Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"

No, not examples, no "probably"s, solid evolution that if stated on the news, so true and proven, that nearly every single person would agree that evolution is true.

Then as many as we have said, give us proof that the Bible is true as well - it is not enough to discredit evolution, therefore assume Creation is correct. For all we know, both sides of the argument may be wrong.
It's like me saying 1+1= 3 and you saying 1+1=1, neither of us are right, but if you say my answer is wrong, you assume yours is right, without ever proving that it is. Just because one answer is not correct, does not necessarily mean that an alternate answer is correct by default, you must still prove that it is correct.
After all, most of the current line of thinking only stretches back 200 years, when the Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago knew just as much, or possibly more than man does now about many important things. Do not simply assume this technological age is the be all and end all of human knowledge....

At this moment, neither side can definitively say that either method is true or untrue. We can continue to disprove each other, but how do you refute someone who only quotes the Bible as their source, and not back it up with any other evidence.....

RptheHotrod, you are assuming that you are remaining still for a day or night to be lengthened by the Earth slowing down. I question your logic of how you make this assumption. After all, if it is written from God's perspective, then what is his interpretation of a night and day BEFORE the Earth was created? You do not know that, nor can you ever know that.
Cjais has already shown that the world, at its longest interpretation, was created in 3 years....
A complete literal interpretation of the Bible states that Joseph and Mary lived both in Nazareth and Bethlehem simultaneously, coming from the books of Luke and Matthew. As they state different things about what happened in the time leading up to Jesus' birth. The text was written originally in Greek, with the most highly accepted translation being that of King James, still in itself a quite old translation. You want to talk about out of context, it is here that I believe many Greek words to be placed out of context, or misinterpreted, since many languages have double meanings for the same words, depending where they are used.
You also take subjective choices, and try to pass them off as being objective. Taste, smell, amongst other things is subjective, it is up to each person to decide if they like what they are eating or smelling. You can't just go out there and say brown haired males aged 15, weighing 60 kgs, like Coca Cola over Pepsi, and state that this is the Creators choice...


As for those that refute that there is life in the Arctic, and extreme cold, then do a search on Lake Vostok in Russia and you might be surprised about what may exist in a lake that is constantly 4 km's under ice.....

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true.

The fact that virus evolve(through survival of the fittest)to combat immune systems,or vice-versa?

Cjais, you ask in essence, "If we have a perfect Creator, why aren't we perfect?"

Now to go a bit theological here (don't quote me as being just a Bible-thumping wacko, okay, I'll get to science in a minute) - go read Genesis. It's our fault we're screwed up, not God's. He created us, and we were "good". And then the woman listened to a temptation, and did what God forbade her to do. The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone - if you looked at your tailbone and the muscles attached to it, you'd see the same thing. Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily. What they actually are is the means for blood to pass through the lungs and pick up oxygen! Any resemblance, however superficial, to anything that might be our evolutionary ancestor, is pointed at as "proof" that we evolved.

If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."

Just because things are designed similarly doesn't mean that they "evolved" from one another. A perfect example is sharks and dolphins. They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc. So why do they look so similar? Because they were designed in a way that made them suitable for their environment.

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution. It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

Anyone who says the Bible contradicts itself about Jesus' birth is wrong. When it gives differing geneologies - those are the geneologies of different people: Mary and Joseph. Careful examination shows that They could not have been in both places at the same time according to the Biblical record; they were required by Roman law to report to Bethlehem for the census. And they did.

Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws. But I haven't seen a massive group of them just take over the human population because they're better fit to survive. for the most part, it is only select groups that have that problem - not all. A lot of which comes down to eating habits and differences in location.

Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed. And they actually have the ability to smell. Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water. Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too? Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

That's the problem with evolution.

I promised myself (again) not to get into this... But I guess that I'll have another go:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution.

Whatever you classify a virus, it'll be a forced fit. It falls inbetween.

And natural selection is evolution.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

Again your beloved Irreducible Complexity. Which is just as silly as Irreducible Simplicity (of course anything can be divided by zero, its just those stupid mathmaticians who claim otherwise, against their own better judgement).

In this particular case you need to check up on the Galapagos biosphere, and particularily the reptiles living both in and out of the water. Or your local pond, where you will se numerous frogs. Over to C'Jais (and this time I hope to stay out).

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it.

No. HE called them cavemen.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

What I called (and still do call) SPAM is mindless restatements of things that have already been refuted countless times, without coming up with anything new to counter the refuttal. That's just a cheap way to overburden the pitifully understaffed Evolution side. Oh, and he (and I) actually have proven evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

Does away with God, you say? Well, so what. When I look at the Universe I see no absolute values of good or evil. I only see a blind, pitiless indifference, as devoid of malice as it is of compassion. If you can't handle that, then by all means imagine a God whatching over you. But don't tell that lie to your children, or your pupils.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.

Polar Bears? Evolved for the environment, you say? Ohh, gee.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"

Nature isn't that simple, but I can name some pretty good evidence that can only be explained by the evolution theory.

Pseudogenes, for one.

Pseudogenes (junk DNA) are remains of genes that no longer function, but continue to be carried along in the DNA as extra luggage that does nothing at all. Pseudogenes change as they're passed on from ancestors, and they're a powerful tool to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. As the common ancestor between two organisms, the more different their pseudogenes will be from each other.

When these genes are compared between, let's say, a human and a dog, their differences are relatively few, compared to human pseudogenes and those of wheat.

Humans have about 100 genes for odour receptors, yet only 30 of those are functional. In other mammals they're all functional, indicating we're losing our sense of smell because it's no longer dead important to survive.

In fact, DNA can also be used to eerily predict discoveries based completely on the evolutionary theory. Strange. It's works, it predicts, it saves lives and it has so far only served to increase our understanding of genetics... but it's not true. Ah well, I'd rather go with something that's actually functional and can predict things even if it's blatantly false.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.

Wrong!!! If I move from New York City out to the farmlands in Georgia somewhere with pigs and cows and where it is hotter, I am going to have to adapt to my environment. Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone

No. They are clearly tails. If they were "early formations" of the tailbone, they wouldn't be as huge as they are. They are tails, but gradually shrink back to the tailbone since that's a leftover from our ancestry with other species.

It's also almost remarkably peculiar that almost every mammal look exactly the same during the first stages of the pregnancy, complete with gills and tails. Every mammal, I stress again. Common ancestry? Nah - just God's curious sense of humour.

