweater until it turned up after all in the trunk of my car. I was almost as delighted to find it as the woman who recognized the first ceolocanth.

What could be cooler than discovering a species you thought was an extinct fossil actually has actually survived millions of years longer and, in all those years, apparently didn't leaving a fossil? (How did the coelocanth manage to not leave a fossil? Does this mean that organisms are living between the layers of known fossil evidence? See unexplained gaps in fossil record.)

Anyway, there are other lobe finned fishes. Surviving, doesn't mean a species didn't also exist earlier and split into several species. Unlike an individual person like a great uncle or a grandmother, a species can exist for millions of years along side descendants. There is no contradiction there.

.. . Mutations can not possibly explain the biological diversity in our world.

The problem is simply that mutation by definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect. Evolutionist do admit to this fundamental flaw in their theory but it is never publicized.

Biologists do not "admit" anything like that. No one thinks that every change in the DNA is going to turn out to be useful in a given time. But mutations aren't all necessarily bad either. A mutation's usefulness depends on circumstances. There aren't good mutations and bad ones. Just what works for a given individual at a given time. Every letter of information in your DNA represents a mutation from your past. That's a lot of good information, a lot of good mutations built up over billions of years. How can you disown what makes you you?

many world class biologists never fully accepted the validity of Dawins theory.

Name a single member of the National Academy of Sciences who is a biologist would repudiate evolution. As far as I know, not one of the handful of self proclaimed "biologists" who support intelligent design is a practicing biologists, let alone "world renowned." None is a biologist who has ever spent time studying whole organisms in the field. If you spend your life with testtubes and chemicals, like Behe and Denton, instead of getting out in the field and really seeing how life lives, you'll never get an accurate sense of what makes life tick. It's little wonder that the two or three "biologist" IDers are all lab rats. Behe is renowned for his anti-biological arguments in books pitched to religious people. He is not a renowned scientist.

Coping errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information as the theory of evolution demands.

Why not? What do you think the sickle cell mutation is if not an allele that is sometimes useful and sometimes deadly? It is new information caused by a simple change in the sequence of bases in the DNA. If you have sickle cell anemia (one copy) you are a "mutant" with a problem. If you have one copy of the gene, you are not only normal, but better than people without the gene because you have resistance to malaria.

If God wanted to do people a favor by giving them resistance to malaria, then why punish them by giving their kids sickle cell anemia? This is the kind of random cruelty that evolution produces; and evolution explains it. What God would do such a thing and why? The only answer to that question is that "God works in mysterious ways," i.e. "Who knows?" Which is no kind of answer.

[NeedKarma]

^^
My God! That was beautiful!

[shatteredsoul]

That is quite a bit of scientific information that you put out there and I think you might have really made NeedKarma smile.. I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive. If everything in the universe could be explained by evolution, that would be one thing but we don't even know what other superior beings or species that are out there on other planets, nor do we know if we are aware of all the planets. From what I understand, the origination of the universe cannot be explained or proven by evolution, so how can you be so resolute to just deciding how this earth was formed, or where we came from.

Why couldn't the creator just be responsible for creation and that is it? Not for what happens to us? Why have the view of being cruel or random, when rather it is just a consequence of a specific action. There is no reason to think A creator would do anything other than create. Not to control, judge, punish, change or save... We are on our own..
That doesn't disprove the existence of a creator that is greater than what we can understand.
You understand scientific facts because they make sense to you, I get that... but those facts don't explain the mystery of the creation of the universe or the life forms that may or may not exist on each planet that surrounds us.. In fact, with all the information and technology we have, it will be considered outdated and heavily flawed within the next fifty years.
We aren't capable of understanding everything, isn't that in and of itself a mystery that cannot be solved or proven? It doesn't make it any less true..

[asking]

That is quite a bit of scientific information that you put out there and I think you might have really made NeedKarma smile.. I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive.

I've been arguing with SassyT in FAVOR of evolution, not with you against the existence of God. Sassy has been saying that life did not evolve, basically denying the greatest miracle on Earth. I am not arguing against believing in God. That's a personal choice.

I am arguing against the idea that for someone to believe in God they have to reject basic science--whether it's evolution, geology, astronomy or genetics. Science is a central part of our culture, the tool that allows us to make technological progress, solve our problems and make everyone's lives easier. It doesn't make sense for churches to pit themselves against science, which is just a way of trying to understand things--things like what makes tomatoes grow well, why they taste good (or don't), how to fix a sick person, why the sky is blue, and so on.

I would love it if the science explaining how rainbows occur could be appreciated with the same awe and wonder as rainbows themselves. Even if you want to give ultimate credit for a rainbow to God, at least appreciate the details of the handiwork, the physics of light...

