Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Chat about anything
User avatar
Dongus
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: March 18th, 2014, 5:08 pm

Postby Dongus » March 18th, 2014, 6:29 pm

but why'd ya deleet it?

whatever i'll be quiet now

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 12th, 2014, 12:15 pm

My sincerest apologies to this bumping, but I have finally gotten around to watching the full debate and I thought perhaps I could leave a bit of my thoughts here and maybe others have things to add, or dispute, but here is what I took away.

Firstly, the issue I originally had with the concept of the debate still remains. I never really defined it clearly, but hopefully this makes at least a little bit of sense.

The fundamental issue is that this is a battle of vastly different processes and conventions from which to think. As such, disputing the scientific process against religion is an apples to oranges debate.

A rudimentary concept in the religion* is faith. The fantastic core concept of a devout dedication to practice and form and a deep support in the unknown. This is wonderful, it is a display of dedication and belief, however because of that, it is a fixed concept. Whilst practices of science can change in the modern era there is a rudimentary prior assumed belief. It is a devotion to this fixed idea.

Alternatively, the scientific process is a concept through which information travels. It may set up heavily regarded theories that lives, technology and discoveries are based on, but the fundamental process is that everything is a theory, not fixed. As such, it embraces disproving itself as to filter down common knowledge to things we can trust enough in, given our current knowledge to make advances.

They are conceptually incompatible. A beautiful aspect of a belief, or religion is this devout faith despite any evidence to the contrary. That is beautiful because it is a fixed idea, atop any other worldly things, there is this cosmic definitive. A beautiful aspect of science or the scientific process is that it is fundamentally opposite to that, information may be highly regarded, but it can always be disproved if another theory can disrupt its argument.

I will be honest in stating I am not religious, generally I am fairly neutral on the topic. However, that does not mean I cannot respect religion seeing beauty in ideas that I do not necessarily embrace. To me, the debate displayed that the is a fundamental inconsistency that means these two ideologies cannot be better or worse than one another because the two concepts were built upon fundamentally different concepts.

*I am using the term religion in relation to the debates premise, primarily Christianity. Which I strongly dislike placing definitives onto something so diverse and fluid as religions. So, I am using the term religion a bit.. unpleasantly defined.. which is troubling.
Image

User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10959
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Postby Miniike » August 12th, 2014, 12:21 pm

WHY WOULD YOU BUMP THIS

WHY

But talking about the debate itself (since I never touched on it), I don't really care about Creation vs. Evolution either. They are both religions, both unprovable, and therefore rather pointless to discuss. But I do think it's cute when people try to claim they are "not religious", because everyone holds some form of unprovable worldview (e.g. God's existence, or lack thereof).

I think a more concerning issue is just that any religious view, creation or evolution, is being taught in a science classroom, supported by taxpayer dollars.

Secular society indeed.
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 12th, 2014, 12:43 pm

SORRY SORRY :P

Absolutely, I made no mistake is defining both as ideologies. To simply exist there are some assumptions or beliefs that need to be made. You need to believe our data that people will starve if they do not eat, you need to believe that water is required, that thought is possible. Simply put, to act, there as at least some acceptance of truth.

To clarify, I suppose by being not religious, I meant that I was not personally prescribing to any established modern day religions. I wasn't saying that I do not believe things.

As far as evolution being taught in a science classroom, I think it is personally acceptable so long as it is taught as a theory of evolution. I should stress that, I personally believe science, is generally what we theorise, outside of assumed knowledge. Now, of course advances are based on top of other theories, but I think it is generally accepted that if one theory is disproved, an avalanche effect of other theories based on it, would also be disproved or at least need to seek another explanation.

If the argument is that, that the theory of evolution, beliefs of religions and science education should all be three different courses taught. I think that is more of an issue with the educational system, than the theories themselves. Although, there is probably and more eloquent solution that breaking these three concepts off. What are your thoughts?
Image

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » August 12th, 2014, 2:10 pm

Phantomboy wrote:Religion stays the same, and science is ever changing. Therefore the two are incompatible.


I have summarized my understanding of your post above, and that's what my response is to, so please correct me if I misunderstood.

I completely disagree with you here. Our knowledge and understanding of science does change, but protons and neutrons are working exactly the same as they always have. The universe has been following the exact same laws that it always has, and the purpose of science is to discover those laws.

So I don't see how science and "religion" are incompatible.

In fact, during a time in which people thought the earth was flat, the book of Isaiah clearly makes a reference to a spherical earth that God created. Isaiah was no astronomer, he was a Christian.

