I have a friend who is 13.
He is a protestant Christian, and I'm Atheist.
He believes "Christianity isn't a religion", his backing evidence was a bit of text from a website stating that:
"Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ"

Now, another (Christian) friend and I argued over this for over an hour, stating how dictionaries, more down-to-earth websites, people that aren't from his church, etc. disprove him.

Is there anyone else on here that would say "Christianity is not a religion"? Just curious.

Christianity is either a comforting insanity for the individual, or a controlling purpose for the priest.
But I think that it is defined as a religion, and your friend is talking about his spiritual beliefs. Personally I think there is a big differance between religion and spirituality.

I am at a loss for words. I think this kid is just trying to make his religion special. He also sounds like he is in denial. Did you argue that Christianity is the religion of having a personal relationship with Jesus?

At least this Spiritual Authority isn't twelve. He's one of those grown-up kids in Middle School.

cant u see what the kid is trying to do... he trying to witness to u and show u the truth!!

Atheism is a easy way out

Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

The easy way out is to believe blindly what you've grown up with. The hardest thing is to take a step back and look at the evidence and the history and question what you've been told.

i didnt grow up in the church at all... i just became a christian about 2 years ago

there's a man, he wrote a few good books... his name escapes me at the moment(ill look it up). But he was a atheist that devoted his life to disproving Christianity. he never found anything to that could disprove it and became a strong christian himself

i didnt grow up in the church at all... i just became a christian about 2 years ago

there's a man, he wrote a few good books... his name escapes me at the moment(ill look it up). But he was a atheist that devoted his life to disproving Christianity. he never found anything to that could disprove it and became a strong christian himself

So you looked at science and then you looked at Christianity and found a more satisfying explanation in a old morally questionable story book than in the wonders of modern science. I mean, to grow up with it is one thing, but only 2 years ago you accepted that the world is less than 10,000 years old, was created in 7 days and that we are the relatives of Adam and Eve in spite of overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise? Make no mistake, it is fact that the world is a lot older and that we evolved over millions of years, any sane man who looks at the evidence will agree. This is at odds with the bible, so where do you stand?

yes i am a creationist.

what do u believe in that makes more sense then my beliefs on how everything came to be ?

Make no mistake, evolution is a fact backed up by tons and tons of mutually buttressing evidence. It is a fact, in the same way that the earth goes around the sun is a fact. I believe it because I have looked at the overwhelming evidence. Why do you believe in the Christian creation story over any of the ancient Greek or Norse ones?

Atheism is a easy way out

Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

By citing your own scripture, it seems to point that to the fact that atheism isn't the easiest way out. If God truly should be totally apparent to all , then it would seem to me as though your position would be at odds with the majority, and you choosing to be atheist would be the most difficult (yet more intellectually gratifying, IMO) way out. Isolating yourself outside of GroupThink often makes you a target, an enemy, an "other".

Giving in is easy; everyone else (and millions before them) are doing it. Opting out of the belief-cycle is going against the grain, swimming upstream, being the odd one out - you get my drift.

Make no mistake, evolution is a fact backed up by tons and tons of mutually buttressing evidence. It is a fact, in the same way that the earth goes around the sun is a fact. I believe it because I have looked at the overwhelming evidence. Why do you believe in the Christian creation story over any of the ancient Greek or Norse ones?

i believe in Creation because there is overwhelming evidence that supports my views... i have looked at a lot of evidence that supports evolution and im not going to lie... its pretty convincing. But the evidence that supports Creation is just as convincing. And because I am a man of faith... i believe it...

i myself used to believe in evolution. My pastor suggested me a book called The Lie Evolution by Ken Ham... It really got me thinking and as i read more about Creation... it just made more sense.

I have friends who say similar.

I myself am Jewish, which makes the line between faith and ethnicity blurred also.

