PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Thinking of Overall Ethics
       What if evolution is true?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Every religion in the world tries to answer 4 main questions.

Who am I?
Where did I come from?
What am I worth?
Where am I going when I die?

Personally I believe in Creationism, and I hear evolution talk all the time...

But when you really think about it, Evolution is a worthless theory, even if it is true, what does it tell us about life? Will we get stronger and better and smarter by believing evolution...Let's just suppose that evolution is true...

What am I?
---Your just another piece of protoplasm that washed up on the beach millions of years ago...

Where did I come from?
---From a big explosion billions of years ago...

What am I worth?
---You're not worth a thing, in fact, you're part of the problem because you're a polluter of the environment...

Where am I going when I die?
---About 6 feet below the ground to be turned into some crude gas or what-not...

And I can guarantee you, when you answer these questions in the Christian essence, all of them come out pleasurable answers...

So even if you believe the evolution religion, you're basically screwed over, being as there is really nothing to live for...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 5:02 PM on April 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nonsense.
Evolution is part of science, not religion.  It is not the duty of science to answer questions like "why am I here?".  

Evolution is a worthless theory?  All theories work to bring us closer to the truth behind how the universe operates.   That's plenty of value.  

Reality isn't based on what you'd like it to be.

"In the theory of gravity, jumping off a cliff would KILL YOU!  However, in my religion, FloatingCandyism, you would just float when you jump off the cliff and candy would fill your mouth.   Clearly FloatingCandyism has more to offer than gravitational physics."
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:37 PM on April 14, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is a religion...when you really think about it

If I asked you where the matter for the Big Bang came from...you'd say I don't know...

But if you ask a Creationist where God came from, the creationist will say I don't know...

Creationists believe in the begining "God" and Evolutionists believe in the begining "Matter"..

Besides the real definition of science is things that you can observe and test and those kind of procedures...don't tell me mine is a religion and yours is science...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:05 PM on April 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is a religion...when you really think about it

No, it's a part of science.

If I asked you where the matter for the Big Bang came from...you'd say I don't know...

But if you ask a Creationist where God came from, the creationist will say I don't know...


What does Big Bang Cosmology have to do with biological evolution?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:36 PM on April 15, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Back up your theory, you say evolution is part of science, which part would that be...There's no non-refutable evidence for evolution...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 8:44 PM on April 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"you say evolution is part of science, which part would that be"

The foundation for biology and an important component in geology/palentology/etc.

"There's no non-refutable evidence for evolution"

You should tell that to the 99.9% of scientists who support it.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:55 PM on April 16, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oooohhhh, I see, so now your going by...

"all scientist believe it"

yeah, that comeback died a long time ago...

Majority means nothing I hope you know...

hundreds of years ago the majority of scientists thought big objets fall faster than small objects, and that the sun revolves around us, and that taking out your blood would cure sickness...

And actually that percentage is false, only 55% of scientist believe in Evolution...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 9:11 PM on April 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All you have to do is answer the monstrous amount of genetic, fossil, and observed evidences of evolution.  I'm sure you'll win the Nobel prize.

Where did you get the 55% figure?  

According to religioustolerance.org, 55% of scientists accept atheistic evolution, 40% theistic evolution, and only 5% some form of Creationism.   That's 55% PLUS 40% = 90%.  However, the scientists group included 'scientists' like engineers.   So, among people who actually work in fields relating to evolution -like biologists- the number is probably much higher than 95%.

Also, you can't compare scientific views of hundreds of years ago with those of today.  In those times, there were very few scientists.  If someone made a claim, it wouldn't circulate.  Now, when a scientist makes a thesis, it is instantly examined and criticized by the rest of the scientific community.  If someone said heavier objects fell much faster, it would take 5 minutes for someone to refute them.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:42 PM on April 16, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hammer of God,

You're way off on many points.  First of all evolution is a fact, it happens, we can and have observed it.  The only debate is on the precise mechanisms that drive it.  
Evolution is not religion, it is a theory of science that explains all the evidence of the diversity of life on the planet.  It explains the how of the developement of life, it does not concern itself with the why.  It does not say anuthing about God.  Creationism, on the other hand, is completely wrong.  It was a theory that was totally falisified, proven wrong.  The Earth was not created in 6 days 6000 -10000 years ago, and animals were not created intact and unchanging.  That has been disproven and disproven convincingly over 150 years ago.
And the Theory of Evolution is the most important concept in the science of Biology, it ties it all together.  Your statisticts are way off on the number of scientists that accept evolution, it's 95% of all scientists and 99% of biologists.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:46 AM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon- evolutionism is far from a fact. Speciation has not been observed and will not be. I don't know what you are saying has been observed but I would like to know. To say something is a fact in science is a serious claim. Gravity isn't even a fact, it is just a theory the fits observed occurances. Evolution is a theory, and a weak one at that.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:32 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Speciation has been observed.

