Why do you believe what you believe? I want to know what makes people have faith in something with no proof at all. Also, the bible being the word of God does not count. Also, religious texts, should not be reasons, because most religions have something similiar to the Bible. Unless you can give some evidence to back up the theory that your religious text is the word of God, don't use it please.

you see God working in your life.

Why would you seeing God working in your life cause you to choose one religion over another? All of them have a God.

I believe what I do because I have no reason to believe it and do anyway.

Good enough answer I guess. Anybody with a reason?

Bump...nobody has a reason?

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

Bump...nobody has a reason?

Sanity, you are asking a very broad question. Can you narrow it down? You asked why we believe what we believe, but you clarified as if you were not speaking about any religious belief. So, what exactly are you asking?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Sanity, you are asking a very broad question. Can you narrow it down? You asked why we believe what we believe, but you clarified as if you were not speaking about any religious belief. So, what exactly are you asking?





Why would someone believe in a god... :rollseyes:

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Sanity, you are asking a very broad question. Can you narrow it down? You asked why we believe what we believe, but you clarified as if you were not speaking about any religious belief. So, what exactly are you asking?



How about why do you believe biological information cannot be created by mutation and selection? I already explained a precise mechanism in another thread, which you did not reply. You don't need to reply here I already know the answer: Ignorance. You simply don't understand genetics.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

How about why do you believe biological information cannot be created by mutation and selection? I already explained a precise mechanism in another thread, which you did not reply. You don't need to reply here I already know the answer: Ignorance. You simply don't understand genetics.

I went around in circles with you, and many others for about fifty posts... Therefore, no matter what I say, you and all the others like you, will argue, just to get the last word in. I gave you a very simple understanding of genetics that virtually anyone could understand, which you tried to undermine. Here's the fact: You are attemtpting to show that macroevolution is real, because you need it to be. I agree that you need it to be real in order to verify your false reality... Unfortunately for you, science is at odds with you. No one has ever given anyone an example of macroevolution. That's why they have to keep gluing tails of one creature on the end of another, or glue ape jaws to a human cranium. Its a big problem for you and all evolutionists. Why? Because it doesn't exist. And you're attemtping to manipulate science to conform to your false beliefs. But you still can't offer any evidence of this supposedly natural occurance. Instead, you hide in the ambiguity of small adaptations to confuse the laymen in order to draw them on to your side. But I ask you, once and for all: If macroevolution were true, there would no question, whatsoever, if it were an actual occurance. So where are all of your necessary missing links? Where are they? Not just for humans, but every creature that has ever graced the earth. Where are they?

Please, spare us your lies.

1. We have given you evidence in favor of evolution.

2. Science is not at odds with evolution, it supports it almost unanimously.

3. It is you who arrive at the belief that the bible is true, and then try to manipulate the evidence in order for it to fall into your book.

4. For evolutionary theory to be true, one does not need to see transitional fossils for every species in the world. In fact, it would actually undermine lots of areas in Science as fossils only form when conditions are right for them to form, and they get preserved only when conditions are right for them to be preserved. As such, we should expect a very low amount of fossils, when compared to all the organisms that have lived, and that's exactly what we see.

The fact is, you evade the posts because the posts refute you.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. We have given you evidence in favor of evolution.

No you haven't. You've hidden yourslef in confusing terms because you don't have any evidence of macroevolution. A sickly pall looms overhead the theory.

2. Science is not at odds with evolution, it supports it almost unanimously.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have included them. I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil." Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist of the Brittish Museum of Natural History.

"In the years of Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." -David M. Raup, "Evolution and Fossil Record"

"This notion of species as 'natural kinds' fits splendidly with creationists tenants of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.' But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?" (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)



"There is no doubt that natural selection is a mechanism, that it works. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. The question of whether it produces new species is quite another matter. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it. And most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked." (Dr. Colin Patterson)

3. It is you who arrive at the belief that the bible is true, and then try to manipulate the evidence in order for it to fall into your book.

