Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary theory

so if studying creationsim is optional then shouldn't evloution be optional as well? Or you could make people truly hear both sides of an argument, educate them (like schools do) and then let them decide. I think it's a good plan, aside from evloution, creationism is the only other idea with any base.

(sorry for spelling/grammar, i am very very tired)

i dont understand how creationism has any base. people allways tell me that 'there had to be a creator, because theres so much here it couldnt have come from nothing' and i tell them 'well then where did god come from' and they say 'well hes allways been there' and i say ' why can u beleive that god was allways here if u cant beleive that the universe was allways here' and theyll be like 'well thats the mystery of faith, u just have to accept it' and ill be like ' bitch what reason do i have to beleive this, it doesnt make sense to me, i have no more reason to beleive this than to believe that flying monkeys from a parralel universe are gonna enslave us some day except that creationism is much more widely accepted

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

and just because u think something has a 'base' doesnt meen it does, to u it seems obvious that a higher being created us in our present form, but to me it makes no sense, to me its obvious that we evolved over billions of years to come to where were at, but ill bet theres quite a few people out there that this doesnt make snse to,

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

I would just like to state that reading this discourse has made me feel like one must have felt listening to the Rabbis arguing the Torah and creating the Talmud. J.D., you've put my Intro to Phil. class in a new perspective.

Happy to be of service, now pay your NS tuition fees.

samck, I'm sorry you're so close minded to what different ideas then you're own beliefs may agree with. Fact of the matter is neither argument can't be accepted without taking it on faith. You are taking faith in several things (single-multi cell jump, start of the big bang, evolutionary gaps) as I also am taking faith in my beliefs regarding creationism. The argument here is what should be taught in public school, both have strong points and weaknesses, so why should one not be taught while the other is? neither one is close to be proven 100% true, or being disproved.

creationism makes a lot of sense, and it totally believable. A 50 foot tall man in flowing robes created the world in seven days.

Prins...really... just... oh nevermind, nobody's going to convince you. We both know it. Samck is no more closed-minded than you are, he can't see a reason to accept creationism just as you can't see a reason to reject it. As for whether one should be taught or the other, at least one isn't specific to a religious minority...

Wow- lots of good stuff floating around in this thread. I read most of it (not all, call me lazy), but I'll agree with a few others when I say that there will never be an end to this debate. It is fun and mentally challenging (for me, at least) to think about, but the way I see it, it's a lost cause. Creationism is based on faith, evolution is, in the mind of science minded people, based on research and theories. The two are completely different, so I don't see the point in comparing the two. For those of you who know who Jack Horner is, I spoke with him the other day (he's a professor at the university I attend), and he claimed that even though he believes in evolution, proving evolution is pointless, becuase science is based on disproving theories that arise. He also stated that he views himself as an 'agnostic Christian', one who believes that Christ did many good things, but is still sticking with his views on evolution. Make sense to anyone? I'm definitely not up to par on this issue with alot of you on this (obviously), but I think that the debate is going in circles and not really getting anywhere. Continue on, though- I like reading about it!
____________________
Drop cliffs, not bombs
Make turns, not war

College is for the dumb smart people.

^ makes good sense

prins, i never said i beleive only in evolution, i said that it makes much more sense to me than anything else, it has nothing to do with faith, it just makes more sense to me, and i said that it might not make sense to you just like creationism doesnt make sense to me, how is that close minded?

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

Man, how can you say that evolution is not based on faith?? IT CANNOT BE PROVED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, ie, repeated experiments, because of the scope of time involved.
Therefore, neither Creation nor evolution, by definition, are true science. The law of Gravity is science. Drop a weight 100 times, it will fall 100 times, therefore, it is a law, and therefore, true science.
Both Creation and Evolution are valid theories, and BOTH MUST BE BASED ON FAITH! You are lying to yourself if you say your belief in the theory of evolution is not based on faith!!! It has not, and never will be, definitively proven by science. YOU MUST REALIZE THAT ORIGINS ARE BASED ON FAITH...faith in GOd, in a Cosmic egg, in the big bang, etc etc...how can you people not see this?????


WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

ur totally missing the point dude, the idea im gettin at is that i dont beleive very stronly in it, thats why theres no faith on my part, i see most theories about creation as possibilities, some make more sense to me than others, i dont feel a need to cling to one forever, i will remain open minded about it for the most part, i see no need to make up my mind, and if i needed to i would probly pick evolution, because it makes the most sense to me, not because i have faith in it

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

'and he claimed that even though he believes in evolution, proving evolution is pointless,'

See my previous comment about bias. This is a ludicrous comment! Of course he feels it is pointless to dispove the theory of evolution...because he believes in it!!!

This thread is going nowhere, because neither theory can be either proved or disproved be science or argument or research....BOTH ARE BASED ON FAITH! And faith is soemthing not tangible, that must be in the mind of the beliver.


WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

read the post i just made, and if that doesnt make sense to you, leave this thread, cus ur just not getting it

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

For fuck's sake man, the point of this thread wasn't to disprove creationism, just the argument from design. Read my post on the last page. Nobody can disprove creationism yet, maybe someday, but not yet, and the same goes for the evlutionary theory, which I have no doubt is heavily flawed. This thread was done a long time ago. Read ALL the preceding posts before you run your mouth off.

I understand that it makes more sense but you are still taking certain aspects of it on faith. Certain aspects of evolution do make a lot of sense, but they also do not discount creationism at the exact same time.

unless of course ur talkin to me and i totally missed the point jd, thats what ive been tryin to say, i dont think that your any worse of a person for beleiving in creationism, it just seems less accurate to me.

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

i didnt say it was 100 percent true, or that i even think it has a chance of being 100 percent true, i just think the overall outline seems accurate, i have taken nothing on faith in any way

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

I was talking to Canadianskibum, who apparently missed the point of this thread.

Humm....People will look at this and read whatever they want to read, twist the words so it fits what point they are trying to make...the truth is folks, this could and will go on forever-which maybe some people think is pointless, but its really fascintating to me, you get to use your mind. But, I know that evolution isnt really 'science' and some argue that it shouldnt be taught in the science room if creationism cant. This is true, but you cant just completly skip that whole 'era' or beginning in our curriculum. I mean, it is made known to us as students that evolution isnt the only possibility, just the one with the most scientific research.(Although still lacking) Personally, I think that creationism is something like morals-it belongs at home or with friends and family. I mean, as much as the people who presented this in my schoool try to deny it-it does have something to do with religion which is against the seperation of church and state. It just seems like you couldnt teach anything for it-help me out here....is there really any curriculum?
*live 4 life*
~Shelby~

Humm....People will look at this and read whatever they want to read, twist the words so it fits what point they are trying to make...the truth is folks, this could and will go on forever-which maybe some people think is pointless, but its really fascintating to me, you get to use your mind. But, I know that evolution isnt really 'science' and some argue that it shouldnt be taught in the science room if creationism cant. This is true, but you cant just completly skip that whole 'era' or beginning in our curriculum. I mean, it is made known to us as students that evolution isnt the only possibility, just the one with the most scientific research.(Although still lacking) Personally, I think that creationism is something like morals-it belongs at home or with friends and family. I mean, as much as the people who presented this in my schoool try to deny it-it does have something to do with religion which is against the seperation of church and state. It just seems like you couldnt teach anything for it-help me out here....is there really any curriculum?
*live 4 life*
~Shelby~

i dont mind that it good go for ever, i like discussing this kinda stuff, and theres a few on this site with interesting views to bring to the table

by arguing about my ideas it helps me to comprehend them much better


'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

'For fuck's sake man, the point of this thread wasn't to disprove creationism, just the argument from design....'

Yeah man maybe im not getin it...I really dont uderstand the meaning of that sentence....what do you mean by the argument from design?

This thread is about whether or not creation should be taught in the schools, and I am making a point in response to several people who stated that they did not 'take anything on faith' and yet belived in evolution.

My point, which I think I effectively made, was that both are based on faith, both are valid theories, and therefore both belong in the schools. Simple, you have a right to choose whichever you want, with an open mind.

I meant no disrespect, and if someone has a valid counterpoint to my argument, not mindless profanities, i would like to hear it.