Gravity is a fact in the sense that it is a confirmed phenomenon.

Evolution is one of science's strongest theories.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:15 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution, a fact? Uh huh, and exactly where did you hear that. One would have to find...

NON-REFUTABLE

Evidence to prove anythin. Evolution doesn't have one spec of non-refutable evidence.

And don't instantly say that creation isn't true simply because you don't believe in it, that's just bull headed...

Evolution is a religion. It tries to answer the orgin of life with no CONCRETE PROOF beind. Evolution is pure faith...And, to some extent, Christianity is as well...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 7:03 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, NO ONE has been able to refute evolution or propose ANY competing scientific theory.

Secondly, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:09 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How does it not try to explain the origin of life?

We started as an ameoba, and slowly turned into a fish, then a frog, then a monkey and so on and so forth...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 7:13 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ignoring the fact that an ameoba wouldn't have been the first form of life...ISN'T AN AMEOBA ALIVE?!?!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:47 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hammer,

Speciation HAS been observed, countless times.  New species have been seen to arise, both in the wild and under controlled circumstances.  As guest said earlier, gravity is a confirmed phenomenon, just as evolution is.  
I still fail to see why you claim evolution is a religion, there is no faith involved in accepting the theory of evolution.  The evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution is absolutely overwhelming, how you can deny this is beyond me. The Theory of Evolution is the backbone of modern biology.

"And don't instantly say that creation isn't true simply because you don't believe in it, that's just bull headed..."
I'm not saying creation isn't true (I don't know if it is or not...) but creationism certainly is not true.  It was disproved over 150 years ago.  To claim the Earth was created 6000 years ago and life does not evolve is being willfully ignorant.  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:57 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

    The actual proboblem with evolution is you are denying the fact that creation bears witness of God, and are seeking an eternal sentence which is irreversable out of shear arrogance. It has nothing to do with what makes me feel good, Ananias probobly didn't feel to good when he died on the spot for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). Christ didn't feel to good when He came to earth to fulfill the penalty for our sin, being treated with contempt to the point of nail pierced hands. And God's enemies will not feel good when they are completely and totally exposed and put under His feet. The reality of the matter is that the human race has been plagued, instantly and gradually, because of the time that Adam and Eve decided they would disobey God. Therefore God began the ministry of reconciliation. This ministry completely centers around Christ, in the Old Testament as well as the New. The only Way to God remains in His Blood, a perfect sacrifice for our sins. Therefore all who completely put their lives in the hands of the Most High God, will truly live. Of this I am certian.      
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:32 AM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, evolution does not deny God, only your narrow minded, literal interpretation of 2000 year old goat herder myths.  Arrogance has nothing to do with it, I just refuse to be ignorant.  You can put your life in the hands of the brutal, blood thirsty god you worship blindly but don't expect any rational person to draw the same skewered conclusions from the Bible you do.  Why would the evidence of the natural world clearly show that the world is roughly 4.5 billion years old?  Why is the Theory of Evolution overwhelmingly accepted?  Apparently the god you quake in fear of is a liar and a cheat, believe his myths, despite what your senses, intelligence and common sense tell you or you'll BURN IN HELL!  What a terrible, deceitful religion you've yoked yourself to.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:40 AM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

    How then have we found red blood cells and hemoglobin in some unfossilized dinasour bone? That indicates that it has only been thousands of years since it's death. If coal is so ancient, as many evolutionists insist, how come it can (in every known circumstance) be carbon dated? Anything that has a sufficient amount of carbon to be tested, is certianly less than 75,000 years old. This occurance is not, by any means, alone. Anyone who has researched modern dating techniques knows that they are shaky at best. Just because man agree's with each other in a theory that allows us to do whatever we want by undermining God's authority, doesn't say anything but that we have gone from "bad to worse" just as the Bible said we would. The Bible told us clearly of everything we see today, and will se tomorrow and is completely accurate and unchanged.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:41 PM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We didn't find red blood cells.  They found trace organic molecules, including ones that would have been from red blood cells (like hemoglobin).

Here is a link regarding the coal problems.

we have gone from "bad to worse" just as the Bible said we would.