4. For evolutionary theory to be true, one does not need to see transitional fossils for every species in the world. In fact, it would actually undermine lots of areas in Science as fossils only form when conditions are right for them to form, and they get preserved only when conditions are right for them to be preserved. As such, we should expect a very low amount of fossils, when compared to all the organisms that have lived, and that's exactly what we see.

The fact that there are none seriously discredits you... Don't believe me. Believe what evolutionists have said.

The fact is, you evade the posts because the posts refute you.

Yeah, that's it. I fully engaged you, and all the others. How much more should I say that totally destroys the theory? I think I have an idea why.

"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science -- real science -- before moving into creation science."

-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.

Well, this is a religion forum, so I assumed that people would understand I was asking why the have the particular religious beliefs they have. So, why do you believe in or follow the religion you do?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I went around in circles with you, and many others for about fifty posts... Therefore, no matter what I say, you and all the others like you, will argue, just to get the last word in. I gave you a very simple understanding of genetics that virtually anyone could understand, which you tried to undermine.



You gave a simple and incorrect understanding of genetics. I showed you why you were 100% wrong and how biological information can and is created all the time. You simply weren't aware of the mechanisms that I presented. They are included in any advanced textbook and proven to be true and they refute your childish version of genetics.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

you see God working in your life.

Isn't it true that someone is more likely to see "God" working in their life if they belong to a certain race or class. You are talking about success correct?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

No you haven't. You've hidden yourslef in confusing terms because you don't have any evidence of macroevolution. A sickly pall looms overhead the theory.

That's a bold face lie.

We've given you evidence numerous times. One more time:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

quote: [...] quotes [...]



a) That does not refute what I said.

b) All of those people support evolution; thus making any objection they might have, a trivial one. They obviously think that more evidence supports evolution than not, which means they essentially refute you, not the other way around.

c) Those quotes are taken of out context.

Please see the point below.

quote:The fact that there are none seriously discredits you... Don't believe me. Believe what evolutionists have said.

None of those evolutionists say that there are no transitional fossils. You're simply lying.

On Patterson's first quote:

"I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false." -- Patterson himself on which interpretation was true and which one was false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html



On David M. Rau - A quote which shows how wrong you are in claiming that he thinks there are no transitional forms:

"One such form is the reptile-like bird Archaeopteryx, of the Middle Jurassic,... Archaeopteryx possessed both reptilian and avian characters. Its possession of feathers suggests that it was warm-blooded, like modern birds, but it also had large teeth, solid bones, and other reptilian skeletal features."

On Stephen Jay Gould's quote:

"This one is interesting because the dishonesty of the quote mine was exposed at least as far back as 1984 in an article, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion" by Laurie R. Godfrey that appeared in Science and Creationism (Ashley Montagu, ed. 1984. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-81). That was, in turn, a revision of an earlier article, "The Flood of Antievolution" that had appeared in Natural History, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 4-10. Specifically, Godfrey addressed the use of this quote (along with David Raup's widely mined "120 years after Darwin" quote) by creationist Gary Parker in "Creation, Selection, and Variation," that appeared in the Institute for Creation Research's newsletter, Acts & Facts in 1980 and which is still available.

To better understand Gould's intent, here are the first two paragraphs of the article:

' Thomas Henry Huxley once defined science as "organized common sense." Other contemporaries, including the great geologist Charles Lyell, urged an opposing view -- science, they said, must probe behind appearance, often to combat the "obvious" interpretation of phenomena.

I cannot offer any general rules for the resolution of conflicts between common sense and the dictates of a favored theory. Each camp has won its battles and received its lumps. But I do want to tell a story of common sense triumphant -- an interesting story because the theory that seemed to oppose ordinary observation is also correct, for it is the theory of evolution itself. The error that brought evolution into conflict with common sense lies in a false implication commonly drawn from evolutionary theory, not with the theory itself.'

Thus, Gould made it plain from the outset that he was discussing something that he does not see as a difficulty in either the theory of evolution or the evidence for it."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

As for Patterson's last quote, I can't find the context of it, but given your dishonesty and/or ignorance of the context of these quotes and what those scientists actually believe, I think it's safe to assume that you're full of shit here as well.