Oh, and it's gill slits.

Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily.

You are joking, right?

Gills slits in lungs? What are you smoking? Sorry. It's just not true. It is gill slits we see on embryos. They disappear as the pregnancy goes along, but it is indeniably (non-functional) gills.

I'd like to see you point out where exactly these gills should reside in our lungs. They're nowhere to be found, as far as I'm concerned.

If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."

That analogy is about as relevant as true as me saying: "We are all built from the same elemental compounds. Thus, we're all related."

They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc.

Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Dolphins share many more genes with us than with sharks. Related to us? Nah, probably not by a long shot.

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same.

Virus are made of the same basic proteins and nucleic acids as we. They as have DNA/RNA, as we. They can reproduce, as we. They can parasitize other creatures and gain from it (as we, heh).

They're neither alive nor dead according to biological conventions.

It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

Tell me the difference between evolving and adapting. Tell me where the defining line between the two is.

Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws.

Clearly, wisdom teeth are a bigger problem than you've realized.

Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed.

No. No. No.

They have no noses. You're confusing "noses" with snouts.

And they actually have the ability to smell.

Haha. You made a funny.

No, they cannot smell. At all. I'm staking a lot on this fact.

Now, isn't it curious that dolphins have genes that once coded for odour receptors? Related to us? Nah, God just felt like including all this junk DNA to puzzle us.

Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water.

Finally a place where you have your facts straight. Yes, sharks can smell. And yes, they do have noses.

Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too?

Nope. Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Whales are mammals. Both whales and sharks have a ton of traits in common with us. They have five "finger" bones in their fins. Sharks do not. I'm also betting, predicting, that whales have non-functional genes that code for odour receptors as well. Notice I'm predicting a discovery based on the evolutionary theory.

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land.

Amphibious creatures. No, they wouldn't be "vulnerable" on land. They'd be gradually better swimmers, and thus inclined to stay more in the water.

Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

Argh. This is just false.

You assume that evolution works on a sequential basis, right? Wrong - it works simultaneusly since the rate of mutations is constant. The death of one individual carrying the changed gene is not going to stop the rest of those who also carry it. 60 millions years is not going them.

Seriously, do you have any idea how long 4 billion years is? We're nothing compared to that stretch of time. Nothing. We're totally insignificant when viewed in the proper timescale.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.

Factor in 2 million years. You'll "adapt". You'll see.

The problem with you guys is that you seriously have no sense of scale. You expect immediate evolving if I'm gone on a vacation to Egypt. Not going to happen.

Now, both in the sense of "adaptation" and evolution it requires several generations and thousands of years for something noticable to happen.

Originally posted by Psydan
Well, if you look at any good anatomy book, you'll notice that there IS a purpose for these "non-functioning remains of tails". The "tailbone" has many important muscles attached to it

The point is that there are actually quite few muscles attached to this thing, and those that are attached to it could easily have been placed a more convenient place.

In fact, since it's so easy to break this bone, one must wonder why God implemented us with such ridiculously useless potential source of pain.

But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

That sounds plausible, and a lot more likely than God (I'm being sarcastic, so don't quote me on this!).

Haha.

Do I have to repeat myself more than necessary, on even the basic concepts of evolution?

Originally posted by C'jais
Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

And you need to read Genesis 2 before you speak:

Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."

Now before you say anything about the last 4 words of that verse, God spared them because he loved them but he harmed the serpent. (Devil).

Originally posted by C'jais
But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

I'm not sure where to continue from, and i'm not sure why i'm bothering with this hopeless thread yet again...
I might as well state my opinions:

God: So we're all just a result of random chemical reactions and chance? That's my comeback to people who do not believe in a Higher Power. The most important thing to understand while discussing God is that God is not human; he does not think like a human, his needs and motives are not human, therefore we cannot say that he was dumb to do this, or to think/plan this, etc. If what I have said is true, God does not plan or think, he always knows (which is beyond human comprehension for we live in a universe with beginnings and ends).

Evolution: I'm not really sure where in the Bible it says that Evolution is blasphemy and not true. Of course, you can interpret parts of the Bible to hint at this, but officially it was never written word for word. I find it quite simple to see that evolution could work.
-God creates the universe (possibly universes) and within it (them) he plants worlds for life to live upon (either planets were made for life to live on, or they're just random decorations that orbit around an energy efficent sun).
-God creates the first forms of life which are one day destined to become humans. Within these organisms God puts forth the will to survive and live on.
-God oversees the develop of life, possibly making sure that it goes on and succesfully evolves.
-The Ape finally reaches a milestone of its potential - Human.
-Humans reach the point where they can finally understand their surrondings and create complex thought.
-God comes down to Earth and tells his creations of his existence and of the rules by which they shall follow.

I am still waiting for the one absolute proof. Not "evidence' Even the bible has Evidence it's true. Several things are proven true in the Bible. (For example, I think it was the Hittites? People said for years they never existed, ever. Just fiction in the Bible. Well, guess what, we found their civilization awhile back, and their tools)

I asked for proof... not "clues", not "evidence".

You keep giving us "well, look at this, it's true"
and we'll keep giving you "well, look at this, this is true too"


and to whoever posted the chair thing, heh, and that room full of chairs, lol...good one :) Gonna remember that one.


btw, viruses (virii? or is that only computer terms) require something to survive. They don't evolve. They may adapt, but everyone does that, even today.

where the frick did you get "polar bears" from?

and how exactly did we get fossils of sea creatures in the middle of the united stats buried in the ground? the flood.

Also, if we came from monkies... why are there still monkies....

and you're still missing the missing link

"Why are there still monkies...."

I thought this was obvious to pick up:
The so called "monkies" that we evolved from needed to evolve to survive to their surrondings. We can all agree that every monkey in the world does not exist in one exact location. Lets say the monkies from Africa needed to evolve so that they could use their hands for more purposes (using tools, throwing rocks, etc, etc). While this is going on, the monkies in the rainforest are having a swell ole time living in the trees, they have no need to evolve.

Basic Summary: You need evolution if you want your ancestors to survive. If one subject of a species evolves it does not mean that every subject of that specie will evolve as well.

Originally posted by Pnut_Master
God: So we're all just a result of random chemical reactions and chance?

Not random. Selection points are not random. If our ape ancestors needed a bigger brain to survive, nature will damn well give them that, through selection pressure.

