Because your absolution not only has no evidence for it, it counters evidence that already exists.

And about your comparison between historic persecution of apostles and blasphemers to what you're facing: nobody is forcing you to disbelieve your views.

Third.

^that

it's not any different than someone who believes in a flat earth. i'm sure that prior to going into space there were people who kept saying "well i don't have absolute proof it's round!" even though every single thing pointed to it being round. their absolution flew in the face of the evidence, and it was wrong, and it was clear that it was wrong long before we ever got up in space to provide some "absolute proof". when something is obviously wrong then i'm in favor of saying hey that's wrong, now let's try to find the right answer. not saying hey this is wrong but...let's just stay here anyway.

i believe the bible mentions "the end of the earth" and "the four corners of the earth", as well as many other phrases that show that not only did they believe the earth was flat, but they believed it was stationary. maybe his divine words in the bible are just "metaphors" (i would say this must be the case for anyone sane) but if people call those metaphors and proceed to believe in the fact supported round earth then why wouldn't they chalk the rest of the stuff that is scientifically wrong up to metaphor and believe in the evidence? it's not like you can't believe in god and evolution at the same time. i don't understand it. i know a lot of christians who believe in evolution, and like was mentioned before a lot of churches like the catholic one even endorse it. it seems confusing and inconsistent to take some as literal and some as metaphor...i mean how can anyone tell the difference then? the literal goes into the gaps and the metaphor goes into the obviously wrong ideas? that's too convenient.


i would choose evidence backed improvement over evidence-less absolution any day of the week. if we didn't then where would we be right now? i don't see how we could get anywhere. just imagine if we were still trying to explain sunrise and sunset and all this other stuff but we were chained down to explaining them within the context of a flat stationary earth because of a biblical wording taken literal.

I know this; no one could force me to believe anything I don't want to. My point, all the way back to my first post in this thread, is that people who fervently follow evolution as the answer always insist that people who follow creation are wrong. Neither party knows the answer right now, so neither side can say the other is wrong. I don't care what people believe, and people shouldn't care what I believe, because it doesn't affect them either way.

There are some people who interpret the Bible in a literal sense. Why, I don't know; 7 headed dragon lambs are a bit far-fetched. The Bible is a story, with loads of symbolism. And yes, for all I know, "creation in 6 days" could be 6 billion years, which would tie in with earth's physical properties changing and thus radioactive half lives are longer than we believe.

But again...evolutionists don't know the answer. Creationists don't know the answer. And even if the never-ending debate between both sides never existed, we'd still be extremely advanced (or what we consider to be advanced) in science, because the origin of species/life is irrelevant to finding a cure for cancer or building a super computer.

I don't think relating creation to evolution like a flat earth to a round earth is a very strong argument. Evolution as we know it now is studying past events. Time is relative. You can't go back to something that isn't there. If you believe you can, then you may as well believe in an invisible man in the sky. Yes, if long-term evolution is true, we'd see results of the theories in another 3 million years. But then again, if it's true, we won't be here in 3 million years. Every claimed major species has had an existence of 3-4 million years, and none were as destructive as humans.

We know that evolution is a fact. The nature and origins of the universe are a separate matter. Your theory is wrong because evidence mounts against it. The Big Bang is not perfectly complete yet, but what it does provide is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence.

If you don't care what anyone believes then you're in the wrong forum section because that's the entire point of debating. More broadly, though, I certainly should and do care when creationists try to get junk science taught in school classrooms.



Christopher Hitchens says he likes to debate Pastor Douglas Wilson because Wilson does not try to compromise his theism by saying, "Oh, well, most of it is just metaphor anyway"; he literally believes in the stuff. Wilson himself says that it would be a very immoral paradigm to believe in if it wasn't actually true and that these are merely metaphorical lessons being peddled around. I always find this argument of metaphorical interpretation a hard pill to swallow. Who are you to decide what is taken only metaphorically and what isn't literal? Is this the word of god or not?

Of course, it cannot be metaphorical when Genesis states that birds came before reptiles. That's simply wrong.



Again, this is solipsism. If you needed to personally witness something for it to be true then quantum mechanics wouldn't exist. Ditto with the rest of the scientific phenomena discovered by mathematical prediction.