How have we gone from bad to worse?  I'd much rather live in 21st century America than BC-era ANYWHERE.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:46 AM on April 19, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, we have not found red blood cells in unfossilized dinosaur bones.  What was found were what is thought to be traces of hemoglobin, very faint traces.  And while this is extrodinary, hemoglobin is a hardy molecule and could conceivably leave traces behind even after millions of years, but red blood cells were definitely not found.  So, once again, no evidence of of "young dinosaurs".  And I find it very dishonest of you to try and past this off as proof of a young earth, have you no integrity?!
And your wrong again about coal, don't you ever check these things out before you post them?  According to Talkorigins in regard to carbon14 in coal "The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.
(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)"
There you have it, a logically consistant, intelligent, reality based answer to your wildly implausible assertions.  Typical creationist, blindly believe anything if it comes from a high enough authority, doesn't matter if it's the truth or a lie.  
And anyone who's really researched modern daing techniques would know that they are incredibly acurate and becoming more so all the time.  Shakey at best?  Why?  Because you read it on some desperate creationist website?  Anyone who spouts such nonsense obviously knows nothing about "modern dating techniques".  And it's funny, first your saying that coal can be carbon dated to less than 75,000 years old, implying that it is an accurate test, then you claim that those dating techniques are shakey at best...you can't have it both ways.  
I'm really getting tired of the way some creationists infer that the more we use our intellect, the more we study, the more we excersize our natural curiosity, the more sinful we are becoming.  You claim "that we have gone from bad to worse just as the Bible said we would."  I dispute that idea, give me some evidence that we have gone from bad to worse.  Yes, it isn't a perfect world, but to say things were better thousands of years ago is simply untrue.  And the Bible tells us clearly of everything we see today and tomorrow and is completely accurate?  Don't be absurd!  The Bible is not a book of science, it is not a book of history and I've never seen it irrefutably nail a modern prediction.  So how about if you back up some of those "claims " with more than nebulous inferrences.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:15 AM on April 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"And your wrong again about coal, don't you ever check these things out before you post them?  According to Talkorigins in regard to carbon14 in coal "The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.
(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)"


    This shows me nothing but speculation, no facts are involved. The facts are that NO coal has ever been found without at least a trace of C-14, and this in un-reconciliable to the "theory of evolution". Even if this idea deals with some scenarios, it is so mathematically improbible that it would deal with ALL coal deposits.

 "I've never seen it irrefutably nail a modern prediction.  So how about if you back up some of those "claims " with more than nebulous inferrences. "

   Do you desire to come to God if He is true? Or do you desire your will over His? None the less, look at Israel.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:46 PM on April 19, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"This shows me nothing but speculation, no facts are involved. The facts are that NO coal has ever been found without at least a trace of C-14, and this in un-reconciliable to the "theory of evolution". Even if this idea deals with some scenarios, it is so mathematically improbible that it would deal with ALL coal deposits"

This is from Talkorigins.com, it is written by Kathleen Hunt who corresponded with Dr. Harry Gove, an expert on Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and Carbon 14 dating, about this topic.  Dr. Gove was studying this problem because he is involved in using fossil fuels to detect neutrino emissions.

"In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!"

So yes, it is not established 100% but the evidence is very compelling that the carbon 14 in coal beds is a by product of the enviroment it resides in, not an indication of age.  You're also wrong about the fact that no coal has ever been found without at least traces of C14.  And what is so mathematically improbable about dealing with all coal deposits?  Obviously, some coal deposits have C14 and some don't.

Whether God is true of not has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is very old.  You keep throwing out these goofy, disproven pseudoscientific lies in an attempt to discredit evolution and an old Earth.  To debate effectively, you must have some knowledge about what you are debating against, you might want to keep that in mind...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:39 PM on April 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C."

    He did not say that there was a discovery of coal without any tracable 14C, the word was fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are made up of:petrolium, natural gas, and coal (enchanted learning.com's scientific online dictionary). It is unlikely or mathematically improboble that ALL of the coal would undergo this, speculative;assumption based process and ALL deposits of coal would end up with 14C. How come absolutely none of this coal (agian completely distict of other various fossil fuels) would manage to escape this "new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series"??
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:00 AM on April 20, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So let me get this straight, you are claiming that all coal deposits are younger than 75,000 years?  Despite the fact that experts in carbon 14 dating like Dr. Gove have provided evidence that the C14 in coal formations is due to other sources and is not an indication of such a young age?  Despite the fact that layers on top of some coal beds have been dated to be 100s of millions of years old?  Despite the fact dinosaur footprints have been found in coal deposits?  You must have some amazing evidence to make a claim that so radically changes everything we know about coal formation.  Now if you'll just present that evidence and mention a reputable geologist or two who backs you up, I'll gladly admit I was wrong and you were right...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:48 AM on April 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  Read Dr. Grove's statement, it was speculation in attempt to make the scenario fit preconcieved theories of man's origin's and existence... I have already stated facts to which you did not listen, should I continue to feed those who will not eat? I love you, and Jesus died for you, but I can't show what I know if you wont listen.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:30 AM on April 23, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How is this speculation?  Dr. Gove is a physicist who doesn't care about the preconceived theories of man's origins, his work is concerned with detecting neutrinos. Since higher levels of C14 in oil deposits interferes with neutrino detection, he wants to find deposits with low C14 concetrations.  He has a good working hypothesis of why fossil fuel deposits have fluctuating degrees of C14.  
Carbon dating is not used to date these deposits to begin with.  I listened to your facts and found them wanting.  Once again, are you claiming that all coal deposits are 75,000 years old or younger?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:11 AM on April 24, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Hammer_of_God at 5:02 PM on April 14, 2003 :
Every religion in the world tries to answer 4 main questions.