Consider a carton of milk. How does it get from the cow to the shelf? Without the farmer, the truckdriver, the grocer and the banker, that carton of milk would not arrive. Does this mean that there's a "Milk commisar" that oversees every part of this operation and makes sure it all goes as planned? How can this system organize itself by blind market forces alone? When we look at how command economies (communist) vs free market turns out, which is more logical - A DNA commisar vs the blind, random hand of natural selection?

If what I have said is true, God does not plan or think, he always knows (which is beyond human comprehension for we live in a universe with beginnings and ends).

The universe is vast and nearly infinitely complex. So vast and complex, that for God to tinker with it, he must be fully aware of the consequences of his actions. He must know its vast complexity down to minute detail. Everything that happens he can thus foresee the consequences of. If he can foresee that a comet will strike the earth in 3 thousand years, he can just alter a slight detail (break a few laws of physics, nothing too serious) and he has avoided an untimely demise for his creation.

...Which means humans cannot have free will if God is omniscient. Every action we do, God has predicted and foreseen before we're even conscious of taking it. Remember, even thoughts are actions, as they're neurochemical reactions in your brain. God has foreseen everything. Conclusion: We do not, and cannot have free will if God is able to rule his universe.

Evolution: I'm not really sure where in the Bible it says that Evolution is blasphemy and not true. Of course, you can interpret parts of the Bible to hint at this, but officially it was never written word for word. I find it quite simple to see that evolution could work.
-God creates the universe (possibly universes) and within it (them) he plants worlds for life to live upon (either planets were made for life to live on, or they're just random decorations that orbit around an energy efficent sun).
-God creates the first forms of life which are one day destined to become humans. Within these organisms God puts forth the will to survive and live on.
-God oversees the develop of life, possibly making sure that it goes on and succesfully evolves.
-The Ape finally reaches a milestone of its potential - Human.
-Humans reach the point where they can finally understand their surrondings and create complex thought.
-God comes down to Earth and tells his creations of his existence and of the rules by which they shall follow.

This is pure gold. Go out and preach this to other, less literalist Christians.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I am still waiting for the one absolute proof. Not "evidence'

Sure. I'm happy with where you are now. You can go on with this charade of "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!" if you like. It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants who wouldn't be able to notice logic even if it bit you in your behind.

But I'm happy with the direction where this is going. You have now retreated to your indefeatable core of pure faith that does not require proof or fact to be true. You have now given up on presenting proof and refuting mine, and with each whiny post you make, I will look all the more victorious because it is so indeniably obvious that you have given up on trying to prove creationism with scientific fact. Now, you say, you're right because the Bible tells you so. Anyone with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented. Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact.

Want to hear some scary numbers? The number of "take-no-prisoners"-literal creationists are dwindling. They have been going downhill since the dark ages. It's looking grimmer and more and more ugly for your kind. Your world view is dying out. There is no sign that the Biblical world view is getting stronger. The evolutionary theory is getting more and more backed up by logic and facts with each decade.

So, even though I know you're dead set in your beliefs, and that nothing will cure you save disproving God (which I've done a few times now) - I'm content with the fact that I know I'll be right in the end. It's a superficial enjoyment, but I'm savouring it like nothing else. I'll burn in hell, but at least I can see I'm right with regards to evolution and that my descendants will live in a future devoid of creationist hogwash. Sorry for this rant, but if you can, I can damn well too.

Now lets get this thing back on track.

Even the bible has Evidence it's true.

You must learn to distinguish between historical fact and Biblical horsedung. It's historical fact that the Hittites existed. This would have been proved without the aid of the Bible. It's not fact that Jesus exerted miracles. That the Bible tells you so does not in any way make it fact. This is logic on a very basic level, and I'm praying hard that you can follow me here. We need evidence that miracles and reality bending took place.

btw, viruses (virii? or is that only computer terms) require something to survive. They don't evolve. They may adapt, but everyone does that, even today.

Ahh! So everything adapts?

What is the difference between evolution and "adaptation". Where is the defining line between the two?

Fine, we'll call evolution adaptation if that makes you happy.

and how exactly did we get fossils of sea creatures in the middle of the united stats buried in the ground?

Plate tectonics. How come there are sea shells on mount everest? How come Mt Everest is taller than Mt Ararat and yet still got covered by the flood? Plate tectonics.

Regarding the flood, how'd you explain the polar ice caps? What happens when they get submerged?

What happens to farm land when salt water is poured over it? It's useless as farmland. Did Noah farm recently after landfall?

What did all the predators eat after landfall?

Why is the geological layers and fossils found the exact same way evolution predicted them to - most primitive lowest etc? Ah, that's right, the primitive ones couldn't escape the flood and thus were covered earliest, right? Two words: Birds and plants. I'm sure you know by now what I'm going to say.

Also, if we came from monkies... why are there still monkies....

If children descended from adults, how come there are still adults?

They had a common ancestor, and I'm pleasantly surprised that an actual Christian knew and told you this. Well done, Pnut.

and you're still missing the missing link

What? The "missing" link between our ape ancestor and us? It's been found. In more

Okay, here it goes: Tugenensis, tchadensis, kadabba, ramidus, Lothagam, australopethicus, afarensis, bahrelghazali, platyops, boisei, crassidens, robustus, aethiopicus, africanus, garhi, rudolfensis, habilis, pekinensis, erectus, ergaster, louisleakeyi, neanderthalensis, steinheimensis, heidelbergensis, antecessor, rhodesiensis, helmei and last but not least: sapiens.

Now, which missing link do we need now? Oh, right, they're all hoaxes. Fakes. Useless evidence. All of them.

Cjais I'll say it again because you havn't answered me yet...


Originally posted by C'jais
Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

And you need to read Genesis 2 before you speak:

Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."

Now before you say anything about the last 4 words of that verse, God spared them because he loved them but he harmed the serpent. (Devil).


Originally posted by C'jais
But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Cjais I'll say it again because you havn't answered me yet...

hehehe... fair enough really.

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

You have to understand, there's nothing to select against a tailbone. A tail there is, because it's useless when walking upright. But as stated before, there are a few muscle attachments to the tailbone itself, making it somewhat important (but it could easily have been removed and its muscle attachments placed somewhere far more convenient).

And scale again. Just as the dewclaw on dogs and cats, making a limb disappear is not something that's done overnight.

Oh, and I'm not even going near a Bible discussion here, as I haven't even read more than a few necessary lines. That point is completely irrelevant to evolution anyway.