The fact that you repeat these obviously fallacious arguments shows that you're either ignorant of what you're saying, or that you're so dishonest that you're willing to lie. Please tell us which one is it. Tell us what made you post those quotes and the opinions of those scientists, so blatantly out of context; your ignorance, or your dishonesty.

quote:Yeah, that's it. I fully engaged you, and all the others. How much more should I say that totally destroys the theory? I think I have an idea why.

You don't fully engage us, that's the point. If you think making ridiculous allegations and lies, such as the ones you uttered just now, and then not replying is "fulling engaging" anyone, then you're sorely mistaken.

You make ridiculous allegations and then stop replying when you've been proven wrong.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

"In the years of Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." -David M. Raup, "Evolution and Fossil Record"



Where the hell did you get this butchered quote?

quote:

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

You gave a simple and incorrect understanding of genetics. I showed you why you were 100% wrong and how biological information can and is created all the time. You simply weren't aware of the mechanisms that I presented. They are included in any advanced textbook and proven to be true and they refute your childish version of genetics.

"But I ask you, once and for all: If macroevolution were true, there would no question, whatsoever, if it were an actual occurance. So where are all of your necessary missing links? Where are they? Not just for humans, but every creature that has ever graced the earth. Where are they?"

"But I ask you, once and for all: If macroevolution were true, there would no question, whatsoever, if it were an actual occurance. So where are all of your necessary missing links? Where are they? Not just for humans, but every creature that has ever graced the earth. Where are they?"

All you've proven is that the bullshit artist is a master evading questions... Again, you are hiding in the confusing terms of micro and macro. So please, just show us all of the evidence that should be more than unquestionable.

How can you even dare talk about evading questions with a straight face?

Look at what Real.PUA asked:

"How about why do you believe biological information cannot be created by mutation and selection?"

You saying "But I ask you, once and for all: If macroevolution were true, there would no question, whatsoever, if it were an actual occurance. So where are all of your necessary missing links? Where are they? Not just for humans, but every creature that has ever graced the earth. Where are they" answers absolutely nothing.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

"But I ask you, once and for all: If macroevolution were true, there would no question, whatsoever, if it were an actual occurance. So where are all of your necessary missing links? Where are they? Not just for humans, but every creature that has ever graced the earth. Where are they?"

"But I ask you, once and for all: If macroevolution were true, there would no question, whatsoever, if it were an actual occurance. So where are all of your necessary missing links? Where are they? Not just for humans, but every creature that has ever graced the earth. Where are they?"

All you've proven is that the bullshit artist is a master evading questions... Again, you are hiding in the confusing terms of micro and macro. So please, just show us all of the evidence that should be more than unquestionable.



Your question has been answered by Rust, and among scientists there is no debate on evolution. It is excepted based on the overwhelming amount of evidence discovered...

And I aksed you a question first. Why do you believe biological information cannot be created through evolution?

I have not bullshitted anything here, the mechanisms I bring up are in any advanced textbook. If you need references, I can provide.

That's a bold face lie.

All of your 'proofs' are obsolete and completely antiquated, most of which were refuted at the turn of 20th century. TalkOrigins even uses some of them still.

We've given you evidence numerous times. One more time: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

a) That does not refute what I said.

No, it just supports what I've been saying.

b) All of those people support evolution;

I know they support evolution, which is precisely why its so kickass to use them as a reference.

c) Those quotes are taken of out context.

They were completely in context. I already know that they believe, and that many, if not all of them, still believe in evolution. The point is, they admitted to the fantasy, and some provide reasons why they want to believe in it.

None of those evolutionists say that there are no transitional fossils. You're simply lying.

I'm quoting what they said.... If you want to point fingers, talk to the people who said it.

"I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false." -- Patterson himself on which interpretation was true and which one was false.

So the quote you provided is Patterson talking to himself? What he said, was what he said... And its completely in context. I know they are all still evolutionists, which again, makes it so kickass to use their quotes.