And each makes up fantasy answers.

Who am I?

I am a hominid, genus Homo, fairly cognitive, highly evolved. When I create God I usually make him just like me.

Where did I come from?

County Armagh, Northern Ireland? Or do you mean further back? Homo habilis, Australopithecus? Ardapithecus, Sahelanthropus, Kenyapithecus? Prosimians, Lemurs? Arboureal insectivores? Mammal like reptiles, reptiles? Amphibians resembling salamders (Ichtheostega)? Lobe fin fish, agnathic fish, amphioxus, Pikaia?

I am a bit unclear on pre-Pikaia back to karyocytic cells then back to akaryocytes (bacteria?) Mitochondrial like DNA containing pre-cells?

Back further? Condensation of Carbon, Iron, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Calcium, Sodium, Chloride, Hydrogen on primaeval Earth?

Further back? To exploding supernovas of second generation stars whose nuclear furnaces fused Hydrogen protons into Helium, Lithium up the periodic table in the core of those giant stars? BANG, the popped and spill out the atoms that would become us.

Further back, there were the giant protostars of condensing Hydrogen that followed the fusiong of quarks from the Big Bang?

Then I run into a mental block at the Big Bang because time itself is a metaphorical brick wall preventing looking behind the Big Bang.

Ah Crikey, lets just invent God and say he did it with a magic trick, called Creation. It is so simple minded that my hamster understands it.

After a day at the lab coding thousands and thousands of CGAT nucleotides and spicing them to study what they do, I come home and say, it is too difficult to understand. I will invent God. Now I can go to bed.

FreeAmerican
What am I worth?
Where am I going when I die?

Personally I believe in Creationism, and I hear evolution talk all the time...

But when you really think about it, Evolution is a worthless theory, even if it is true, what does it tell us about life? Will we get stronger and better and smarter by believing evolution...Let's just suppose that evolution is true...

What am I?
---Your just another piece of protoplasm that washed up on the beach millions of years ago...

Where did I come from?
---From a big explosion billions of years ago...

What am I worth?
---You're not worth a thing, in fact, you're part of the problem because you're a polluter of the environment...

Where am I going when I die?
---About 6 feet below the ground to be turned into some crude gas or what-not...

And I can guarantee you, when you answer these questions in the Christian essence, all of them come out pleasurable answers...

So even if you believe the evolution religion, you're basically screwed over, being as there is really nothing to live for...






-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 12:41 AM on April 25, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where am I going when I die?
---About 6 feet below the ground to be turned into some crude gas or what-not...


Actually you will only be there temporarily. Eventually your atoms will be recycled. You may fertilise a Fir tree, a patch of flowers, or a muddy bed of smelly skunk cabbage.

And I can guarantee you, when you answer these questions in the Christian essence, all of them come out pleasurable answers...

Problem is the Christian answers have no essence for me.

So even if you believe the evolution religion, you're basically screwed over, being as there is really nothing to live for...

I also believe in the Spherical earth religion, the Helicentric Solar System Religin, the Gravity Religion, the Cognitive Brain religion, the religion of atomic elements classed by atomic weight, the Religion of Algebra, The Religion of Geometry, etc. etc. If one science is religion then all science is religion. But of course that is bullshit.

Religion is delusion, inane rites to please entities invented by the very people who worship them. It is interesting that the simple minds of Bronze Age people steal each other gods. Virgin births of human-gods by girls impregnated by imaginary gods, deaths and resurrection, inevitably at or near the spring equinox. It is all sooo predictable and simple minded.

But it is so much easier than thinking.

FreeAmerican



-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 12:53 AM on April 25, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.