Originally posted by C'jais
You have to understand, there's nothing to select against a tailbone. A tail there is, because it's useless when walking upright. But as stated before, there are a few muscle attachments to the tailbone itself, making it somewhat important (but it could easily have been removed and its muscle attachments placed somewhere far more convenient).

And scale again. Just as the dewclaw on dogs and cats, making a limb disappear is not something that's done overnight.

Oh yes I see what you are saying but I'm just wondering that, according to evolutionists, why wouldn't the tailbone have evolved over 4 million years to not break as easily? Or waht about the thing in your body (I believe that it is the appendix, correct me if I'm wrong) that leads to a dead end where "stones" are formed from food that builds up there?

And I did have a reasonable timescale with me because the hominid species of Australopithecines didn't have tails and that was 4 million years ago. I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something. :)

EDIT: As you can see, I'm trying to make a rational arguement. :D

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
why wouldn't the tailbone have evolved over 4 million years to not break as easily?

Oh, you want diamond hard bones? Sorry, I'm guessing you'll have to wait a long time for that to happen. Really, the problem is the structure itself that's a bit fragile. But nature has got to work with what it's got, so therefore it can't simply make the tailbone go away and reengineer the muscles unto a bone structure that's more solid, but that there would be no selection pressure to evolve. It simply isn't significant.

But God could do this. If he cares.

Or waht about the thing in your body (I believe that it is the appendix, correct me if I'm wrong) that leads to a dead end where "stones" are formed from food that builds up there?

Ah, another inconvenient problem that God could have designed a lot better. Again, it's simply not significant. Now, if the appendix was key to our survival and it's explosion would kill, you can bet that evolution would take care of it fast. Or we'd die.

And I did have a reasonable timescale with me because the hominid species of Australopithecines didn't have tails and that was 4 million years ago.

Tails are useless when walking upright. They were very quickly taken off, since it's a waste of energy to lug that sucker around all day without ever using it. But the tailbone, the last remain of it, has some minor use. There's no selection pressure against the tailbone. It remains.

I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something.

Yeah, it'd also be convenient for bacteria to adapt to all kinds of anti-biotics before they were threatened by it. That way, they'd have their defenses up before it became an issue. I'm guessing you're thinking the same thing about the tailbone being inconvenient here, as well. But it's not going to happen, until it becomes a significant factor.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something. :)

EDIT: As you can see, I'm trying to make a rational arguement. :D

But you are failing miserably because you have not considered the single most important question that you must ask yourself before calling an argument rational:

"Are there any insignificant factors here?"

Basically, the selection pressure on removing the tailbone isn't significant. In other words: Other factors are so vastly more important to the survival of the species than the presence/absence of tailbones. So it won't go away.

Or we'd die.

Which would infact be evolution taking care of the problem. The natural way.

Originally posted by C'jais
Ah, another inconvenient problem that God could have designed a lot better. Again, it's simply not significant. Now, if the appendix was key to our survival and it's explosion would kill, you can bet that evolution would take care of it fast. Or we'd die.

Ah I did some research and look what I found...
We now know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.
It is VERY significant.


Originally posted by C'jais
But the tailbone, the last remain of it, has some minor use. There's no selection pressure against the tailbone. It remains.

Ah yes if you consider walking or playing sports minor, then sure.

The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in an completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility - it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics? This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone!

Evolution actually predicts that there will be leftover features as one organism turns into another. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function, every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful primary or backup purpose.

Take a look at this. (http://www.evidence-for-evolution.com/)

Oooooo... and read this. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp) Lots of stuff here disproving evolution.

Heres a nice website that counter Dawkins, who was a follower of Darwin. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp#bad_design)

Some interesting stuff about pseudogens. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv14n3pseudogene_pj.asp) (There was another, more technical website but it requires Adobe Acrobat to open so I didn't know if you would want it or not.)

Heres a nice thing on the "How long was the time period when God created everything". (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp)

VERY nice site talking about dating. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp)




Now, before you can even reply, READ ALL OF THOSE LINKS, which is exactly what you told me to do for your website like the "silly flood story" and stuff like that. READ ALL OF IT. And don't come back and tell me that it's a biased webpage or article. ITS SUPPOSED TO BE BIAS BECAUSE ITS TRYING TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION. Please, read all of it.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
It is VERY significant.

Appendix: While it serves a minor role in the immune system (stress that minor), removing it does not seem to hurt the person, and they generally don't wish it back, since it might explode and kill them. Not particularily a benefit, and more a curse than a blessing.

Ah yes if you consider walking or playing sports minor, then sure.

It's just plain false that it serves such a role. The few muscular attachments it has could easily have been fitted on a less vulnerable structure.

Evolution actually predicts that there will be leftover features as one organism turns into another. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function, every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful primary or backup purpose.

Odour receptors, again. Dewclaws. Little toes. Goosebumps. The hair at the back of our necks.

Now, before you can even reply, READ ALL OF THOSE LINKS, which is exactly what you told me to do for your website like the "silly flood story" and stuff like that.

But clearly you did not read it, or otherwise you wouldn't be presenting the same proof over and over again, which was refuted on those pages I gave. But nevermind, I didn't command you to read them really, and I certainly did not expect you would.

Let me get this straight: This debate takes place here, in this forum. This is not about exchanging links and saying "Well, explain this! (www.somelink.creationisthomepage.com)"), and then think you've done your job. No. Unless you can understand the links you give me yourself, I am not interested in them in the slightest. I'm not going to haul all that ton of text into this forum and debate something you didn't even write yourself.

Here's what we do: You translate your links into your plain english and I'll refute that. You provide a link if I'm interested in more, or where your source is, so I can read it in greater detail. But to think this debate is about slinging webpages at each other I find a serious waste of time.

If you do this, I'll be more than happy to reply to your posts, but if you haven't even taken the time to understand your links yourself, then I won't be spending useless time in here.

C'ais thats your problem. I DID read all those links that I gave in fact. I DO understnad. But you just don't WANT to respond to them. You're ignoring the fact that I have given well presented links that might actually be true and go against evolution. You just don't WANT to hear it. Did you even read the links? If so then something should've struck your attention.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
But you just don't WANT to respond to them.

You're absolutely right. I am in no way going to respond to 14 pages of creationist propaganda that you have not even taken the time to understand. If you read and understood all of those links, write the points and arguments here and provide a link to the rest. If you cannot do this, you have not understood it.