"One such form is the reptile-like bird Archaeopteryx, of the Middle Jurassic,... Archaeopteryx possessed both reptilian and avian characters. Its possession of feathers suggests that it was warm-blooded, like modern birds, but it also had large teeth, solid bones, and other reptilian skeletal features."

I love archaeopteryx because all he proves is that he existed, which is not exactly a shocking revelation. 120 years and they're still using him. They still have to figure out he became warm-blooded, why he developed a beak, why he developed feathers, why his organs are completely different from that of reptiles, what mechanisms caused his supposed evolution, what prompted the changes to occur at all, in one felled swoop. What did he evolve from? What did he evolve into? This proves absolutely nothing, except that he existed at one time, but now he doesn't.

"This one is interesting because the dishonesty of the quote mine was exposed at least as far back as 1984 in an article, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion" by Laurie R. Godfrey that appeared in Science and Creationism (Ashley Montagu, ed. 1984. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-81). That was, in turn, a revision of an earlier article, "The Flood of Antievolution" that had appeared in Natural History, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 4-10. Specifically, Godfrey addressed the use of this quote (along with David Raup's widely mined "120 years after Darwin" quote) by creationist Gary Parker in "Creation, Selection, and Variation," that appeared in the Institute for Creation Research's newsletter, Acts & Facts in 1980 and which is still available.

No, see its rare that you can get an evolutionist to implicate themselves now or days, because they've made themselves look stupid so many times in the past that they've learned to watch their mouth. Gould presents a very logical approach for something he can't fully explain, which is why he has to invent things like 'punctuated equilibrium' to give him reason why no evidence exists. LOL! How convenient.

"I cannot offer any general rules for the resolution of conflicts between common sense and the dictates of a favored theory. Each camp has won its battles and received its lumps. But I do want to tell a story of common sense triumphant -- an interesting story because the theory that seemed to oppose ordinary observation is also correct, for it is the theory of evolution itself. The error that brought evolution into conflict with common sense lies in a false implication commonly drawn from evolutionary theory, not with the theory itself.'

What a fantastic quote that I think I'll add to my collection. Here is a prime example of what I was just talking about. He gives reasons why its silly for anyone to think that there should be some empirical proof of evolution. Now we shouldn't use commn sense in understanding evolution. Now, according to him, its that we're just asking all the wrong questions. He just spelled it out for you. There is no good reasons for buying into the evolutionary paradigm, and trying to make logical sense of it by 'ordinary observation' will only bring it into further disrepute.

As for Patterson's last quote, I can't find the context of it, but given your dishonesty and/or ignorance of the context of these quotes and what those scientists actually believe, I think it's safe to assume that you're full of shit here as well.

LOL! I gave you the references. How am I being 'full of shit' when I quoted them? And you and Gould just further implicated each other by trying to explain why there should be no real evidence of evolution... "It's that we just don't understand the theory." Oh, I understand it just fine. The nail is being driven into the coffin.

You don't fully engage us, that's the point. If you think making ridiculous allegations and lies, such as the ones you uttered just now, and then not replying is "fulling engaging" anyone, then you're sorely mistaken.

What, then, should I be doing in order to fully engage you? I answered your questions, wrote a book, compiled evidence taken from all over the world by secularists and theists, and presented them to you. Then you spent the next month trying to refute them, I countered that, you reutted, I countered that, and over, and over, and over again. You prove that you just have to have the last word in edgewise, which I don't need. So what more should I being doing to fully engage you by Rust's standards? How many circles do we need to go around before your satisfied, even if you disagree with my premise?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

So where are all of your necessary missing links? Where are they? Not just for humans, but every creature that has ever graced the earth. Where are they?

They aren't there. There are not even fossils of every species alive today. The fossils we are likely to find are from successful species that lived for a long time and had a wide habitat area. Rapid transitions would have necesarilly occurred in small populations, and those are the fossils you would not expect to find.

The evolution history is inferred from the very limited information available, which is used to construct a "family tree" of species. New fossils tend to appear where they are predicted by the theory.