Creationism is not an equal to evolution. Only one is supported by such overwhelming amounts of evidence that it's no less a fact than gravity is.

how can you believe in gravity and not evolution? how can you believe in any other scientific theory/law and not evolution? these are all subject to the same process to become a theory/law. it's not as if we have this giant standard of absolute proof for all the others but then we have no standard of proof for evolution. there are tons of things that people in general believe in that is not based off an "absolute proof". it can be argued that we know more about the mechanisms of evolution than we do about gravity. it just doesn't make sense that you don't have a problem with it unless it interferes with your faith, it's not consistent. if absolute proof is your standard, then there are tons of other sciences that you shouldn't believe in either.


i just don't get it, and what's also baffling is that people believe in micro evolution, but they can't fathom how it could happen on a bigger scale. i mean the people who believe this can never give a reason why they think the process would suddenly stop at a certain scale and cease to work. why would it do that? and who would decide when it did? it's just like arbitrarily made up. if you're going to believe in one and not the other, you have to have a real scientific explanation for the phenomenon of it suddenly stopping. this is even more complex. it's not hard to understand why a process would continue, it's much harder to explain why one would suddenly stop at an arbitrary point.

no, & forgive me for the tautology, but: you're ignorance because you're ignorant. you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of not only the theory of evolution but of science itself. you simply have no idea what you're talking about.



again, no. your ideas are ignorant, stupid, & far-fetched because they suck. they have no scientific substantiation. they are contrary to withstanding scientific theory & observation. they are full of logical fallacies, conjecture, & pure superstition. they represent a complete disregard for the scientific method and have no legitimate evidential status. that you believe in such embarrassing ideas is evidence of your ignorance & stupidity --- or, in least, your psychological predisposition to the aforementioned ideas.

to demonstrate your supreme ignorance of evolution & the scientific method:
1. you seem to suggest that if we cannot be absolutely certain of something, that all conclusions are equal. in fact, science assumes, as a foundation, that absolution is not science. we simply cannot be certain of anything (as hume demonstrated by the problem of induction, etc.). however, this does not mean that all conclusions are equal. we must, instead, hold our beliefs as proportional to the evidence. although we cannot be certain that radioactive half-lives remain constant, all evidence & observation confirms this & it is against all reason to believe otherwise.
2. you seem to confuse abiogenesis & the big ban theory with evolutionary theory: they are simply not at all concerned with each other. whereas abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-life, evolution is the theory of species diversity.
3. you seem to make an arbitrary distinction between so-called "micro" & "macro" evolution. you refer to this as "short-term" & "long-term" evolution. real evolutionary biologists do not make this sort of distinction. the same exact mechanisms which affirm "micro" evolution also affirm "macro" evolution.
4. you seem to suggest that no evidence exists for speciation or the tree of life. genetics, homologous structure, & fossil records are just three major areas of research which have conclusively demonstrated that speciation has occurred, through a "tree of life," over many million years. for example, lower order organisms are exclusively found in precambrian (old) sediment, whereas high order organisms are always found afterward (in higher sedimentary). if evolution were not true, we would not expect to find the tree of life ordered in the sedimentary rock; it's no coincidence that we don't find monkey bones chilling with single-celled organisms @ the bottom of the grand canyon.
5. you seem to suggest that there exist "creation scientists." of course, such an existence is impossible as creationism is not in fact a science. it, in no way, respects or conforms to the methods of science.
6. you seem to suggest that evolution does not have a bearing on the current progress & or future advancement of science. you're idiotically wrong. the theory of evolution has been found to be tremendously useful in its predictive powers: it has led to tremendous advancements in genetics, zoology, medicine, etc. without evolutionary theory, we would not @ all be as scientifically successful as we are today.
7. you seem to not understand that a theory of science moves from observation & must stand as a highly scrutinized & legitimized explanation & as the "best" explanation (as described earlier). a theory of science is not a "guess." creationism is not a theory of science.
8. you seem not to realize that the common ancestor and "macro" or "long-term" evolution are well established facts that create absolutely no controversy whatsoever within the scientific community. the theory of evolution does not even concern itself with these facts, these are like the apple in newtonian physics. the theory of evolution concerns itself to the degrees & mechanisms in which the diversity of species is possible.
9. you seem not to realize the power & purpose of a predictive model in science. although we cannot directly observe the evolution of distant species, we can, using a model of evolutionary theory, formulate very precise predictions. we can then test these predictions by observing the world today;it's the same way that we can conclude that the mountains were once submerged in the ocean without actually having to witness the mountains rise from the water. for example, human chromosome 2:


now, i want you to pay really close attention here:
the model of creationism does not predict human chromosome 2, whereas evolution does. even further, the model of creationism is contrary to the discovery of human chromosome 2. evolution helps us explain the world around us & every discovery we make keeps confirming evolutionary theory (i.e. the predictive powers of evolution are strong). this affirms the evolutionary model & stands as contrary to creationism; as science amounts more & more evidence in support of evolutionary theory, creationism is further & further discounted & contradicted.