By citing your own scripture, it seems to point that to the fact that atheism isn't the easiest way out. If God truly should be totally apparent to all , then it would seem to me as though your position would be at odds with the majority, and you choosing to be atheist would be the most difficult (yet more intellectually gratifying, IMO) way out. Isolating yourself outside of GroupThink often makes you a target, an enemy, an "other".

Giving in is easy; everyone else (and millions before them) are doing it. Opting out of the belief-cycle is going against the grain, swimming upstream, being the odd one out - you get my drift.

yeah i get what your saying. But to me if you look at all the the evidence of a supreme being and just say " that cant be true" and fall back on evolution. I personally think thats a easy way out... as opposed to knowing that there is a supreme being that created the earth

what you said makes sense... but i just view atheism from a christian point of view

Make no mistake, evolution is a fact backed up by tons and tons of mutually buttressing evidence. It is a fact, in the same way that the earth goes around the sun is a fact. I believe it because I have looked at the overwhelming evidence. Why do you believe in the Christian creation story over any of the ancient Greek or Norse ones?


Are you joking?
Yes, Micro evolution(or adaptation) has been proven, This is a small change such as in size or color.
NEVER once has macro-evolution, a change in complexity, been shown in a laboratory setting or otherwise and make no mistake, no matter how many times a single celled organism undergoes micro evolution it will NEVER become a multicellular organism. Also Evolution is not fact it is a theory.

If you have ever found "overwhelming" evidence proving evolution I would like to see it.


I always thought believing in evolution was like believing a tornado could go through a junkyard and would leave a painted, fueled, 747 with working electronics.


Your friend's spirituality may be a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but that is not what Christianity is. So he just doesn't understand the difference between religion and spirituality. Give him a bit of a break though he is only 13, I doubt any of us had very complex ideas about spirituality at that age.

I agree with whoever said the easy way out was blindly following the beliefs you were given by your parents.

Atheism is a easy way out

Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

He sewed his eyes shut because he was afraid to see.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:5;&version=9;

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:14-19&version=9;

I bolded the main points, but the easy route out is not evening reading or daring to question your beliefs. Don't bash us and we won't bash you.

Are you joking?
Yes, Micro evolution(or adaptation) has been proven, This is a small change such as in size or color.
NEVER once has macro-evolution, a change in complexity, been shown in a laboratory setting or otherwise and make no mistake, no matter how many times a single celled organism undergoes micro evolution it will NEVER become a multicellular organism. Also Evolution is not fact it is a theory.

1. Define "change in complexity".

2. Prove that many events of micro-evolution would not eventually produce "macro-evolutionary" change or admit that you cannot.



If you have ever found "overwhelming" evidence proving evolution I would like to see it. What evidence would convince you? What evidence would you deem "overwhelming?


I always thought believing in evolution was like believing a tornado could go through a junkyard and would leave a painted, fueled, 747 with working electronics.By "always thought" you really mean you heard it from another creationist and decided to agree / use it now, right?

In any case, you thought wrong. That analogy is demonstrably false. The tornado does not have a selection process and for all intents and purposes is random. Evolution does have a selection process (and thus by definition is not random).

I always thought believing in evolution was like believing a tornado could go through a junkyard and would leave a painted, fueled, 747 with working electronics.


Remember when we talk about evolution we're dealing with a nearly infinite cosmos filled with a nearly infinite amount of energy. Then add an almost infinite amount of time and you have a formula for the creation of just about anything. I can't say whether or not a god exists, but if we take a good look at the universe and all of it’s complexity, we have to ask ourselves, “Why couldn’t evolution work?” In fact doesn’t it seem more likely that we were created by a process that seems logically plausible, rather than created out of dirt by some impersonal entity that refuses to make himself known to us.