At least that's how I understand it.

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

That's a bold face lie.

All of your 'proofs' are obsolete and completely antiquated, most of which were refuted at the turn of 20th century. TalkOrigins even uses some of them still.

Really? Then by all means refute them.

You said those evidences are antiquated and false, and that there is no evidence supporting evolution. You made a very bold statement, and now its time to lay the cards on the table. I call 'bluff.' Sound familiar?

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

"A Response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html





No, it just supports what I've been saying.

No. They don't even do that either. The quotes are disgusting misrepresentations of what those scientists actually believe when they are taken out of context as you did here.



I know they support evolution, which is precisely why its so kickass to use them as a reference.

Which, in turn, proves absolutely nothing since they obviously believe that evolution is true in face of the "problem" you claim they see in it ("problems" which are not problems at all, but quotations out of context to fabricate the illusion of problems).



They were completely in context. I already know that they believe, and that many, if not all of them, still believe in evolution. The point is, they admitted to the fantasy, and some provide reasons why they want to believe in it.

Wrong. They are completely out of context as I already shown. So out of context in fact, that you're using them to mean something completely different from what the scientists actually believes. Neither of them believe that evolution does not have evidence. Niether of them believe that there are not transitional fossils. So you've taken them out of context.





I'm quoting what they said.... If you want to point fingers, talk to the people who said it.

You're not just "quoting what they said" you're also deliberately failing to put the quotes in context, and failing to state what those scientists actually believe. It's definately you who I have to point fingers at.



So the quote you provided is Patterson talking to himself? What he said, was what he said... And its completely in context. I know they are all still evolutionists, which again, makes it so kickass to use their quotes.

The fact that you somehow think Patterson was talking to himself shows how you didn't even bother reading the link I provided. Please read it. It clearly explains what Patterson believes, which is not something which support what you have said.



I love archaeopteryx because all he proves is that he existed, which is not exactly a shocking revelation. 120 years and they're still using him. They still have to figure out he became warm-blooded, why he developed a beak, why he developed feathers, why his organs are completely different from that of reptiles, what mechanisms caused his supposed evolution, what prompted the changes to occur at all, in one felled swoop. What did he evolve from? What did he evolve into? This proves absolutely nothing, except that he existed at one time, but now he doesn't.

You provide a torrent of questions to hide the fact that Rau does not believe there are no transitional fossils; which in turn means that you either lied, or claimed that he did out of sheer ignorance.



No, see its rare that you can get an evolutionist to implicate themselves now or days, because they've made themselves look stupid so many times in the past that they've learned to watch their mouth. Gould presents a very logical approach for something he can't fully explain, which is why he has to invent things like 'punctuated equilibrium' to give him reason why no evidence exists. LOL! How convenient.

Again, you result to evading the fact that Gould's quote was completely taken out of context and does not support what you said at all.

I should also mention that you result to insults, which you have so self-righteously whined about so many times.



What a fantastic quote that I think I'll add to my collection. Here is a prime example of what I was just talking about. He gives reasons why its silly for anyone to think that there should be some empirical proof of evolution. Now we shouldn't use commn sense in understanding evolution. Now, according to him, its that we're just asking all the wrong questions. He just spelled it out for you. There is no good reasons for buying into the evolutionary paradigm, and trying to make logical sense of it by 'ordinary observation' will only bring it into further disrepute.



He does no such thing. He condems the ridiculous allegations made out of ignorance of what actually evolution entails.

Hell, he goes on to explain exactly how darwinism is vindicated in what he's arguing.



LOL! I gave you the references. How am I being 'full of shit' when I quoted them? And you and Gould just further implicated each other by trying to explain why there should be no real evidence of evolution... "It's that we just don't understand the theory." Oh, I understand it just fine. The nail is being driven into the coffin.

It's very clear how you're full of shit: You've provided those quotes as if somehow they supported what you claimed (i.e. that they believe evolution has no evidence or that they believe transitional fossils do not exist) which is a bold face lie. They certainly believe evolution does have evidence and that transitional fossils do exist.