I am not going to wage a silly "link war". If that was the case, I'd be spamming you with links with each thread.

Did you even read the links? If so then something should've struck your attention.

I read them. I was not surprised. The dating page just hauled up evidence of where the isotope dating methods had produced weird-ass results and used this as "compelling evidence" that they could not be trusted, even though they're used countless times simultaneusly on material that gives the same result, even alongside non-radioactive dating methods such as dendrochronology and ice samples.

One site even brazenly said transitional fossils are non-existant.

The site about pseudogenes argue that introns (DNA between genes) equals the pseudogenes.

Again, I am not going to haul all that ton of text to this forum and discuss something you haven't even taken the time to write or understand.

Originally posted by C'jais
Sure. I'm happy with where you are now. You can go on with this charade of "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!" if you like. It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants who wouldn't be able to notice logic even if it bit you in your behind.

But I'm happy with the direction where this is going. You have now retreated to your [b]indefeatable core of pure faith that does not require proof or fact to be true. You have now given up on presenting proof and refuting mine, and with each whiny post you make, I will look all the more victorious because it is so indeniably obvious that you have given up on trying to prove creationism with scientific fact. Now, you say, you're right because the Bible tells you so. Anyone with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented. Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact.




OOOOOPPPSSS!! There he goes again, taking thigns that arn't there. You need to learn to stop that.

I never said anything like "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!". Ever. I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Now for the second paragraph. I havn't retreated anywhere. For the last FRICKEN time

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.


Let me say it again, since you'll obviously miss it again and again and again

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.


maybe one more time


I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.



okay. I hope you actually read whatI say instead of putting words in my mouth this time.

There is no undeniable proof that evolution OR creation is true, so it's pointless to debate it.

edit- Just to mention it, all because there is no proof doesn't mean it's not true. Let's say some woman is murdered and there is no proof. Did it happen? Sure it did! Creation COULD be true... evolution COULD be true... but one of them is correct, and no one (in all) will no the truth till the end now, will we? I BELIEVE creation is true though. Now, for the last time

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

SO END THE POINTLESS DEBATE ALREADY.


No matter what someone says, I'm still believing in creation. Want to know something? I have had one CRAPPY life, but there's only one thing that has kept me from killing myself, knowing God is there, and He has a plan. If evolution was true, I"d be dead right now. Period. He's the only thing I'm living for...because life itself is NOT WORTH LIVING ANYMORE.

I thought I might say something about my previous post in this thread. C'jais responded to the part where I went on about "it being crazy if we are all just a bunch of random chemical reactions." He interpreted this incorrectly..
I have no objections to natural selection, that wasn't the subject in which my statement was referring to. I was talking about the whole creation of the universe and the positioning of the planets; there are way too many factors involved in our (and the universe's) creation to say that it was just chance and that it was oridinary. I would go into further explanation but I find my thoughts to be of no use any longer. I believe in a God, I see evolution as a possibility..
One important thing for all non-religious folk out there- little fact about Christians- It is highly practiced in our religion that ones who have not seen but yet still believe possess the greatest characteristics of all. Unlike several other big religions of this world, we Christians do not need evidence to prove to us that God is real.

BTW: "Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact." I didn't find that very appropriate.. Though Rp and I may believe in the same God, that does not mean all of our beliefs and customs are the same. Rp shouldn't be assulted with an assumption that "even his fellow follower" does not agree with him..

Master_Keralys: I think you need to scrub up on your known Roman history when it comes to Syria. When Herod is referred to, it is about Herod the Great, is it not, and not his son? When Herod the Great was in power, Syria was not a full roman colony, therefore not actually required to do a Roman Census, as the Bible so calls them to do.
No Roman census was called for whilst Herod was in power, and it is approx 15-30 years between the two that were held in the nearby regions by the Romans. Not until Herod died, and the Romans made Syria a full Roman state, did they have to pay Roman taxes and go into census'.


As for the Appendix, it is actually something that is there to help disolve hard coated nuts, more like ones that would come off trees. It is a common trait amongst all mammals, but since we no longer eat hard nuts, such as gum nuts, then there is no real need for it to "disappear" from the human anatomy.... (Helps when you get appendicitis, and decide to read up on it whilst you are laid up after the operation.)

As for evolution, it actually choses to evolve things that allow for better reproduction, so anything that happens post-child bearing age will not be "evolved" out of any human, or animal genome. If there is a "successful" mutation, it will pass itself on for reproduction to the next generation, ONLY if it helps for the species to reproduce more. To gather more food, to have a larger brain, which allows us to think of alternatives to live until a reproducing age, think about where most successful mutations have taken us. They have taken us to the top of the food chain, so that we can multiply and thrive as we do as a human race.
Why are there so many geriatric diseases and afflictions, since they do not stop the species from reproducing, it is past our reproducing years, so nature has no reason to mutate these out.
Do not take humanity as it is now, it is a very well evolved species, that has such a little written history, which will prove and disprove nothing. We are now a species that actually choses to not go with evolution, and survival of the fittest, we perpetuate those DNA mutations that should not be passed on for a better species physically. This is where our evolved brain, that has ideas such as compassion "interferes" with pure evolution....


Rp, can I ask why then get involved in this debate, that you do not really intend to actually defend your beliefs. You also say that Evolution or Creation has true, but you also state that there is no proof to either. In my books that is taking a narrow minded view on how we came to being.
Who says that there is only two alternatives to how humans and animals came to this Earth, as many of us have said "NEITHER OF THESE TWO ALTERNATIVES MAY BE TRUE" - use my math analogy to see that one wrong answer does not make the other correct. Who is to say that perhaps Bhuddism, Hindu or Muslim are the correct answer.....

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
OOOOOPPPSSS!! There he goes again, taking thigns that arn't there. You need to learn to stop that.

I never said anything like "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!". Ever.

While you did not say this exactly, this is what all your posts are sounding like.

You blatantly ignore whatever evidence we dig up, without even trying to refute it.You insist on calling creationism truth, fact and reality without presenting evidence for it. You keep arguing that this debate is pointless.

To me, it sounds like you don't belong in this thread, if you don't have anything constructive to say. If you've given up, please leave.

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Now you're saying that there's no proof for creationism. Therefore making it a completely irrelevant hypothesis at best. One that should not be taught in schools or as fact. Am I right?

If you don't feel like there's any evidence for your theory, stop trying to dig all this dung up about dating methods etc and insist on calling it fact.

