Creation/Evolution; Which is true?

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
There was no right answer to that question, either way, I would have sucke you into this.

Oh, you! Your clever little traps! Your sheer brilliance leaves us intellectual inferiors with our jaws on the floor.

Too bad your comment guidelines said nothing about arrogance.

[roadrunner48808]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
You may want to brush up on your biology a little bit, with all due respect. Mutations always deal with pre-existing information, and all reliably observed mutations have been degenerative.
And how did a single cell become a human without the addition of information?

Not all mutations are pre-existing. I was not born with the cancer mutation. Give me a break. Why don't you go look into the meaning of evolution. I think you may be surprised.

[Ocean56]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, you! Your clever little traps! Your sheer brilliance leaves us intellectual inferiors with our jaws on the floor.
Too bad your comment guidelines said nothing about arrogance.

I'm going to have to go all the way back to catch up on this thread, but I see the usual suspects are out in full force.:-)

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

[legomania100]

roadrunner48808 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not all mutations are pre-existing. I was not born with the cancer mutation. Give me a break. Why don't you go look into the meaning of evolution. I think you may be surprised.

What I said was that mutation deal with pre existing information, meaning that all a mutation does is mess with information that was already there.
Meaning of evolution: See a few posts back, I clearly defined it.

[Fish]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm going to have to go all the way back to catch up on this thread, but I see the usual suspects are out in full force.:-)
S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Hey Ocean, I started in at post 251.

[beachball]

If natural selection is real and all humans, animals, insects, germs ... etc. are constantly evolving then why hasn't nature weeded out all of the fundamentalists yet?

[Fish]

roadrunner48808 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not all mutations are pre-existing. I was not born with the cancer mutation. Give me a break. Why don't you go look into the meaning of evolution. I think you may be surprised.

Hey roadrunner, hope you're doing well.

[Ocean56]

bloodyvisigoths wrote:

"Creationism" is just a Christian way of injecting their religion into the public school systems.
Christians want--and in some cases even demand that--their religious beliefs be taught in the public schools. But there's that damned irritating little separation of church and state thing called the First Amendment that keeps getting in their way. So instead of accepting this fact, they try every duplicitous argument that they can conceive of in order to proclaim evolution a religious belief based solely on faith, and then claim that if *this* religion is taught and paid for with our tax dollars, then creationism should be granted "equal time."
It's a Christian con game. And an extremely transparent one at that. No one is falling for it, but they keep on trying. Who was it, Goebbles (is that how the name's spelled? i fergit) who once stated that if you repeat a lie long enough to enough people, it will gradually be accepted as truth? That's what they're hoping and praying for.
If the Christian cause is a just one, as they claim it is, then why do they have to constantly lie for it? How just is a cause that one has to lie for?

This is how I feel about the Creation issue in public schools as well. As far as I'M concerned, it is about RELIGION, not science, and the push to teach it in the public schools comes as usual from the christian fundamentalist crowd.

Why they can't do this in their own homes and churches, where they are free to teach their faith-based "science" beliefs, is beyond me. But I'm not going to call their nonsense science when I know it is not.

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

[roadrunner48808]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
What I said was that mutation deal with pre existing information, meaning that all a mutation does is mess with information that was already there.
Meaning of evolution: See a few posts back, I clearly defined it.

K, sorry.:) My bad.

[roadrunner48808]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey roadrunner, hope you're doing well.

Doing tons better! Thanks!

[Ocean56]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Ocean, I started in at post 251.

lol I probably should have done the same thing, but I have to admit I was curious as to how this thread started. So I've begun replying to posts on the first page. I'll probably have to crash for the night in about 30 minutes, but will see how much I can read until then.:-)

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

[Fish]

beachball wrote:

If natural selection is real and all humans, animals, insects, germs ... etc. are constantly evolving then why hasn't nature weeded out all of the fundamentalists yet?

Evolution is a very slow process. The changes are too minute to witness in human lifetimes. Darn you, evolution. Speed up!

[Janeebananee]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Wonderful. If there is no evil, there cannot be any good, therefore the time and money you give to differant orginizations is useless. You have a logic problem, which hinges on the existance of right and wrong.
If there is no good or evil, there is no right or wrong. If there is no right or wrong, then neither of us is correct, and this argument is pointless. I believe that I am right (that is an absolute term) and therefore, I have a reason to continue argueing. Your only reason is pity, which, from your biting comments, I doubt that you have.
There was no right answer to that question, either way, I would have sucke you into this.

That is like saying if there is food, there is no hunger. Or is there is sight, there is no blindness.
All this is in debate between 2 equally underinformed and unprovable positions. It would conform to your logic to say that if evil exists, then love does not. If there is no evil in love, evil actions are retaliations to, rebellions against, or disagreements to Love's unchanging intentions.
And must the scientific establishment of the facts of evolution be evidence invalidating Intellegent Design. The whole kit and kaboodle could be attributed to the deliberate intentions of an Intelligent Designer. Evolution is not a negation of God.

[Dryad]

Yet another thread on topix prooves that everything that evolves, eventually devolves.

[Ocean56]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
Like it or not, there are a whole lot of Christians that would like the USA to be a Christian version of the Middle East when it comes to having a Theocratic government.
Why do you think the Falwells, Robertsons, and the like give so much money to and lobby the government. They have an agenda, and it isn't co-existence.

Exactly, and don't forget Rev. Hagee, a Falwell wannabe, who has officially endorsed McCain, who took that support gleefully.@@

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

[beachball]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
And how is the Bible fiction? It has never yet been proven wrong, as discussed previously on this forum. That is not fiction.

Now that is just too funny!
.
Talk about being in denial.

[Fish]

roadrunner48808 wrote:

<quoted text>
Doing tons better! Thanks!

Great to hear. Awesome :)

[Ocean56]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
In reality, everyone of us has a ingrained moral code. Everybody knows that it is wrong to steal. Have you ever looked at the face of a five year old child who has jsut stolen something? Guilt is written all over their face. The same applies to various Sexual Sins, Cheating, Lying, etc. Where did these come from? Evolution cannot explain moral codes. That really leaves only one alternative.

And what "sexual sins" would those be? Sex before marriage? Using contraception to avoid what for some are the unwanted burdens of pregnancy and birth? Indulging in the "contraceptive sex acts" that are all about pleasure and avoid the pain?

This is why religion needs to be kept out of our public schools. Creation is nothing more than another religionist principle, which should be taught in christian homes, schools and churches only.

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

[Ocean56]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup. The old "fear of the Lord" routine, used for centuries to bully and intimidate people into believing as they do.

Exactly. And if that didn't work, churches like the rcc would use terrorist campaigns like the INQUISITION and MALLEUS MALEFICARUM (to name just two) to create fear of the church. Worked every time; fear of being tortured and murdered had a way of scaring people into caving in to the institution carrying it out. Gotta love some of the fundamentalist definitions of "morality." @@

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

[Kong]

legomania100 wrote:

And Atheism is the belief that all we see is all there is. That is still a belief. Refer to my first post.

I think the point that was trying to be made was the simple belief in the "Natural" as opposed to the "Belief" (capital "B") in the "Supernatural" (God).