[Credendovidis]

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE.

Absolutely is a word too often misused by - specially - theists.
Not everything is a matter of opinion or perspective. Only subjects that are open to interpretation can be a matter of opinion or perspective.
1+1=2 is accepted as a fact. The moon and the earth are circling around a common point of axis : that is a fact. Your biological parents had sex, and you are the result : that is a fact. When heavy clouds have to rise or enter an area that is colder, it will rain : that is a fact. There is no objective evidence for the existence of deities : that is a fact.

There are many facts in life. And there is a lot of opinion and matters of perspective. But when we refer to objective supported evidence, we refer to scientifically supported data that is checked and rechecked against any possible mistakes, and found to be passing these tests. Scientifically supported data is data that are facts - well at least till someone finds that there is just an edge to that fact, and upgrades the supporting data accordingly (for instance Einstein and relativity).

Subjective supporting data : yes, that is a matter of opinion, or more importantly a matter of perspective ...

:D

·

[Credendovidis]

..... you should know its major ideas and where they came from!

Excellent post ! Chapeau !

:D

·

[WVHiflyer]

Sassy - Your continued insistence that understanding the scientific method and accepting the conclusions constitutes 'belief' or 'faith,' as you use the terms, shows your ignorance of how science works. I therefore, cannot accept that the school you claim is providing you a 'science masters' degree is accredited in scientific studies at all. (You have also refused, despite being asked, to name that school.) To be working for a master's degree in a real science and to not comprehend the basic methods of scientific investigation makes no rational sense at all.

Every argument you have tried to make against evolution was parroted to me 15+ years ago by a 14-year-old from TN - with the same degree of scientific ignorance, the same failure to adequately counter evidence provided (because there is no indication you have tried to peruse any links given), and the same snide lack of civility under the supposed Christian good will.

So refuse to accept the truism "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Refuse to accept that just about every science you can name is now based on some kind of evolution. Refuse to accept the procedures that guide your supposed course of study. That's between you and your short-sighted religious leader. But stop denigrating those who accept the actual course of science, especially those who also hold on to their beliefs in a god because no matter how you try and deny it, their faiths have no quarrel with their sciences. Just because yours apparently does is the failing of your faith, not theirs. And before you get all huffy about me slamming your religion, stop. My problem is with its (as asserted by you) failure to recognize and accept reality, not its belief in miracles.

[WVHiflyer]

by asking:Eldridge and Gould's 1972 paper contributed virtually nothing to modern evolutionary biology, simply recapping allopatric speciation, known for decades earlier, which explains how speciation can occur rapidly--reproductive isolation, followed by intense selection pressure on small populations with lots of genetic variation.

One example anti-evo uses is the Cambrian Explosion. Thing is, due to the life that had been evolving, the oxygen content of the atmosphere got much higher which may explain the 'suddenness' of the emerging diversity.

And BTW - GREAT POST (def give you a greenie if allowed)

by shatteredsoul:I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive
...
Why couldn't the creator just be responsible for creation and that is it? Not for what happens to us?

by asking:I am arguing against the idea that for someone to believe in God they have to reject basic science

That's what many here have been trying to point out. There is no 'mutual exclusivity' because the two are in non-related areas and neither has anything to say re the other.

[achampio21]

HEY! I saw a falling star tonight. Did God throw it at something or did it's gasses finally burn out and it plummeted out of it's atmosphere? :confused:

And if dinosaurs where here 1000's of years ago but cute little kitty cats weren't, then how did they get here? Did they get CREATED later after the dinosaurs were killed off, because I thought God stopped after seven days. OR did they EVOLVE from something else?:confused:

OH! And this one time at band camp... :p

I know, I know just shut up Champ unless you have something intelligent to add to this debate.:D

But you know what I have to say to that...

NO! :p

[Credendovidis]

HEY! I saw a falling star tonight. Did God throw it at something or did it's gasses finally burn out and it plummeted out of it's atmosphere?

Champ :

Ref. falling stars : it may explain why "God" is so incommunicado...
If he has to throw these trillions of trillions of trillions of microscopic dust particles at all these trillions of trillions of trillions planets all around the universe not even "God" has time left to investigate the "ins" and "outs" of your or my sex life or listen to your or my possible praying and/or request...

:D

Ref. dinosaurs and cats : this is the religious discussion board , so do not ask questions regarding evolution or logic here... Many people get rather easy confused...

:D

·

[achampio21]

I am so terribly sorry, thank you for putting me in my place credo.:o

I will take that question to the evolution forum for discussion... :p

But what if my "religion" is evolution? Then where do I discuss it?:(



Hey have I told everyone lately that I love this site and all of you make my days so much more light-hearted and easy-going!! THANK YOU!! :D