And there's no need to repeat your statements.

edit- Just to mention it, all because there is no proof doesn't mean it's not true. Let's say some woman is murdered and there is no proof. Did it happen? Sure it did!

Mmm hmmm.

And let's say that a woman was presumed murdered by her husband, yet all evidence points to it being a physical improbability, as her husband was working at that time. Could it happen? Sure, but only if God reconstructed the past to fit the assumption.

SO END THE POINTLESS DEBATE ALREADY.

Leave.


If evolution was true, I'd be dead right now.

No. How many times must I say that taking evolution as fact does not invalidate God? In Europe, creationism is taken as a joke when people hear of it for the first time. There are millions of protestant over here that "believes" in evolution and God at the same time.

Period. He's the only thing I'm living for...because life itself is NOT WORTH LIVING ANYMORE.

You need God as the junkie "needs" his fix. Sorry.

Originally posted by Pnut_Master
BTW: "Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact." I didn't find that very appropriate.. Though Rp and I may believe in the same God, that does not mean all of our beliefs and customs are the same. Rp shouldn't be assulted with an assumption that "even his fellow follower" does not agree with him..

Sorry, I just thought it was a good oppurtunity to prove it's possible to believe in the Christian god and the Bible at the same time.

Originally posted by C'jais
While you did not say this exactly, this is what all your posts are sounding like.

You blatantly ignore whatever evidence we dig up, without even trying to refute it.You insist on calling creationism truth, fact and reality without presenting evidence for it. You keep arguing that this debate is pointless.

To me, it sounds like you don't belong in this thread, if you don't have anything constructive to say. If you've given up, please leave.

[B]

Now you're saying that there's no proof for creationism. Therefore making it a completely irrelevant hypothesis [b]at best. One that should not be taught in schools or as fact. Am I right?

If you don't feel like there's any evidence for your theory, stop trying to dig all this dung up about dating methods etc and insist on calling it fact.

And there's no need to repeat your statements.



Mmm hmmm.

And let's say that a woman was presumed murdered by her husband, yet all evidence points to it being a physical improbability, as her husband was working at that time. Could it happen? Sure, but only if God reconstructed the past to fit the assumption.

[B]

Leave.


[B]

No. How many times must I say that taking evolution as fact does not invalidate God? In Europe, creationism is taken as a joke when people hear of it for the first time. There are millions of protestant over here that "believes" in evolution and God at the same time.

[B]

You need God as the junkie "needs" his fix. Sorry.

Well, he still doesn't get it.

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.
I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.
I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.
I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Check my posts, I said I was dropping by and saying that the debate is pointless. NEITHER side as undeniable proof, so it's pointless, yet you kept whining for me to say something, so i did, and now you're whining even more, and NOW you (a moderator) has stumped low enough to start INSULTING forum members. God isn't a "fix", He's the only reason I'm still living.

I can't believe how hard it is for you to understand 3 simple sentences.

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Should I again? Maybe it will get into your head someday

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.


I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.



I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Maybe I'll talk sloooower, so you can uunnndeerrstttaannnddd

FOR THE LAST TIME
FOR THE LAST TIME
FOR THE LAST TIME

I SAID
I SAID
I SAID

THERE IS NO UNDENIABLE PROOF
THERE IS NO UNDENIABLE PROOF
THERE IS NO UNDENIABLE PROOF

FOR EITHER SIDE
FOR EITHER SIDE
FOR EITHER SIDE

SO IT IS POINTLESS
SO IT IS POINTLESS
SO IT IS POINTLESS

TO HAVE A DEBATE
TO HAVE A DEBATE
TO HAVE A DEBATE

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE
THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE
THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE

TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH
TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH
TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH

UNTIL THE END OF OUR LIVES
UNTIL THE END OF OUR LIVES
UNTIL THE END OF OUR LIVES


All this "discussion" has done is make a moderator directly attack and insults someone elses belief. He even started ANOTHER thread to continue making fun of someone elses belief. Now instead of just insulting one's belief, he's gone to directly insulting people.

Rp I'm all for Creation but I believe that you are taking it out of line. Its ok to state something once but over and over and over in the same post is not right. I think everyone needs to CALM DOWN.

Just my $0.02

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
All this "discussion" has done is make a moderator directly attack and insults someone elses belief. He even started ANOTHER thread to continue making fun of someone elses belief. Now instead of just insulting one's belief, he's gone to directly insulting people.

For the umpteenth time, facts are not insults.

If a person falls under the medical definition of "retarded", it's alright for me to walk up to him and call him a retard. It's not nice, but I will not be held accountable for it, and I cannot be dragged into court for it. Because he is.

I'm not calling you retarded, but I am calling Jack Chick a person in severe need of treatment of some sort. He's clearly delusional and schizophrenic. It's not because I don't like him, but it's so obvious that he's mentally sick. It's a sad day when religious beliefs are untouchable by the definitions of schizophrenia and personality disorder. They are not above the law, and I'd strongly suggest that Chick gets stuffed into a medical institute to avoid harming himself or others.

As for evolution, yes, it's possible to prove it. It has already been done in fact, but if you disagree, explain why.

If you don't have anything further to say, please leave and let us get back to the topic at hand.

I was always taught to understand that in science, though much proof and evidence can be drawn, nothing is a fact; everything is a theory. Certain theories can have more evidence than others, but most importantly nothing we believe we have proven is a fact.

Things we can say are facts: the grass is green, I have 400 points, etc...

Even math, as logical as it is, has only been made up of theorems.

I asked for undeniable proof, and you still didn't give it. I"m not talking "a good chance" or "more than likely" or "since it's like this today, it must be like that along time ago", I'm talking about undeniable proof.

It doesn't exist, on either side.

Not worth "debating" anything with you. You just keep pulling things out of nowhere and saying people said or meant it, which is called lying, and using it to bring others down.


and btw, when the question "Why are there still monkies" was asked, why in the world did you ask "If children descended from adults, how come there are still adults?"

Anyone can get that answer. The adults die after a time. The children grow up to become adults, and they stay that way until the end of time. Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ... they don't "morph" or whatever into something else, it's always a human child, growing up to be a human adult, and dying. I can't believe you don't know how the human reproduction system works

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I asked for undeniable proof, and you still didn't give it. I"m not talking "a good chance" or "more than likely" or "since it's like this today, it must be like that along time ago", I'm talking about undeniable proof.