this is your problem: we don't believe things because we "want to." we believe things because we are compelled to, by good reason & persuasion. sometimes, however, we fail to reason well. this failure can be explained in many ways, but two basic categories seem to amount for all instances of failure: intellectual & emotional. sometimes we are simply too stupid to grasp a certain concept or too ignorant to understand something. however, other times, we are too full of wishful thinking or prejudice & these psychological elements prevent us from reasoning well. when you say you cannot be forced to believe something you "don't want to [believe]," you mean to say that you find belief in god & creationism pleasant & if you find an opposing belief unpleasant, you cannot be persuaded to abandon the warm & fuzzy for the cold & hard --- despite the evidence.

so, shut the f*ck up & get the f*ck out of the debate forum.

Because I don't believe the evidence of evolution is strong enough. Things that I can observe firsthand I do believe. The funny thing is, people attack those who say that in regards to believing in a god, yet they also can't observe evolution.

@ NoSex: You're either incapable of holding a debate, or you forgot how to read. That entire blabbering was a waste of your precious energy. As before, being rude and assumptive does not make you superior. What you think "seems" like something I know or believe is just you closing your eyes and smacking your dick on the screen hoping that's what I really said. Your bullet list is so far off I can't even humor it with a rebuttal.

Qualms aside, this is really getting nowhere. I haven't demonstrated anything that might hint I don't know what evolution is, and yet that's what everyone's argument against my position is.

"Again, this is solipsism. If you needed to personally witness something for it to be true then quantum mechanics wouldn't exist. Ditto with the rest of the scientific phenomena discovered by mathematical prediction."



I know that you have multiple people rebutting you at once, but you only say this because you gloss over a ton of things.

so, if it "appears" to be true, why is it that you conclude that it isn't? also, i would appreciate it if you dealt with my argument concerning the evolutionary model & human chromosome 2 (because it directly addresses this problem). here it is again:


^--- that is an instance of very convincing, very real evidence. it is exactly the thing you have been saying is not just absent in evolutionary science, but (in some sense) impossible (note: your dictum "evidence does not dictate proof"). if you don't want to look like a complete f*cking shit bag, try to have an actual debate & address the opposition. so, what do you have to say about human chromosome 2? pretty good evidence for common ancestry, huh?




we should not believe in god because there is no good evidence for the existence of god.

now, despite your complete bastardization of "burden of proof," it's "on you;" you must present a rebuttal (which, ideally, would include what you consider "good evidence" for the existence of "god"). you made the claim that there was no way to prove that evolution were true, i then produced several good pieces of evidence for evolutionary theory (that is how debate works). hitherto, you have completely evaded those arguments; i promise you i will not commit the same transgression.




apparently it was a waste of my time; you're a f*cking moron. if you have any hope @ all of redeeming yourself, stop creating sorry excuses to evade the arguments of your opposition. i have completed a very thoughtful argument against your position, if you feel there are issues with it --- please qualify that. otherwise, concede the point or get the f*ck out.

this is my favorite part:


emphasis mine.

tldr you're all f*gs

And you're all terrible at debating. This is more like a flamewar than an actual debate.

you suck.

imo, ether aliens, or god made us.
(history channel)

i believe theres a god.
and he made us.

Saying Aliens made us is even more ridiculous than saying a higher power made us.

Saying we evolved from aliens, however isn't too far fetched at all.

Speak for yourself. I didn't make one ad hominem.

No, you just take everything in a literal sense. If I say something is "magic," you assume I'm talking about bunny rabbits and card tricks. Your argument was nothing more than saying, "You're wrong, there's evidence."

^ you haven't made an argument at all though. you don't think there is sufficient evidence but when any evidence is presented then you ignore it. for example nate brought up the extremely compelling evidence of chromosome 2. you ignored it completely.

plus you haven't given any evidence for the stuff you say either. like you claimed that evolution happens on a small scale, but you think it stops. but why do you think that? do you have any reason why it would stop? you have to have a reason for thinking that or else it would just be something you made up at whim.