2. Prove that many events of micro-evolution would not eventually produce "macro-evolutionary" change or admit that you cannot.




prove that it will eventually produce macro-evolution. admit that u cannot

Evolution does have a selection process (and thus by definition is not random).

is this process you speak of natural selection?

natural selection works on what exists already in a particular animal population... it doesn't allow for a whole new species to be evolved

prove that it will eventually produce macro-evolution. admit that u cannot

I didn't make the claim, he did. It's his burden to prove it. That's how the burden of proof works. I suggest you read up on it.

is this process you speak of natural selection?

natural selection works on what exists already in a particular animal population... it doesn't allow for a whole new species to be evolved You not only missed the point entirely - which is that there is a selection mechanism in evolution, and therefore a tornado in a junkyard is not analogous to evolutionary processes - but you also managed to make a completely ridiculous comment; one equally as unsubstantiated as the one benpari made.

I didn't make the claim, he did. It's his burden to prove it. That's how the burden of proof works. I suggest you read up on it.

You not only missed the point entirely - which is that there is a selection mechanism in evolution, and therefore a tornado in a junkyard is not analogous to evolutionary processes - but you also managed to make a completely ridiculous comment; one equally as unsubstantiated as the one benpari made.

You really are usefull for more than thermite....:D

You not only missed the point entirely - which is that there is a selection mechanism in evolution, and therefore a tornado in a junkyard is not analogous to evolutionary processes -


is that selection mechanism natural selection?

how does it work in evolution ?

is that selection mechanism natural selection?

The one I'm talking about? Yes. Natural Selection.


how does it work in evolution ?

Those traits that offer the most reproductive advantage in an organism are selected and pass down more frequently to successive generations. That's natural selection.

well all i can say is that i take the bible literally and believe that is the infallible word of God. Therefore i am a Creationist

Great! I think?.... I didn't see anyone here doubting that you were a creationist.

Evolution is a fact. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a creator. In my religion, vaishnava (monotheistic) hinduism, we believe creation, evolution and destruction are a normal process overseen by Krishna.

Tell your friend to read a dictionary. Be sure to tell him he does not get to redefine words if they don't suit him, as this is not fair to the rest of us who all rely on commonly understood definitions to communicate effectively as a species.

Tell him that by redefining words to suit his own personal taste, he is doing a diservice to all of humanity.

Now...

On with the defintions:

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

So, as long as your friends relationship with the J-man is not centered around supernatural claims and moral claims (such as he died for my sins and came back to life signifying the everlasting life promised by God, is in the bag, so long as you obey his moral teachings), then he is not a part of a religion.

If he believes this shit (methinks he fucking does) then not only is he part of a religion, he is being willfully ignorant and blind to the truth of simple definintion and interpretation. If he is still willfully ignorant of the facts (as most theists are) present him with this.

Lets define Christianity:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Done.

Your friend is a fucktard, and everything I expect from someone who believes in evil fruit, zombies, magic, and an omni-everything being who wants to party with your ghost for eternity so long as you dont touch yourself.

Evolution is a fact. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a creator. In my religion, vaishnava (monotheistic) hinduism, we believe creation, evolution and destruction are a normal process overseen by Krishna.

its not a fact! its a theory

its not a fact! its a theory

A fact means it can be proven true or false.

A fact means it can be proven true or false.

yeah so evolution is a theory... am i wrong lol

its not a fact! its a theory

...as is classical physics, quantum physics, chemical physics, plate tectonics, the theory of DNA, any ideas on how cells work, meteorology, radioactivity, and waves of any kind. Why this theory and not the rest?

yeah so evolution is a theory... am i wrong lol

Evolution is a theory, but all theories are facts, because they can be proven true or false. Although, technically they can't be proven true indefinitely because even if one thing pops up that goes against it proves it false.

Your statement was self-contradictory.

I hate this crap, "If evolution had GOOD evidence it would be a law or sumfin!"

The scientific process just does not work like that. We had a theory of the formula of momentum, that resulted in P=MV. Now with everything we can possibly test that works perfectly, does that mean it is a law?? does that mean it can not change? No. Infact the formula for momentum actually involves the speed of light and our old formula becomes terribly inaccurate at values of .99c. But because we have never and most likely never will have the chance to test the effects of momentum at those speeds, P=MV remained as it was for the longest time. Because we dont have the time to test evolution at cosmological time scales, does that just mean we should just accept it as we see it as we did with momentum, or should we continue to question and ask ourselves what happens in the places we can't see.