PEACE



WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

dude ur really not getting it, i just told u like 8 times that i dont 'beleive' in evolution, i agree that they should both be taught in schools, i think students should be presented with a lot of ideas on this topic, and here for the 20th time, I DONT BELEIVE IN EVOLUTION, IT JUST MAKES MORE SENSE O ME THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

The argument from design goes as follows (Basically, read Reverend William Paley's article on it if you want the whole thing):

''God must exist, because the universe is infinitely complex and everything in it serves a purpose. Only an infinitely intelligent Creator could have made such a universe. To put it another way, if you were walking through the forest and came upon a watch, would you assume the watch had come into existence on its own? Or would you rather infer the existence of a watch maker, who had assembled many intricate parts in a fashion that served a purpose?''

THAT is what the thread was about. That's what the class in shelbiski's school, ''Intelligent design'' will primarily be teaching. This whole argument got off topic.

I do not doubt evolution, but within its limits. It is absurd to believe that any 'animal' could possibly evolved from bacteria. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that an (for example) eye evolved. An eye is complex and has many, many parts to function at all, an organism will not over any period of time accquire one of these parts of an eye, it would be useless to have a cornea and no receptors, and it is certainly biologically impossible for an organism to just pop up with a complete eye. Now an eye is probably a poor example but you know what I mean. Another point that i believe JD_may said earlier in this forum is that the most effective life is the simplelist... How did such complex organisms like us come about then?
Conclusively there must have been a creator, a guider, an artist, an 'evolver'. The complexity of life on earth certainly proves a god's existance.
________________________________________

One truly finds himself on razors edge seperating his genius from his sanity.

^Clearly you either didn't read my post at all, or didn't understand a word of what I said. The idea that there must have been a 'Great engineer' who made the world simply because it's all so complicated makes no sense given that one of the basic principles of engineering is to keep it simple. If there was a God, he would have made things in the simplest possible functional manner. Your logic, therefore, makes no sense.

AS I AM NOW PUTTING AT THE BOTTOM OF EVERY POST IN THIS THREAD: I'M NOT ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THAT CREATIONISM IS WRONG, ONLY THAT THIS PARTICULAR WAY OF PROVING CREATIONISM MAKES NO SENSE.


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

yes my ramble on simplicity will tkae both sides and I should of omitted it. niether Evolution and Intellectual design can be effectively proven, so we must dissprove one or the other. Intellectual design I cannot say can be disproven since it is based primarily on faith of a god. Evolution on the other hand can be disproven with archeological and biological evidence. The complexity of the world and the organisms on it I believe disproves evolution. I'll use the eye again. Can you honestly tell me it is possible over however many millions of years you like for bacteria to evolve into an organism with an eye? There is no way, no possiblity of adaptation, birth defect, natural selection, nothing could create an eye. It is too complex to just come about and it is absurd to say, I'm sure you agree, that an organism will evolve 'parts' of an eye until it has a functional one.
________________________________________

One truly finds himself on razors edge seperating his genius from his sanity.

yes my ramble on simplicity will tkae both sides and I should of omitted it. niether Evolution and Intellectual design can be effectively proven, so we must dissprove one or the other. Intellectual design I cannot say can be disproven since it is based primarily on faith of a god. Evolution on the other hand can be disproven with archeological and biological evidence. The complexity of the world and the organisms on it I believe disproves evolution. I'll use the eye again. Can you honestly tell me it is possible over however many millions of years you like for bacteria to evolve into an organism with an eye? There is no way, no possiblity of adaptation, birth defect, natural selection, nothing could create an eye. It is too complex to just come about and it is absurd to say, I'm sure you agree, that an organism will evolve 'parts' of an eye until it has a functional one.
________________________________________

One truly finds himself on razors edge seperating his genius from his sanity.

First of all, you obviously don't know what intellectual design IS, because it isn't based on faith in God, it's based on the intent to prove the existence of God, something entirely different from having faith. Secondly:

'It is too complex to just come about and it is absurd to say, I'm sure you agree, that an organism will evolve 'parts' of an eye until it has a functional one.'