Oh, but I have. Are you ignoring the fact that I said I believe in creation? And because I believe in creation, I don't believe the world is 4.6 billion years old and little single-celled organisms morphed into butterflies and monkeys. I've already said both sides are just as illogical, but evolutionists are too strong headed to accept that. Just because I believe don't believe in evolution doesn't mean that I don't believe any science. The scientific process is exactly that: a process, not a reason.

And I've already told him why I ignored his comments. I don't see any reason why I need to humor someone who's going to call me "f*cking ignorant." With that tone, I know anything I bothered to say in response would be some rude, jack-off statement. I apologize that I don't enjoy debating with someone so closed minded. It just shameful that the only person to actually attempt at providing any evidence is the one who tries his best to be a complete nitwit.

Which, again, you're only able to conclude because you conveniently gloss over a massive amount of things. This makes any debate with you a cut-and-paste job because I can just use the unrefuted points from earlier. When you keep saying evolution is not believable because we have not witnessed it firsthand in the context of billions of years, I repeatedly have to point to quantum mechanics, which is really being too generous in taking the time to actually give an example why every single individual on Earth doesn't need to be a personal witness to something historical or scientific for it to be true.

I can be more generous in taking this point seriously and use a more illustrative example. Imagine a murder being tried in court. The jury is convinced the butler did it via massive amounts of evidence against him. Just to seal the deal, though, the smoking gun is brought in: security cameras filmed video of the butler readying a large knife in the kitchen with an insidious gleam in his eye. He then exits the room. Surely, this just makes it that much worse for him.

Not so, says the convicted's lawyer. The video conveniently doesn't show what happens after the butler has left the room. This is a gap in the theory. Evidence is now stronger in defense of the butler.

More video is brought in of the butler entering a bedroom with blood on his suit and the knife covered in red. Surely this is more than enough. Not so, says the defense lawyer. We didn't see firsthand what happened before the butler came in the room. Now we have TWO gaps in the theory!

That's the logic of you saying we have not witnessed evolution firsthand. Of course, you skip over this because you have no sensible rebuke to it.

Your argument is inferior because it refuses to address any of the evidence. It's therefore very meaningless when you try to make it seem split and say that both sides are illogical.

Oh Dorothy, Dorothy, where is your straw man?

I seem to remember (and there's evidence, oh my gosh!) that in my first post I stated one of the major problems in an evolution-creation debate, and closed with "let it be." Now I'm the one who needs to provide evidence on my position when it went on a tangent of being "evolution is fact"? Go back through these three pages of nonsense and show me where one against my opinion has offered any bit of evidence supporting their position, excluding he who has resorted to pitching insults get his point across. (Which, if he can offer an intelligent argument against me without using any form of "f*cking ignorant", then I'd gladly include his thoughts.)

Even better, clarify how you think I'm "glossing" over everything when nothing has been offered. I've stated my opinion. In return, I get, "You're f*cking ignorant," "You're glossing over everything," "You clearly don't know what evolution is," "You must not believe in any science if you don't believe in evolution." How is this doing anything to further the progress of a debate?

Why would you bring up the Person A shot Person B example again? Yes, massive amounts of evidence point towards the prosecuting theory. And while, in most cases, Person A likely did commit the crime, it turns out in this one he didn't. He's just a butler who happens to naturally look sinister and slipped in the kitchen (off camera) as the cook was butchering a cow. Why is it that simply because you read it in a hundred books that something is true, you believe it entirely? There are so many holes in the theory of evolution. Before you attack me an ask, "What holes?" why not first provide a defense in your honor, like should have been done 50 posts ago?

Yes, I said I don't believe it because I haven't witnessed it firsthand. Whoopie. I also said I haven't witnessed creation firsthand, and then that ended up being some kind of "hypocritical" argument against me. Creation was documented in a book. "Oh, it was just a bunch of old men saying it happened, because they didn't witness it firsthand." Right? Right? The resurrection of Christ was documented, and was witnessed firsthand. "It's just a fable." Ah, I see how it is. Because a thousand men study rocks and moths changing color as a result of pollution, it's true. But if one man sees a seemingly impossible event, it's untrue. If that's not a perfect example of running with the masses, I don't know what is.