Science works by making proposals and questioning itself.
Religion works by making truths and outlawing questioning.

He believes "Christianity isn't a religion", his backing evidence was a bit of text from a website stating that:
"Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ"



Well, if we can find more Christians with like views, there would be no problem with us removing all their church's nice government perks, like it's tax exemptions?

Right?

1. Define "change in complexity".

2. Prove that many events of micro-evolution would not eventually produce "macro-evolutionary" change or admit that you cannot.


1. The definition of Complexity is "he quality of being intricate and compounded" therefor a change in complexity would be a change in how intricate the system is.

2. I cannot prove it anymore then you can prove i am wrong, after all I specifically asked for the information that makes you believe in evolution and simply saying I am wrong is bigotry.
But I don't think its unfair to say a change in an alleles, color, size, shape, pattern, or any of the other things that have ever been shown in a lab will ever cause a single celled organism to become a multicellular organism, for cells to start working together to form tissues, tissues to work together to form organs, organs to work together to form organ system, or cause any of the gaps in complexity between an e-coli cell and a yak.

In other words a system for a change in complexity has never been shown and if it has I have not seen it.


What evidence would convince you? What evidence would you deem "overwhelming?

I would consider results shown in a laboratory setting to be overwhelming.


Those traits that offer the most reproductive advantage in an organism are selected and pass down more frequently to successive generations. That's natural selection.

I have never understood the idea of natural selection when applied to evolution just because the most complex organisms seem to be so much more frail than the most simple organisms. What is the benefit to be had from changing from something that can reproduce fast enough to go through 100+ generations in a single day, survive in the worst imaginable environments with little or no fuel of any kind into something that is completely not fitted to it's environment, takes 9 months to reproduce, is completely reliant on others in the species for a large part of its life, needs an almost constant flow of fuel to survive and destroys its own environment in order to survive(of course I am talking about us).


I also don't understand why we are arguing about whether evolution is a theory or a fact. After all it is the theory of evolution and the definition of theory- "A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena," fits both creationism and evolution perfectly.
Its also safe to say that in 100 years 50+% of the things we consider undeniable facts today will be considered ridiculous.


I am going to give you the tornado in a junkyard analogy.

I would also like to point out that at no point in either of my posts did I try and prove creationism.

1. The definition of Complexity is "he quality of being intricate and compounded" therefor a change in complexity would be a change in how intricate the system is.

2. I cannot prove it anymore then you can prove i am wrong, after all I specifically asked for the information that makes you believe in evolution and simply saying I am wrong is bigotry.
But I don't think its unfair to say a change in an alleles, color, size, shape, pattern, or any of the other things that have ever been shown in a lab will ever cause a single celled organism to become a multicellular organism, for cells to start working together to form tissues, tissues to work together to form organs, organs to work together to form organ system, or cause any of the gaps in complexity between an e-coli cell and a yak.

In other words a system for a change in complexity has never been shown and if it has I have not seen it.

1. That doesn't really help us much at all. Define "intricate". I could say that an organism that increases it's average cell count is more intricate...

Clearly define complexity or "intricate" so that we can ascertain what change is enough to qualify as "intricate". Also, please justify why in the world you would choose such a criteria.

It seems to me, that your inability to do so as of now shows just how bad that criteria is in the first place.


2. I don't have to prove you wrong, because I never once made the claim. You did. You made the claim, therefore it's up to you to substantiated.

The fact is that unless you can prove the existence of some magical barrier that stops many micro-evolutionary events from accumulating in an organism to the point of "increasing complexity", you simply cannot say that they cannot lead to macro-evolution.



I would consider results shown in a laboratory setting to be overwhelming.

Great, now all that's left is you providing a clear definition of "complexity".