The Bible is consistent with science.

EDIT:

Here is an article with a whole list of ways that the Bible has articulated scientific concepts that humanity has discovered much later:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 12th, 2014, 2:33 pm

Not exactly what I meant to imply, to summarise, in the religion the debate refers to there is an absolute. God is placed first, and all other after. I am not attempting to generalise, is that a fair definition?

The scientific process, relies on everything being disputable. Even most fundamental theory to the science community, could be disproved. So, I am not speaking of all scientist, but specifically of the scientific process and absolute faith are conceptually opposite.

So, my issue with the debate is that both sides assumed that one side needs to win out over the other, when they are both beautiful and important and impactful and all these things in fundamentally different ways. Which I think is really special and amazing in its own right. So, that is why I am disheartened by the debate.

In regards to the Christian bible, I have no disputes about truths found in it. I mean, if people are making discoveries for any reason, that is fantastic!
Image

User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10959
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Postby Miniike » August 12th, 2014, 3:44 pm

The thing is, the theory of evolution isn't actually a theory. A theory is testable via the scientific method. Evolution has never been observed or created, so it's really not scientific in the slightest. Neither is creation.

Evolution vs Creation concerns scientific things, but it's not a scientific debate.
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 12th, 2014, 4:22 pm

I am not nearly skilled enough in the field to dispute that claim, I am aware there are those who will propose in favour of or against evolution. I cannot claim to know for sure on that. I won't sit and dispute peoples personal beliefs, which is essentially my issue with the debate. Each methods for thinking are fundamentally opposed to one another.

I guess that is primary thought here, debating purely the fundamentals of thinking is an impasse of ideals. Does that sort of make my case a little bit? Or at least sort of give my direction of thinking as a bit of an outsider.
Image

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » August 12th, 2014, 5:41 pm

Phantomboy wrote:In regards to the Christian bible, I have no disputes about truths found in it.


I assume you're referring to scientific truths, yes?

What about the other statements in the Bible, such as "Jesus rose from the dead"?
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 12th, 2014, 10:11 pm

Yes, that was indeed what I was referring to. If you gain anything, rather that be truths in a physical discovery or a personal discovery about your mental state, that is awesome! Like as a literature enthusiast, that is fantastic!

Entity wrote:What about the other statements in the Bible, such as "Jesus rose from the dead"?


Are you asking if that is of the truths I think people have found in the bible? I cannot say for certain. If you personally believe in that sentence, or any of the sentences in the bible - that is absolutely fantastic. That means that those sentences mean enough to you to hold them in high regard, that is a beautiful thing. I feel similarly about scientific discovery.

In terms of me answering that question, I have no more information on that then saying, "Andy is never born" In that, was Andy someone who was/wasn't born? I mean, maybe - but nothing is really gained for garnering an untrained opinion from me. It is such a vague out of context statement, that nothing can really be placed in it other than personal belief or opinion.
Image

User avatar
ElectroYoshi
Well-Known Member
Posts: 11061
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 8:27 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby ElectroYoshi » August 12th, 2014, 10:27 pm

Whether you follow one or not, you have to acknowledge that no two people hold the same religious beliefs. As such, you can't really "disprove" a religion simply because its backstory (for lack of a better, general term) seems implausible to you. Religion means something to me personally, and I believe in God. But notice, I said "believe". People don't know God exists, people don't know the Bible is absolute, people don't know the Quaran is absolute. They believe those things. They all have their own ideas, so you can't know which is true or false.

The thing about religion is that it survives and thrives on faith, not certainty.
I need a shot again, that sweet adrenaline.

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 12th, 2014, 10:41 pm

That was a fantastic stream of my thoughts exactly. I find religion beautiful exactly because of those points you just made. As someone who was raised religious, I can relate exactly. To say that God needs to be proven, to me, removes that faith which many religions hold very dear.

If you are personally faithful, which I was, having a devotion and practice to your god or gods despite having proof or not, is one of the biggest display of your personal affection and trust in your deity.
Image

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » August 13th, 2014, 1:37 pm

Phantomboy wrote:If you are personally faithful, which I was


Are you saying you're not anymore?

ElectroYoshi wrote:Whether you follow one or not, you have to acknowledge that no two people hold the same religious beliefs. As such, you can't really "disprove" a religion simply because its backstory (for lack of a better, general term) seems implausible to you. Religion means something to me personally, and I believe in God. But notice, I said "believe". People don't know God exists, people don't know the Bible is absolute, people don't know the Quaran is absolute. They believe those things. They all have their own ideas, so you can't know which is true or false.