As long as you twitch on the hook of God, there will be no undeniable proof. For the rest of us, it has already been presented.

You could put it a different way: Which is the most plausible theory? Evolution or Creationism? Which theory predicts things? Which theory can be used for something scientifically, to advance our knowledge of the universe and to find cures to diseases? Which would be the best for everyone to trust in? Which would be the best for the race of humans to trust in?

Which theory has been backed up by positive proof? Which theory is a coherent theory?

and btw, when the question "Why are there still monkies" was asked, why in the world did you ask why there were still kids and adults (or something along those lines). Kids are our offspring. We don't give birth to monkies.

You misunderstood the analogy. We are the children - our ape ancestors were the adults. The apes gave birth to us, and they still remain. Until their time is up, of course.

I dont post much, because I only have internet at my school, and I check it there when I'm not doing some homework on it,but Im going to make an exception here

I've been wanting to stay away from this,but it's really gone to far IMHO

Was reading your reply, but it shows no proof. Maybe one might make more "sense" than the other, but Ive seen some preeety freaky stuff making less sense but ending up true

Reason I stay away from topics like this is because it just turns into big fights and name calling, and honestly, Im suprised to see a moderator falling to the same thing

There is no reason to keep insulting these people. Was reading your Jack Chick post too. All the insults are true? I doubt Jack Chick is a retard. However, you say he is, according to your statement about fact not being an insult

Chill with the insults and name-calling

So, cijais, you are saying you came from a monkey, haha. Okay, Ill give you THAT, but I know I didnt.

Now, I'm expecting to get banned for going up against a moderator, but go ahead, abuse your power. I don't post much here anyway. I dont respect anyone who goes around insulting other people because he can without worrying about punishment himself

Let's not throw around medical terms either, retard and moron are medical terms for extremely low IQ's. I believe moron is defined at about 40 and retard around 20 IQ points, so lets try not to use them out of context.

I think this have devolved into a low level thread, that has one side that is prepared to present facts to their theories that they believe in, and the other side that uses circular reasoning to give their side. If it's in the book, it must be true therefore it's true because it's in the book is how I see most of the evidence presented for Creationism. It's a case of one side saying "You're wrong, I am right" and the other saying "I am right because"...
Why not try to explain that Humans are the same as animals, but walking upright, and God's role in the similarities. Or as to why there are meant to be layers of rock that are out of sequence, as God using his hands to create the Earth, and took some from another part of the world to help in his creation. You do not even present that, all you seem to present is "Evolution is false, therefore our beliefs are those that are true" without providing at least something that shows that it might be the case.

Originally posted by Karsec
Was reading your reply, but it shows no proof.

What reply? I've made quite a bit in this thread.

Reason I stay away from topics like this is because it just turns into big fights and name calling, and honestly, Im suprised to see a moderator falling to the same thing

Quote me. Show me where I crossed the line. If I ran this forum as other moderators would have done, this thread would have been closed a long time ago. I don't. I'll let this thing run to the end, regardless of whether you postulate I offended someone.

There is no reason to keep insulting these people.

Are isotope dating methods an insult to Christianity? If you take hard evidence as insults, and pointing out where you're using circular reasoning as a flame, then please leave.

Was reading your Jack Chick post too. All the insults are true? I doubt Jack Chick is a retard.

Retard is an IQ of 90 or lower last time I checked. I'm not certain of that, but I am certain he's schizophrenic. He's delusional. He sees things that do not exist. He lives in a fantasy world. By the sheer dictionary definition, he's schizophrenic and mentally ill.

Chill with the insults and name-calling

I have done no such thing. Stop these meaningless personal attacks.

So, cijais, you are saying you came from a monkey

I didn't say that. I proved we came from a common ancestor. There's a big difference. And notice I'm proving my claims. Where can we see some proof of your theory?

Okay, Ill give you THAT, but I know I didnt.

You don't know - you believe. When you know something that has not been proved or exists in the real world, you're not right.

Now, I'm expecting to get banned for going up against a moderator, but go ahead, abuse your power. I don't post much here anyway. I dont respect anyone who goes around insulting other people because he can without worrying about punishment himself

Why should I ban you? Because you said I offended someone without backing the claim up with quotes, at least? I'm not going to ban you for that.
But I am going to tell you to think deeply about whether to participate in this thread when you're so obviously not mature enough to debate these things rationally, especially trying to shoot me down as an offending moderator. I've been subjected to it before - I don't like it. But I am not going to ban someone for this crap.

You can go on with this charade of...
It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants
and with each whiny post you make
with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented
Sorry for this rant, but if you can, I can damn well too.
And while you're still whining
And by stating this, you also claim [the person claimed nothing of the sort, another lie] that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets.
What are you smoking?
Jesus most likely smoked the hashish
I was damn near falling off my chair laughing while reading this bullsh*t he's now made.
Because this 'tard apparently doesn't know anything about Islam.
I'll be damned if I didn't feel like busting a cap in his ass when I read that.
Once you start to delve into his clearly raving mind, it's obvious to anyone that he's.... mad.
Jack Chick can go piss on electric fences for all I care.
I'd f*ckin' laugh my behind off if I met a person as delirious as this in my neighboorhood.



I see quite a few insults there..and that's just a handful. Yes, thosse are all from you. Not the type on conduct I'd expect from a moderator. Of coarse, anything you say, according to you, MUST be fact. Jack Chick is a very intelligent man. Have you ever met him? Have you ever read about his personal life? How dare you make such empty claims against him then.

To Reborn

I'm going to have to keep re-stating the same thing over and over and over and over until C'jais gets a clue on what I'm actually talking about. He keeps pulling things out of nowhere and says I was saying that, and more. I'm not doing a debate, so everytime he keeps accusing me of believing or saying something, I'm going to have to keep saying the same thing, until he evetually (hopefully) figures out what I'm trying to say.

It's not my fault he doesn't understand 3 simple sentences.

For example:
He says I said creation is true and I don't need proof
LIE- I said I believe it's true, and there isn't proof

"And by stating this, you also claim...."
LIE- I never claimed anything

He said I was whining
LIE- I'm not whining or complaining about anything, but he's getting on my nerves, so I'm trying to get it in his head that I'm not debating or defending anything. I was just "dropping" by, but he told me that I couldn't simply "leave".

For some reason, he got the idea that he's a god with evolution and it's true, so everyone else with other beliefs are inferior. He then chooses to attack them and bring them down by saying they don't have "proper proof" and then laughing at others who believe in theirs.