I don't agree at all. There are many documented cases of animals which have partially evolved or developed parts, for example, whales have hip bones, which serve no purpose whatsoever, but if they were to continue to develop as a species, they may need them at some point. Since I realize that that example is somewhat vague, how's this:

CAVE FISH HAVE HALF DEVELOPED EYES.
Ridiculous my ass, it exists! Cave fish have eyes that are partially 'evolved'! They're there, but they don't have all the necessary components to work. Explain that one.

Realistically, your argument is self defeating. Complexity in nature is what disproves the argument from design; evolution REQUIRES complexity, requires superfluous, unnecessary parts and underdeveloped organs. You don't appear to have understood the premise of the argument. Did you read the first page? Please, people, go back and read what others have already said... there's some extremely high-level thinking in this thread that either precludes, disproves or explains what you may be thinking of posting.

AS I AM NOW PUTTING AT THE BOTTOM OF EVERY POST IN THIS THREAD: I'M NOT ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THAT CREATIONISM IS WRONG, ONLY THAT THIS PARTICULAR WAY OF PROVING CREATIONISM MAKES NO SENSE.


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

J.D. ...before I get my hands dirty in this, I want to say that you are one of the most logical and flawless posters in this forum EVER.

SECOND. Tim, I agree with alot of what you say, you're obviously an intelligent person, although i may disagree with a few things you have to say.


Okay. Here I go. This thread originally began with someone complaining about the new curriculum in their school. Unless you go to a religious institution, christian school, whatever, school, as in government, should NOT involve religion. That's why there is no longer prayer in school. Why, then, should we introduce a theory involving a religious figure?

I was listening to the CBC(Canadian broadcasting Corp.) yesterday, and they were talking about how Georgia had removed the teaching of evolution from their educational system. Wow. Yes, you're right, we weren't there so it isn't proven. But it has a hell of a lot more evidence than a 'god' creating every damn thing on this planet. As J.D. has shown, there is evidence in evolution everywhere we look. People say that this is so complex, how could it have come from chaos, I can say this is so complex, how could one being create everything? 'because he's supreme, blah blah'. Okay, then why does he experience emotions such as anger in the bible? A supreme, omnipotent being such as god would not unleash massive floods because he had a fit. You say a universe, something of this magnitude, could never have happened at random, I say that the idea of a being of that kind of power is absurd.

I'm just sick of hearing people hacking at science like zealots, and feeling that they can defend their argument with 'you just have to have faith'. Whenever someone starts preaching and we get in a debate over it, I always end up driving the preacher back to the point where all they say, vehemently, is 'you just have to have faith'. bah.

As you may notice, i'm rambling incessantly now, but I can't help it. As for Stephen Hawking and saying there had to be a supreme being, that's B.S. Stephen Hawking has mathematically proven way more things contradicting the bible than anyone else, and i'm fairly sure he believes in such things as evolution and the big bang.

People talk about miracles that happened, burning bushes and parted waters, and I would be all for that, were these anomalies only explained as being presented by the divine still occuring today. Who's seen any signs that god's been on our case lately?

For evolution, I can't think of a theory of why we could make a mistake in believing in it. I don't know exactly how to explain what i'm saying, but think about it like this...

What better way to control the masses than to tell them that if they steal, murder, or commit other 'sins', they will burn for eternity. What better way to have them obey you than to convince them you are a king who is a 'descendant of god'(as many of them claimed to be). It gives you the right to do anything, as long as the people blindly 'have faith' in what you say. It makes perfect sense. How many scientists were hung at the command of the priest class because they said such blasphemous things such as 'the world is round', or 'the whole universe does not revolve around the moon'. I'm sure millions of religious followers would love to see certain figures of authority who disprove or oppose religion hung today.

J.D., Tim, everyone, you can't argue against something somebody believes in so deeply, such as religion or science. It's like telling someone that they've been lied to, and the colour which they see as yellow is truly the colour orange. These are just some of my opinions and thoughts, and I don't want somebody backlashing with 'shutup you stupid f*ck'. I'm just putting in my 2 cents, things that don't really seem logical to me.