The thing about religion is that it survives and thrives on faith, not certainty.


I have to disagree with you here. You can know something for sure while having faith in it. How do you know that stars aren't really tiny and close to earth? Have you been there and seen them? Have you used a telescope and examined their movements and performed the necessary calculations to prove their distance and size? No, but you can still know with 100% certainty that they are indeed huge and far away.

It's the same thing with Christianity. You're saying that I live in a blind faith, but that's completely untrue. Jesus died on the cross and took my punishment, and he rose from the dead. There were many different witnesses of this who wrote their accounts completely independently (in different books of the Bible). And hundreds of years before that happened, there were a ton of prophets (who's writings are in the old testament) who prophesied the life and death of Christ. Seriously, if you're really interested in finding the truth, look it up. Read the Bible.

Not only that, the Bible is the single most accurately preserved historical document by far.

That's not blind faith, that makes sense. Please, I challenge anyone to give some evidence that the Bible isn't true.

Now, trusting the word of one dude who says he had an encounter with an angel who gave him some gold plates which he translated and then conveniently lost... that's blind faith.
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 13th, 2014, 3:22 pm

Entity wrote:Are you saying you're not anymore?


Eh, that is a fairly hard to define. I was raised religiously and practised as an assistant amughts the youth groups at my local church fairly heavily. As time progressed however, I found myself becoming more of an enthusiast for religion, science, literature and the arts in generally I drifted towards just general appreciation for many manners of thinking.

Entity wrote:It's the same thing with Christianity. You're saying that I live in a blind faith, but that's completely untrue. Jesus died on the cross and took my punishment, and he rose from the dead. There were many different witnesses of this who wrote their accounts completely independently (in different books of the Bible). And hundreds of years before that happened, there were a ton of prophets (who's writings are in the old testament) who prophesied the life and death of Christ. Seriously, if you're really interested in finding the truth, look it up. Read the Bible.


Yes, but it is fair to say that you don't need to know something to have faith in it. Amongst the plethora of religions, people hold faith differently. Just because one group personally know what they know, and believe what they believe doesn't mean that has to be the standard method. Scientists are the same way, and if people have their own definitions of faith or theories or beliefs or knowledge, that is perfect fine. "Blind faith" can also be seen as extreme trust and devotion, it isn't inherently a bad thing.

I personally really adhere to the mindset of altering my beliefs and opinions as more advanced information is brought to light. I may have what I believe to be true enough right now, but that is always subject to change. However, I also accept that not everyone thinks this way, and if someone else personally believes something else to be 100% truth, who am I to say that my beliefs should dictate theirs?

So what I believe is 100% may not be what you believe and vice versa.. And that is perfectly fine :)
Image

User avatar
ElectroYoshi
Well-Known Member
Posts: 11061
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 8:27 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby ElectroYoshi » August 13th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Entity wrote:Are you saying you're not anymore?



I have to disagree with you here. You can know something for sure while having faith in it. How do you know that stars aren't really tiny and close to earth? Have you been there and seen them? Have you used a telescope and examined their movements and performed the necessary calculations to prove their distance and size? No, but you can still know with 100% certainty that they are indeed huge and far away.

It's the same thing with Christianity. You're saying that I live in a blind faith, but that's completely untrue. Jesus died on the cross and took my punishment, and he rose from the dead. There were many different witnesses of this who wrote their accounts completely independently (in different books of the Bible). And hundreds of years before that happened, there were a ton of prophets (who's writings are in the old testament) who prophesied the life and death of Christ. Seriously, if you're really interested in finding the truth, look it up. Read the Bible.

Not only that, the Bible is the single most accurately preserved historical document by far.

That's not blind faith, that makes sense. Please, I challenge anyone to give some evidence that the Bible isn't true.

Now, trusting the word of one dude who says he had an encounter with an angel who gave him some gold plates which he translated and then conveniently lost... that's blind faith.


Here's the thing though: none of us were actually there. We can't know for sure that anything supernatural is true. We actually have scientific data to support the idea that stars are huge yet far away. We don't have that for religion. There's just one line of history, but numerous different religions with all these different backstories, so to speak. Again, none of us were there, so we don't have physical proof to work with, hence the term "faith".
I need a shot again, that sweet adrenaline.