I have never understood the idea of natural selection when applied to evolution just because the most complex organisms seem to be so much more frail than the most simple organisms. What is the benefit to be had from changing from something that can reproduce fast enough to go through 100+ generations in a single day, survive in the worst imaginable environments with little or no fuel of any kind into something that is completely not fitted to it's environment, takes 9 months to reproduce, is completely reliant on others in the species for a large part of its life, needs an almost constant flow of fuel to survive and destroys its own environment in order to survive(of course I am talking about us).

The problem is you're assuming that Natural Selection had humans in mind since the beginning. It did not. The first organism had a small change that increased its chances of reproduction - that organism with that change was selected. Then, it suffered another small change, and that change was also selected. It proceeds that way until we are humans.

To compare humans to single-celled organisms is ludicrous because that's not the "decision" that Natural Selection had to make; it didn't decide between a human an a single-celled organism. It decided between two single celled organism - one of them having a small change that increased its success at reproduction.


I also don't understand why we are arguing about whether evolution is a theory or a fact. After all it is the theory of evolution and the definition of theory- "A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena," fits both creationism and evolution perfectly.
Its also safe to say that in 100 years 50+% of the things we consider undeniable facts today will be considered ridiculous.


1. That definition of "theory" is a very general one. That is not the definition used in Science, which involves a hypothesis having survived countless scientific experiments, being falsifiable, and accurately explaining the evidence.
Creationism is absolutely not a scientific theory by any means.

2. I wouldn't say that "50+% of the things we consider undeniable facts today will be considered ridiculous", at all.

That's an easy statement to make given what has happened historically, but it ignores the fact that the Science of the past had a clearly inferior methodology than the Science of today.

More importantly, however, that has little to do with evolution. Evolution is a theory that explains the facts of life and those facts of life aren't going to change. Specifica about the theoyr might (like some lineage, or evo-devo debates, etc.) but Natural Selection and genetic traits changing organisms over time is not.

i believe in Creation because there is overwhelming evidence that supports my views... i have looked at a lot of evidence that supports evolution and im not going to lie... its pretty convincing. But the evidence that supports Creation is just as convincing. And because I am a man of faith... i believe it...

i myself used to believe in evolution. My pastor suggested me a book called The Lie Evolution by Ken Ham... It really got me thinking and as i read more about Creation... it just made more sense.

Where is the evidence for creationism? Ken Ham is a crook with little understanding of what he's up against.

Are you joking?
Yes, Micro evolution(or adaptation) has been proven, This is a small change such as in size or color.
NEVER once has macro-evolution, a change in complexity, been shown in a laboratory setting or otherwise and make no mistake, no matter how many times a single celled organism undergoes micro evolution it will NEVER become a multicellular organism. Also Evolution is not fact it is a theory.

If you have ever found "overwhelming" evidence proving evolution I would like to see it.


I always thought believing in evolution was like believing a tornado could go through a junkyard and would leave a painted, fueled, 747 with working electronics.


Firstly, if you want to split hairs then evolution is a theory, in the same way that the earth orbiting the sun is a theory. See the end of Rust's post above. Also as Rust said in his reply, if you wan't to make claims that microevolution "will NEVER" results in macroevolution then the burden of proof lies with you.

Macroevolution is microevolution going on over vast spans of time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Please leave Hoyle's 747 argument alone. Using chance as the alternative to creation demonstrates you've failed to grasp the concept of natural selection.

Where is the evidence for creationism? Ken Ham is a crook with little understanding of what he's up against.

.

Read Ken Hams books...Or any books on creationism there's plenty of evidence to support it.

*takes out bullshit cutter
*begins cutting through theistic bullshit

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

The American Association for the Advancement of Science says "intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Creationism and Intelligent design are not even considered valid theories. So don't throw up the fact that evolution is a theory, and think it somehow makes supernatural explanation more valid, or evolution a less valid explanation.