Crimson



Mayor of NS Isle

If you don't make it the first time, you need to go bigger

ok im not saying i think your wrong, because i agree with a lot of that stuff, but like i said at least 10 times earlier, just because something seems obvious to you doesnt mean it seems that way to others, or that its true, and by telling someone that there ideas are stupid, ur not really going to get anywhere with them, remember, ur not going to change peoples minds by arguing with them, even if you get them to shut up, u wont change there minds

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

good points crimsons.

And on the burning bush thing, in the middle east there IS bush that to help carry out its metabolism in the dry hot weather it actually produces very flabible checmicals. Sparks from falling rocks have been known to light the entire buch on fire.

if you really look at it theres a way to explain most of christs miracles, and the ones thast you cant are usually because they happened 2000 years ago, and i imagine some details have been forgotten

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

ive seen david copperfield perform 'miracles' is he the messiah

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

hum
*live 4 life*
~Shelby~

When I said that intelectual design is based on faith of god meant that in order to believe or accept ID one must believe in a god. And unless one disproves a god one cannot disprove intellectual design... do not confuse that statement with one can prove god with intellectual design.

Whales with hipbones I will agree with you it is too vague, no purpose that we can find now, may of had one may have one later, but totally different from an eye (I'll stick to that example I like it)

Cave fish...with half evolved eyes. Easy. The fish did not evolve 'half' of an eye; simply a already-evolved fish um de-evolved half an eye. Ok that did sound very ignorant but is logically the only assumption one could make. If someone could explain how anything ccould evolve such complex features I would agree with you.
________________________________________

One truly finds himself on razors edge seperating his genius from his sanity.

Really, you're spewing total crap that makes no logical sense. How old are you? I'd hate to think I was wasting my time here, but you don't seem to have a grasp on logic.

Firstly, you have to believe in a God to believe in ID, but it doesn't follow that you have to disprove God to disprove ID, just as disproving ID doesn't disprove God. You're missing a point of preclusion, and essentially what you've said is that ID is a perfectly sound and convincing argument to make people believe in God as long as they already believe in God (Have faith). ''unless one disproves a god one cannot disprove intellectual design'' is simply a false statement. It's true disproving the existence of a God WOULD disprove ID, but it's not the ONLY way to do so.

Secondly, you think things can de-evolve but not evolve? Are you on crack, or what? It's the same damn principle, animals which do not have things they need develop them over generations, while animals that have things they do not need lose them over generations (IE: Whale hip bones). Your rebuttal is completely unfounded.

Finally, have you ever considered that the argument is completely open-ended as far as polytheism is concerned? According to it, there could easily hav been multiple Gods making this oh-so-complex universe.

Teleological proof of God just doesn't work. It's a weak argument, and there is not strong position from which to defend it. Even if you could completely disprove all scientific theories, and there was no visible alternative to ID, it would still be a bad theory because of the problems within itself.


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

On San Francisco: ''that was like the starting place of gayness and aids in the eighties.'' -Tandan83

well said jd,

for all of you who dont understand how the process of evolution works, i would like to try and explain it, every new generation, traits are passed down from the parents to the offspring, the offspring do not get exactly their parents traits tho, there are small mutations in every generation, these mutations or changes could be a longer pincky, or a primitive eye. then natural selection weeds out the bad changes, the individuals with 'bad' traits, or traits that do not work are removed from the gene pool, and the good traits are passed on, the bad traits are not necessarily weeded out in one generation but over some ammount of time.

anyways, for an eye to evolve, it would take millions of years thousands of generations. if you think about it in this way it is hardly inconcevable that an eye could have come to be by means of evolution, and how something infinitely more usefull could be developed in millenia to come.

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

I don't care how much you prove evolution, it is still possible a god oversaw it. Therefore, like I said, the only way to disprove ID is to dosprove a God. Now yes it is a totally different matter to decide if ID can prove god. Which is your arguement.

I poorly stated the statement on cave fish. It is more likely they 'de-evolve' their eyes, with or with out a god, than they evolved a disfunctional eye. Actually I would use 'more likely' but I dont know what I would use but anyways you get my point.

Polytheism is still ID so i was partly wrong. ID proves the existance of god(s).
________________________________________

One truly finds himself on razors edge seperating his genius from his sanity.