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » August 13th, 2014, 9:24 pm

ElectroYoshi wrote:Here's the thing though: none of us were actually there. We can't know for sure that anything supernatural is true. We actually have scientific data to support the idea that stars are huge yet far away. We don't have that for religion. There's just one line of history, but numerous different religions with all these different backstories, so to speak. Again, none of us were there, so we don't have physical proof to work with, hence the term "faith".


Nobody has been to those distant stars either, but you believe in the measurements done by scientists.

You have to examine each religion individually. Like I said in my post:

Jesus died on the cross and took my punishment, and he rose from the dead. There were many different witnesses of this who wrote their accounts completely independently (in different books of the Bible). And hundreds of years before that happened, there were a ton of prophets (who's writings are in the old testament) who prophesied the life and death of Christ.

Not only that, the Bible is the single most accurately preserved historical document by far.


The books of the Bible were written by real people, and there have been hundreds, even thousands of copies found of the different books. How is that blind faith?

Actually let me ask that from a different angle. Why don't you believe the Bible is true?
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » August 13th, 2014, 10:02 pm

Well, my immediately response to "The books of the Bible were written by real people" argument, would be citing numerous satirical news reports, fictional stories and political allegories. That however, isn't really the point I would want to make.

What I would posit is that a major premise of faith is that you don't need to dissect the Bible for truths, you don't need proof, that is what makes it special. In my experience in the church, God has personally found his way into your heart. Therefore, subverting the need to question his existence by debating facts and proofs. You personally have opened your heart and have faith in his existence, that shows the unfaltering devotion and respect you have for your deity.

It is like dissecting the printing machine for fortune cookies, yes you can arguably learn a bit about their origins and the process for which that experience is created but that isn't really the point. People accept the cookies as an unexplainable process leading them to find that exact fortune, all that matters it that they believe. Debating the process shouldn't really be necessary.

EDIT:
Entity wrote:but you believe in the measurements done by scientists.

Entity wrote:The books of the Bible were written by real people


Personally, I find this correlates in part to the discussion of the process through which each ideology operate. In that between religion and science some elements of acceptance are the same. The scientific community reasonably accepts their calculated measurements and the reliability of their data, much like how many religions accept the occurrences and events of their religions text.

Differences arise when discussing the process. Science currently has accepted terms of measurement and data. However, as technology can revise that information, outdated measurements and theories that rely on those measurements may also be altered or dropped entirely. Alternatively faith operates differently. The religious text, in this case the Bible, that isn't exactly the case. Translations and reinterpretations are the main driving factors of change, but operate on a much more purist level, in that the goal isn't to add new messages that weren't there, but to display the original message as purely as earnestly as it can in the translated language.
Image

User avatar
ElectroYoshi
Well-Known Member
Posts: 11061
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 8:27 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby ElectroYoshi » August 13th, 2014, 10:58 pm

Entity wrote:Nobody has been to those distant stars either, but you believe in the measurements done by scientists.

You have to examine each religion individually. Like I said in my post:



The books of the Bible were written by real people, and there have been hundreds, even thousands of copies found of the different books. How is that blind faith?

Actually let me ask that from a different angle. Why don't you believe the Bible is true?


Well, that's the thing, I do believe the Bible is true. What I'm saying is that I don't KNOW it is. With all the different ways people interpret this stuff, what actually happened is up in the air, and stays there until you die, which is the "moment of truth" so to speak. This is why we have Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.

Phantomboy wrote:
What I would posit is that a major premise of faith is that you don't need to dissect the Bible for truths, you don't need proof, that is what makes it special. In my experience in the church, God has personally found his way into your heart. Therefore, subverting the need to question his existence by debating facts and proofs. You personally have opened your heart and have faith in his existence, that shows the unfaltering devotion and respect you have for your deity.


This is exactly how I look at religion. What happens is that people hear about Jesus and God, develop a deep undying respect for them, and therefore follow them. This does not necessarily prove them right, but their respect for that deity and faith in said deity's existence is more important.
I need a shot again, that sweet adrenaline.

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » August 14th, 2014, 12:05 am

When it comes to the bible, every 10 years or so the bible is edited, and passages are removed and edited. Honestly though, I don't agree with the fact that is done however, as it technically blasphemes the word of God, and the stories that are contained.

On another note, evolution is beyond a theory. It is a fact. However, evolution only ever takes large leaps with species that are close to extinction. The less organisms it takes for a genetic mutation to go through, the more likely new traits will be found throughout a species. The more organisms it takes for a genetic mutation to go through, the less likely said mutation will actually be seen throughout an entire species.