Hell, the very fact that you leave out the dates of those quotes, some which are decades old, shows this as well. The dates are very important since even if they had believed what you erronously claim they believed, there would be ample time for them to change their minds; decades, to change their mind.



What, then, should I be doing in order to fully engage you? I answered your questions, wrote a book, compiled evidence taken from all over the world by secularists and theists, and presented them to you. Then you spent the next month trying to refute them, I countered that, you reutted, I countered that, and over, and over, and over again. You prove that you just have to have the last word in edgewise, which I don't need. So what more should I being doing to fully engage you by Rust's standards? How many circles do we need to go around before your satisfied, even if you disagree with my premise?



Countered? I'm not sure what thread you're reading but you countered absolutely nothing of what I said. Nothing. You didn't even reply to it. That's another lie on your part. You uttered a shitty cop-out and never countered anything.

So yes, you can start by actually replying to what is said; that's how you "fully engage" us.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005056-3.html

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

you see God working in your life.

I do?

I believe in God and the Bible because I think it makes more sense than anything else, and there is more proof of it, than of anything else.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

...I think it makes more sense than anything else...

What you choose to believe is entirely and autonomously your call... many things can be taken away from us- including our freedoms, and our belongings- but our ability to believe as we see fit is singularly the only thing we have in this life that's not fleeting... as such, I think it's the most valuable, and in many ways, the only thing that really belongs to us. If you arrive at this conclusion independantly, being as honest with yourself as you're able... by all means, stand by it, and make your choices accordingly.

Regarding God and the evidence you mention, either I see none of it, or if I see the same things (as you refer to,) then I interpret them very differently. That doesn't mean I claim to be definitively right- but I am comfortable with my conclusion. As this applies to Evolution, for example, it must be remembered that in the world in which we live, evidence as conclusive as a "smoking gun" is almost never available... and often, evidence of that variety is not even possible. I'm familiar with the scientific evidence in favor of Evolution which has accumulated, and I find it not merely compelling, but highly compelling.

Yet as noted, it's impossible to alleviate absolutely all doubt... thus, I accept that you may be right about both God and Evolution, although I consider that to be highly unlikely based on my own assessments. But if you, any anyone else has deep convictions that they're right, and feel their beliefs are well-founded... stick to your guns. Our ability to choose for ourselves is all we really have, and all we really are, so we should use it to the greatest extent we're able. I think the world would be a better place if more people did so.

^^Except as we all know he didn't arive at his beliefs by logical means. He was raised to believe in the bible.

I THINK, this means that this is my opinion, im not trying to prove anything to anyone (at the moment), im just answering thread starter's question.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

I believe in God and the Bible because I think it makes more sense than anything else, and there is more proof of it, than of anything else.

You have got to be the dumbest mother fucker in the world. YOU ARE SAYING THE BIBLE HAS MORE "PROOF" OF BEING REAL THEN EVOLUTION. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME? I will say it once more, THE BIBLE IS FAKE. It is not real, it was a fiction story back in the day, and it is still a fiction story, NOTHING CHANGES THAT. Even though it's a "best seller" does not refute the fact that it is a farce story.

Evolution can be proven, and has been numerous times, if I have to actually explain it to you then you need to OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES. I am sick of telling you fucking religious idots this. OPEN YOUR EYES. Don't be so fucking stupid.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

I THINK, this means that this is my opinion, im not trying to prove anything to anyone (at the moment), im just answering thread starter's question.

Fair enough. But I was just pointing out how you came to have the opinions you do.

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

You have got to be the dumbest mother fucker in the world. YOU ARE SAYING THE BIBLE HAS MORE "PROOF" OF BEING REAL THEN EVOLUTION. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME? I will say it once more, THE BIBLE IS FAKE. It is not real, it was a fiction story back in the day, and it is still a fiction story, NOTHING CHANGES THAT. Even though it's a "best seller" does not refute the fact that it is a farce story.