Ok Before I start I have to point out the first thing that's completely unfounded: you saying that '' It is more likely they 'de-evolve' their eyes, with or with out a god, than they evolved a disfunctional eye'' makes me ask how in hell you concluded that? Why is it more likely? There's no possible standard by which you can measure that.

Secondly: ''I don't care how much you prove evolution, it is still possible a god oversaw it. Therefore, like I said, the only way to disprove ID is to dosprove a God.''

You clearly cannot read! Not only did I specifically say that you don't need to prove evolution to disprove ID, but you just say the same thing after it's been shown to be logically false! Forget about evolution! IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THIS ARGUMENT! Intelligent design is WRONG because it contains INCORRECT PREMISES that I've already pointed out. Just give it up already, posting the same drivel over and over again after it's been shown logically to be false is a waste of everyone's time.

Here it is again, in case you missed it or ignored it: you have to believe in a God to believe in ID, but it doesn't follow that you have to disprove God to disprove ID, just as disproving ID doesn't disprove God. You're missing a point of preclusion, and essentially what you've said is that ID is a perfectly sound and convincing argument to make people believe in God as long as they already believe in God (Have faith). ''unless one disproves a god one cannot disprove intellectual design'' is simply a false statement. It's true disproving the existence of a God WOULD disprove ID, but it's not the ONLY way to do so.

Simply put, you're wrong, because your argument makes no sense.


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

On San Francisco: ''that was like the starting place of gayness and aids in the eighties.'' -Tandan83

^So what you're saying is 'ID proves existence of God, existence of God proves ID.'??
---------------------------------------------------------
'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.'

^Sigh...no, that's what I'm syaing HE was saying. His argument is circular, but he apparently has difficulty seeing that.


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

On San Francisco: ''that was like the starting place of gayness and aids in the eighties.'' -Tandan83

J.D., when I was writing my reply your post wasn't up yet, so I was actually referring to fulltiltrocker's post. I think I should use names instead of these^^.

---------------------------------------------------------
'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.'

i thought this was gonna go forever, but when i leave for a couple o days it dies

'hey can i have a butload of cash?... NO'
Johnny d in the cribs segment of 1242

Bumping this so people can understand what shelbyski's latest thread is all about...


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

''Gay people are fags'' -Atlantaski

''dude i am literat i just cant spell worth shit u got prob with it bitch'' -Bridgerbowlskier

''Gay marriages are gay.'' -SUpilot

'if it werent for women, i wouldnt have to wear condoms' -Hucksterjibber

nice, maybe we can get it goin again


____________________

high north session 2 biotch

Are they necesarily mutually exclusive theories? Does evolution disprove creation or does creation disprove evolution? Is evolution not just a continuation of creation? How can something come from nothing, for example, how did matter come into existence without something to trigger this, how can matter, a physical particle (or group of particles), come from nothing; from space? Mustn't there have been something there before, and how did this entity come into existance if there was nothing there before it? To create (or evolve into) this entity? Is a logical answer would be to comment that whatever this entity is then it must have always existed?

There are a few questions to work through, I do not expect solid proof, just opinions. I wouldn't say I knew a lot about the subject, but I know enough to understand the majority of this thread so far.

I do personally have a faith in God, but this does not remove me from investigation. I am all for pushing science towards proof or dis-proof, I do however doubt this would ever happen. Personal experience would dictate to me that God is real, that I have a real relationship with him and that His acts in this world are real. Do not feel like these views obscure my logic, they merely question it sometimes, because sometimes I believe God does not act in ways logical to myself.
********

I Like To Ski

the Bible has been translated and translated over and over again! the truth that MAY have once been in it has been bent so the leaders of the times can say what they want in it. evolution may not be that solid however it sure has been under research for a damn long time. I think that there is way more facts (or atleast ideas, becasue that is really all the bible is, ideas) supporting evolution than this religous idea of creation. I admit that for some and the bible is easyer to beleve but I still think it is at the least deceptive.

that being said there is really more than one side to this arguement. It could be that say god created somthing and it evolved. (for example)


======================================
Boycott Ipod!