Now, evolution hardly means anything to do with getting smarter, or gaining more dominance as a species. Its simply marks a change in traits over time through generations. What I find interesting though, is that Humans are the one place evolution falters, while every other species lines up. That means, we had to have been suddenly altered by a third party. That third party being who we'd recognize as our God. There's a gene in Humans that's been officially discovered by scientists as the "God Gene". This gene only exists in Humans. This gene is whats responsible for giving us the ability of speech, and it has been found in no other species.

I've always been a believer that God is essentially a scientist that has/had a higher understanding of science than we do as humans. When reading the Bible, we seem to forget that the stories written by these different people were written when people couldn't comprehend even half the stuff we have today. A phone or computer may as well be powered by magic in those times. Descriptions of certain objects and events would be described much differently if they happened again in today's age. The Bible describes Chariots Of Fire that flew in the sky (potential aircrafts flown by some higher being?), and for some odd reason both the Bible and the Greek/Roman myths depict a figure who gave man the power of knowledge (The Serpent, Prometheus). If you want to have things get really weird, the Jesus that is very well known has many other [url='http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/The-Jesus-Myth.html']aliases[/url], and is depicted in other religions as a different person, but they contain the same back story. This is in religions older than Christianity.

I've grown to question and link everything. For me, no stories from any Bible from any religion are false, especially when the stories fit together so perfectly. There are a group of people who think in the way that I do, and they've found that there are multiple "Gods". There are certain beings in these Bibles that lived for hundreds of years, and have their names mentioned in more than one religion and culture (EG: Methuselah). Based on this idea of linking all religious stories, its has been predicted that our creators come from a planet that orbits earth every 900 years. After those 900 years they'll be near us again, at which point we will more than likely be judged.

If you really think it through, there are things God did in the past that we as Humans are now able to replicate in this day and age.
We can "smite" people and locations with the work of missiles and explosives. We can genetically alter both plants and animals to fulfill whatever we need. We have the ability to bring people back from the dead (with limitation of course). We're able to extract DNA from animals, like God extracted DNA from Adams rib to make Lilith, who was then aborted and replaced by Eve (Lilith rebelled against God and left Adam). God is known as all knowing, and omniscient. We have the NSA, security camera's, line tapping, audio bugs, etc.

In the end though, beliefs are beliefs. I believe Humans were constructed by what we now call aliens. That word didn't exist back when we called aliens Gods. I believe the creation of the universe is independent from what created us. To me, humans are merely the result of a genetic experiment done by beings much smarter than us. Whats slightly weird is that the Bible says God made us in his own image. That implies that we look like out creators, which could also imply that they're able to live among us without us knowing.

None of this has to be taken as truth, as its mainly food for thought. The only thing I want, is for people to understand and learn about everything, before they start to deny things in the name of what they've been told to be correct as children. I once called myself a Christian, but did not grow up in a Christian household. My surrounding family however, is Christian. That's excluding my Grandfather, who was raised Catholic, and my extended family whom are Jehovah Witnesses. I deterred from following a defined religion once I actually understood enough to read the Bible back to front, and noticed that some of the morals that are contained are both sexist against women, and homophobic. I've never believed in omitting written rules in a religion. For me, I either follow everything that's required, or remain dissociated. Since I'll never be able to conform to one stationary religion, I remain unaffiliated. I enjoy knowing that every story from every religion overlaps at some point.

User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10959
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Postby Miniike » August 14th, 2014, 9:45 am

Sebastian Lawe wrote:On another note, evolution is beyond a theory. It is a fact.

Please show me your absolute, indisputable proof that evolution is fact. Then I'll show you my absolute proof that God created the world.

It's ignorant to not admit evolution must be believed. Just look at the six types of evolution.
1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

Only one of these, Micro-Evolution, is scientific. The rest happened in the past, have never been observed, and are not backed up by any proof, only some things that could be taken as indirect evidence. The concept of evolution is 1/6 science and 5/6 religion. How do you see this as a fact? What's wrong with admitting you are religious? I'm not trying to attack evolution per se, but for any human being to say they lack blind faith and to call others out on it is arrogant and completely illogical.

In regards to the rest of your post (which is just your own beliefs), I can't really dispute them. But I suppose it is refreshing to see a theistic evolutionist who doesn't try to reconcile evolution with the Bible (they really can't be).

But I do find it weird that you call the Bible homophobic and believe evolution, when, by evolutionary logic, anyone who can't reproduce is a threat to the progression of humanity as a species.
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users