Evolution can be proven, and has been numerous times, if I have to actually explain it to you then you need to OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES. I am sick of telling you fucking religious idots this. OPEN YOUR EYES. Don't be so fucking stupid.

Im that stupid....at least I have a wide range in my vocabulary, it consists of more than the world 'fuck'.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Im that stupid....at least I have a wide range in my vocabulary, it consists of more than the world 'fuck'.

Just cause I use it doesn't mean it's the extent of my vocabulary. That is your assumption. ASS.

I'm guessing that nobody can answer my question then?

I think the one answer that would be true for everyone is:

"I believe what I believe because it gives me understanding/truth/comfort/hope/meaning/purpose"

And from there on, it's just the trivial formality of "collecting evidence" (very selective evidence, mind you) which supports my belief and dejects others.

Oh and to whoever accused someone of having a false reality... how dare you suggest that someone's reality is not as valid as yours! Even if I was tripping on DMT, or a psychotic sociopath, my reality would be every bit as true as anyone else's... No one can take away the one thing that truly belongs to me!

[This message has been edited by Velio (edited 03-22-2006).]

im pretty sure its a THEORY of evolution, also i dont see any proof that god exists, i am atheist, well, more sceptical, god may well exist but he hasn't shown it once and for all, when he does i will be the first to pilgrimage to vatican city or whatever he wants me to do. it is also ridiculous to discount coincidence and legend

you are wrong. god is real. the bible is real and you are wrong.

I should say this diffrent. I think god is real. I dont think I should call you down but I dont think evolution is true. and you should try to read the bible for info and maybe you will see as I see.and maybe not.

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

I should say this diffrent. I think god is real. I dont think I should call you down but I dont think evolution is true. and you should try to read the bible for info and maybe you will see as I see.and maybe not.

Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by facts, evidence, and scientific testing. The Bible is not. Evolution is not just some idea with no proof behind it, unlike religion (ahem). There's proof.

You have to be either blind or fucking stupid to deny evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence of its reality.

Okay, I don't care what anyone believes. I merely want somebody to give me a reason. I know why people believe in evolution. It has been observed taking place, and there are many things supporting it. I would like for someone now to tell me why they have the religious beliefs they do. Why do you believe in [Christianty, Islam, Judaism, etc.] over the other?

I believe in Christianity because I think it is the only religion that is right (yeah yeah everyone is going to say that and its all opinion and doesn't mean anythign to anyone but me, but it does mean something to me). All the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution can be used to support creation, it just depends on your perspective.

your search for "missing links" is misleading, it is a wonder that there are any fossils in the ground full stop. it takes EXCEPTIONAL conditions for a fossil to survive millions of years. it has to lay undisturbed by predators or scavengers, preferrably in an anaerobic environment, then be covered by the right kind of sediment, then be in an area where the movement of rocks won't crush it out of shape. then someone has to come along and FIND IT.

you'll be proved wrong, your ideas are the past, science is the future, bye bye extinct-past-man.

Thats not true, and that is not what I asked...

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

your search for "missing links" is misleading, it is a wonder that there are any fossils in the ground full stop. it takes EXCEPTIONAL conditions for a fossil to survive millions of years. it has to lay undisturbed by predators or scavengers, preferrably in an anaerobic environment, then be covered by the right kind of sediment, then be in an area where the movement of rocks won't crush it out of shape. then someone has to come along and FIND IT.

you'll be proved wrong, your ideas are the past, science is the future, bye bye extinct-past-man.

Yes I relize this, but really, how many fossils have been found? And not one of them is a clear transitional fossil.

Evolution has been observed. It happens. Evolution is not a theory. The only theory, is that man evolved from something. Which has many facts to support it. EVOLUTION HAPPENS

Micro-evolution, but not Macro-evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Micro-evolution, but not Macro-evolution.

Define Macro-evolution.

Yes, please define 'Macro-Evolution'. Evolution is evolution. It does not matter the scale. Larger creatures usually have longer lifespans, thus require much more time to evolve. Birds for instance, do not live exstensivly thus we have been able to observe evolution in them. I would not consider bird, 'micro'.