The fact that you wasted your time reading psuedo-science books about the validity of ID or creationism, and you TRY to present this shit as science, is wrong, incorrect, bullshit, a lie, fucktardedness, etc.

The bottom line is, if you think evolution being a theory means it is somehow a less effective explanation that ID or creationism......you are clearly wrong.

*after finished cutting up the bullshit, serves it back to you with a smile and a "no thank you".

Read Ken Hams books...Or any books on creationism there's plenty of evidence to support it.

What a lazy answer. Would you accept if I said "Creationism is wrong, go google it"? I doubt it.


Please provide an actual argument/piece of evidence. If you want, you can quote one of those books...

First of all stop treating me like I am a stereotypical creationist simply for being skeptical.

The fact is that unless you can prove the existence of some magical barrier that stops many micro-evolutionary events from accumulating in an organism to the point of "increasing complexity", you simply cannot say that they cannot lead to macro-evolution.

Maybe it can lead to macro-evolution but science has yet to prove it. Yes I did just admit that my previous statement was too brash.


1. That doesn't really help us much at all. Define "intricate". I could say that an organism that increases it's average cell count is more intricate...

Clearly define complexity or "intricate" so that we can ascertain what change is enough to qualify as "intricate". Also, please justify why in the world you would choose such a criteria.

the definition of intricate is "having many interrelated parts or facets; entangled or involved." Are multiple cells working together for a purpose not more complicated than 1 cell accomplishing the same task on its own?
I chose this criteria because it is the part of Darwinian Evolution I am skeptical about.



Evolution is a theory that explains the facts of life and those facts of life aren't going to change. Specifica about the theoyr might (like some lineage, or evo-devo debates, etc.) but Natural Selection and genetic traits changing organisms over time is not.



I realize that Natural selection is a very established process, but I do not believe that random genetic mutation and natural selection alone can cause complex changes in life.
I just don't see the evidence that a single celled organism could become a more complex multicellular organism nor do I see what makes it particularly better at surviving than a simpler organism. Any engineer will tell you the simplest way to accomplish a task is probably the best way.

I am not sure exactly what you believe but I hope you approach your beliefs with similar skepticism.

Firstly, if you want to split hairs then evolution is a theory, in the same way that the earth orbiting the sun is a theory. See the end of Rust's post above. Also as Rust said in his reply, if you wan't to make claims that microevolution "will NEVER" results in macroevolution then the burden of proof lies with you.

Macroevolution is microevolution going on over vast spans of time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Please leave Hoyle's 747 argument alone. Using chance as the alternative to creation demonstrates you've failed to grasp the concept of natural selection.

I've never actually heard anyone else use the 747 argument.

I am reading the some of the pages past that link. I am willing to admit I misused the terms micro/macro evolution but I will not change my argument, what has been shown in a scientific manner so far, as far as I know(and I have already invited you twice to show me evidence otherwise),
will never lead to the change between a single celled organism to a multi cellular organism. Believing small changes will eventually lead to complex changes is an assumption and I am surprised that modern science is willing to make assumptions.


I would like to point out that the bible leaves room for evolution and god, but Christianity refuses evolution and science refuses god.


On another note I find it disturbing how strongly both evolution and intelligent design are being pushed as political agendas.

First of all stop treating me like I am a stereotypical creationist simply for being skeptical.

Huh? Where the hell have I done that? It's kind of hilarious that you making that complaint out of the blue, when I've done no such thing, is what would characterize you as as a"stereotypical creationist" (your words).

[Unless you're referring to someone else, in which case I apologize but you're not labeling your replies clearly. Half of that post was directed at something I said, and the other half at something l33t-haX0r said].


Maybe it can lead to macro-evolution but science has yet to prove it. Yes I did just admit that my previous statement was too brash.
First of all, whether Science has proven it or not is precisely what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. You're just not giving a objective criteria for showing you that proof. As of now all you've given is vauge and subjective things like "complexity" that anyone can define at will (like for example, I could believe that an increase in cell count alone is an increase in complexity).

