Sorry, but ridicule is what most of the creationist deserve for trying to argue against a science they have absolutely no clue about. They use a description of 'evolution' that bears no resemblance to what the science actually says. They then commence to beating up their version because trying to argue against the actual theory would require them to actually learn it. Doing THAT would show them how stupid their posts are. When you start an "argument", and clearly show that you have no clue about the topic you're arguing against, expect to be ridiculed! In this day and age, with access to information available at your finger tips, there is NO excuse for being completely ignorant of a subject.<quoted text>
And for most Science you have to take things on FAITH. Look at the current debate on Climate Change. In the 1980's the world was going to come to an Ice Age and Now we are going to burn to death. One group of Scientists say Global Warming Exists using said data and another group using the same exact data says it is false. So even in the name of Science which is supposed to be a singular Religion not everyone agrees. There is no need to be cynical because someone believes in something you don't, won't, or can't comprehend.
Faith gives the majority of the world (cause the majority claim to believe in some form of higher power/being) a sense of belonging and peace. So let's discuss this issue rather than assault or ridicule someone because they don't buy what you are selling.
Arguing is not discussing. Name calling belittles the discussion. This is exactly why nothing gets done and this discussion delves into an argument. State facts, ideas, theories, and let others post theirs without assuming they're wrong just because they are on the other side.
I am Christian, so I grant you that there is a possibility that God may not exist because the human mind can be manipulated. I don't believe that one bit as I am certain God exists. As a non-believer can you honestly admit that there is a possibility that God exists? Because if you cannot then how can you discover the truth? Any good science experiment has to start off with all answers are possible to include the ones we don't want to have hear. Then through experiments and further data collection we begin to find the right answers. But if you are biased to the experiment that only one possible outcome exists from the beginning then you have ruined the experiment and the results will be false, even if you are right, because you failed to include true testing for the other possibilities.
Please again I encourage you all to keep your discussion based on facts and less name calling and ridicule. Just my .02
Do you know what the difference is between the 'free thinkers' and the 'religious' in a debate between 'religion and science'? The 'free thinkers' know BOTH sides of the debate and the 'religious' barely know their own!
The only "fact" that can be used when discussing religion is that many people believe in a god for which no evidence has ever been presented. THAT is the reason that your are told that 'faith' is a requirement. If there actually was evidence for your 'god'(or for any other 'god' for that matter) there would be no need for faith because it would be accepted based on the evidence. Starting with a premise that requires 'faith','god' exists, and then claiming anything derived from that premise as fact is pretty silly don't you think? There is no need for 'faith' in science because science relies on facts. When you have facts on your side, the need for faith vanishes. There is no 'truth' in 'faith'