It's stunning how humans can be so infatuated with their own spoon-fed values that they never open their mind to other possibilities. Like I've said over and over again...I believe in creation; show me absolute proof otherwise, and I'll change my position. Impossible or not, you haven't made one attempt to do so. You're flipping a useless argument in saying that I'm looking at everything superficially.

Give me a reason not to look at everything superficially. Right now, this has been three grueling pages of "I believe"; "You're stupid for believing because it's wrong." If you're so into a plethora of books dictating your beliefs, there are many describing the process of debate. Hit up your local Barnes and Noble before continuing your myopic rebuttals.

1. A straw man needs an aberration of your argument distorted in a way that's easier to refute. This is impossible because I haven't paraphrased anything you've said - you haven't given any evidence for a valid argument of your own. All of my points exist independently of yours as their own evidence.

2. Go back and show you evidence that was posted?

Post #406: "The Big Bang is not perfectly complete yet, but what it does provide is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence." [Psst, it's underlined...that means it's a link.]

You couldn't pose an answer to the video, either.

And those are just external sources. My own statements that make specific references you weren't able to address include:

"Of course, it cannot be metaphorical when Genesis states that birds came before reptiles."

"If you needed to personally witness something for it to be true then quantum mechanics wouldn't exist."

Those are from the same post. I could go on, but I've done enough of your work for you.

3. Your "opinion" isn't enough. Evidence is the crux of debate. An actual debate would progress by you providing evidence and not glossing over the evidence that has the audacity to be included (just not by you). Wait, you claim you gave evidence in your first post? Where? I didn't see any. Quote it.

4. Any jury would laugh you out of the court for buying the defense's objection.

5. Yes, if many qualified scientists study something and come to a consensus through evidence, it is more liable to be true than "one man [who] sees a seemingly impossible event". This is...strange to you?

6. Show you proof that creationism is false? First show me proof that the Earth isn't one of Odin's testicles.

this i think is hilarious. it's something that seems to be a theme with you. this idea that you're really a lone wolf, some sort of radical free thinker that just doesn't follow the masses. you know, as if you're the ultimate non-conformist & all us evolutionists are just following everyone else! first & foremost, that has f*cking shit kick balls f*ck to do with this debate. this debate is about evidence & substantiation. i do not care if you're the most closed minded shit bag in the world, or if i could drive a mac truck through your skull... we make arguments in the debate forums. this means, we discuss evidence & logical points of contention. however "free thinking" you are is perfectly irrelevant to the argument @ hand. but, if we must discuss it:

YOU'RE f*ckING STUPID!

you're not in the minority! you aren't going against the grain! you haven't done anything out of the ordinary! you aren't f*cking special! notice:

according to a 1997 gallup poll, only 10% of americans believe in naturalistic evolution (i.e. man evolved from a common ancestor, unaided by the will of god). Whereas 44% of americans believe in creationism (i.e. god created man, more or less, as he is, about ten thousand years ago, i.e. what you believe). An additional 39% of americans report to believing in theistic evolution (i.e. we evolved, but god did it, & he created us). [1] NOTICE:

YOU'RE f*ckING STUPID!

you're in the majority! you are going with the grain! you are perfectly ordinary!

most of everyone in america believes exactly what you do. so stop pretending that you're some sort of pioneer of great human resistance.... you're a f*cking tool. you are part of these so-called "spoon-fed values." you're a sheep.


ahem.
try thinking for yourself and making your own conclusions. and no, being taught creationism and hearing a hundred people say that evolution is a fool's game doesn't mean that you thought for yourself. why do you believe creationism is true? what proofs or evidences drew you to that?

p.s. everyone should totally check my source on those statistics because that site has some other really amazing figures. such as: the less educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in creationism (& deny evolution). the more educated you are, of course, the more likely you are to believe in evolution. of course, the more time you spend in church, the more likely you believe in creation. etc.

p.p.s. address my points or get the f*ck out. stop making excuses. you sound like a complete moron who is talking (way) out of both sides of their ass.

The pope said Evolution is true.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle5705331.ece

Ok they might not have fully agreed, but they will in the days to come .

My theory, A Human race from another galaxy came to the galaxy we live in today, and started the the human race on planet earth . Eygption scripts are somewhat similar to this theory if I understood correctly. Correct me if i'm wrong.

why did you bump this

ah shit, didnt see the date. Read most of it and totally forgot. My bad