Hey, I'm going to believe what I am going to believe, and I'm not going to let you tell me otherwise. I don't need to defend my belief, unlike you.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
You can go on with this charade of...
It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants
and with each whiny post you make
with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented
Sorry for this rant, but if you can, I can damn well too.
And while you're still whining

Oh, those are insults. 'Course they are. You want me to dig up places where you directly called me stupid? I never called you stupid. I never insulted you.

And by stating this, you also claim [the person claimed nothing of the sort, another lie] that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets.

Did you see this in context? Days and nights are completely relative to where you are on planet Earth. And if you happen to be in space, they have no meaning at all.

What are you smoking?
Jesus most likely smoked the hashish

He most likely did. He most likely used cannabis oil to "cure" his followers. You want me to dig up the article?

I was damn near falling off my chair laughing while reading this bullsh*t he's now made.
Because this 'tard apparently doesn't know anything about Islam.
I'll be damned if I didn't feel like busting a cap in his ass when I read that.
Once you start to delve into his clearly raving mind, it's obvious to anyone that he's.... mad.
Jack Chick can go piss on electric fences for all I care.
I'd f*ckin' laugh my behind off if I met a person as delirious as this in my neighboorhood.

This was directed at Jack Chick, note that. And I'm not sorry for posting that. Yes, those are insults, but I'm only human - if I see mad person, I point him out to make others aware of him. If I see a mentally ill person not in treatment, I'll point him out to others, as well.

Not the type on conduct I'd expect from a moderator. Of coarse, anything you say, according to you, MUST be fact. Jack Chick is a very intelligent man. Have you ever met him? Have you ever read about his personal life? How dare you make such empty claims against him then.

I believe the world is run by the giant N'brekshelgk and her minions of evil N'rashnreffenshrierkar demons. If you project such an obscure, empty and false world view into everything, you'll get rightly called insane. I don't care if it's Jesus and Satan or the killer whales from mars and their arch-nemesis, the transparent brick Tran'veeren we're talking about - a delusional world view no matter how common is still not right. I don't care if people hear "God" or "The Immortal Demon Emperor from the seventh layer of Hell" that's talking to them, beckoning and demanding action. If you're off the latter example, you'd be yelled out a freak in public, but there's really no difference.

Beliefs create barriers, as this thread has proved without any doubt now. I don't care, it's nothing new. These barriers have been firmly in place since the first Man called others sinners ripe for repentance.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm not doing a debate, so everytime he keeps accusing me of believing or saying something, I'm going to have to keep saying the same thing, until he evetually (hopefully) figures out what I'm trying to say.

And instead of desperately trying to make me understand something I apparently haven't, you could leave. Leave, if you're not debating anything anyway, if you're not liking this discussion, if you know you'll never get me to understand Christ (or whatever it is), and if you know I just don't give a damn.

For example:
He says I said creation is true and I don't need proof
LIE- I said I believe it's true, and there isn't proof

When you believe something that has no proof behind, you're also implying you don't need proof to believe it. Which was what I said. Which is why I'm right.

"And by stating this, you also claim...."
LIE- I never claimed anything

If I state that the length of a day is the same all around the world, I'm naturally also claiming/inferring that the year (or months, if you prefer) are of shorter lenghts on the poles. It's called inference, or extension of your argument.


I was just "dropping" by, but he told me that I couldn't simply "leave".

I told you it's bad etiquette to make a statement, then immediately afterwards claim that we can't even begin to shoot it down, since you're leaving anyway. The "You can't simply leave after posting this" was meant in jest dammit. Of course you're in your full right to leave and watch your post get pulverized. I don't care - I just pointed out that it's a bad attitude to have. Now leave, I officially release you from this thread.

For some reason, he got the idea that he's a god with evolution and it's true, so everyone else with other beliefs are inferior.

Sure thing, Mr Holier-than-thou. Your beliefs are not inferior. They're just unfounded, there's no sensible reason to believe in them, and deep down useless.

He then chooses to attack them and bring them down by saying they don't have "proper proof"

And this is illegal? It's bad for a moderator to point out that there are such things as the laws of physics, that conveniently disproves the theory of creationism?

and then laughing at others who believe in theirs.

Referring to Jack Chick, I'm sure, since I never laughed at you. Yes, Jack Chick is a certified nutcase. I'm not ashamed to admit this. Why should I? Since when were Christian nutcases above and beyond other types of nutcases and the dictionary definition?

And note, I'm not calling you a nutcase. Jack Chick, on the other hand, is clearly too far out.

I don't need to defend my belief, unlike you.

The beliefs that are able to be defended are the only ones worth fighting for.

And you're misusing the word "belief" here. Evolution is not a belief. Not believing in a higher power is not a belief.

Now leave, if you think I'm calling you names and you don't like it.

I'm sorry guys but I'm removing myself from this thread. :( I can't get into the things being thrown back and forth. This thread was fun while it lasted. :(

evalution is not possible plain and simply, when will you grasp reality?

life canot come into existence spontaniously. This is a FACT.

and you can't simply tell evryone to leave, that wont solve any of your problems.

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
life canot come into existence spontaniously. This is a FACT.

Actually, there have been run several experiments, even high school level ones, where organic molecules formed from inorganic material with the aid of a single jolt of electricity, much as the early conditions were about 4 billion years ago.

and you can't simply tell evryone to leave, that wont solve any of your problems.

I was telling HotRod to leave if he didn't like this debate, or found it pointless. There's no need to keep telling us all that there's no proof for either side, when we are clearly of another opinion, and would like to discuss it as such.

I tried to, but you said I wasn't allowed to...because it makes my statements un-touched.

You got what you asked for.


I never called you stupid either.... yet another lie. Look it up what I said.

You just keep pulling lie, after lie, after lie.

I'm out of here, I hate people who lie just to try to bring down others. Worst moderator I've seen in jk2.

"Sure thing, Mr Holier-than-thou. Your beliefs are not inferior. They're just unfounded, there's no sensible reason to believe in them, and deep down useless. "

So, you're saying his belief is inferior

You say your and your alone is correct, and his is useless. Doesnt that mean inferior? Lesser than, not as useful, pointless, should I go on


and Rp, if the mod isnt smart enough to get what you saying, that his own dumb fault. Still, dont keep repeating the same message, because I dont think the mod will ever get ti in his thick skull.

No need to attack insults with insults.