Second of all, Science is never going to "prove" anything beyond the doubt of someone who is being skeptical to the extreme.

Would you consider someone doubting - to the point of claiming that it's wrong just as you have - Science explanation of planetary orbits?



the definition of intricate is "having many interrelated parts or facets; entangled or involved." Are multiple cells working together for a purpose not more complicated than 1 cell accomplishing the same task on its own?
I chose this criteria because it is the part of Darwinian Evolution I am skeptical about.
Again, you are going nowhere: you are quoting definitions that don't explain anything objectively. They result in the same traps as before. What is "having many interrelated parts or facets"? Can I say that adding one more cell to an organism is having one more interrelated part and therefore an increase in complexity has occurred?

Please provide an objective measure of complexity, not something subjective that allows people to move the goal post at will.


I realize that Natural selection is a very established process, but I do not believe that random genetic mutation and natural selection alone can cause complex changes in life.
I just don't see the evidence that a single celled organism could become a more complex multicellular organism nor do I see what makes it particularly better at surviving than a simpler organism. Any engineer will tell you the simplest way to accomplish a task is probably the best way.

I am not sure exactly what you believe but I hope you approach your beliefs with similar skepticism. 1. It's not just "random mutations and Natural selection" at work. There are many different forms of genetic change. Not to mention that arguably they aren't random in the first place since they are constrained to genetic material and must follow chemical laws.

2. The simplest way is definitely the best!

a. Evolution isn't a conscious process therefore it doesn't have to go with the most optimal solution (i.e. What an Engineer would do lets say). It goes with a solution that works. That's it. At one moment in time, when there were single-celled organisms, one of them had a small changed that increased it's reproduction (it didn't have to be the best change ever) and it was able to pass that on to future generations; it worked.


b. That's why I see the recurring laryngeal nerve and the Appendix and other disastrous examples of "design" , and see a very compelling argument against Creationism and "Intelligent Design" (i.e. Creationism).

"
What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock's tail or the human male's nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety" -- Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html)

The simplest solution would sure as hell not be a 20 foot nerve that loops unnecessarily across the neck of a giraffe instead of going in a straight line.


3. I am quite skeptical. That means I go with what has the most evidence and I'm willing to change my mind if a better explanation comes along. Evolution is by far the better scientific explanation.


I've never actually heard anyone else use the 747 argument.
I seriously doubt that.

I have a friend who is 13.

Perfect Source.

First of all stop treating me like I am a stereotypical creationist simply for being skeptical.



well all i can say is that i take the bible literally and believe that is the infallible word of God. Therefore i am a Creationist

Something here doesn't quite add up...

Something here doesn't quite add up...

u know your quoting 2 different people right..?

prove that it will eventually produce macro-evolution. admit that u cannot

I'm going to pull this down from page 2 and jump in with it, then go back to reading your bullshit.

First off, spell out ur words. admit that u cannot.

But next, look at the fossil record of major evolutionary changes. We can see a shift from single-celled life to multicellular life over BILLIONS of years. Then from multi-celled life to more complext life over less billions of years, and then we keep following that until we get into things that are so similar to each other that it only takes a few years for them to evolve (mesozoic mammals to apes, etc).

No, nothing has ever gone from single-celled life to multi-celled life in a laboratory. That took billions of years in the real world, and was probably sheer luck anyways. If you have billions of years, eventually you'll roll sevens.

its not a fact! its a theory

Second time I felt the need to do this. You really are an idiot, you know.

Scientific theories are not what theists try to propagandize them as. A hypothesis is a mostly-untested guess at what the possible cause of a thing might be (a guess at the outcome of an experiment, for example). A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested numerous times by numerous different researchers all over the world and has held up for years. Sometimes theories fall. Newtonian gravity was replaced by relativity which has now been replaced by something else. All of them were right, just not right in all the ways they could have been.

One of the key differences between science and religion/theism is that science starts with observations and tries to find an explanation. Theists start with an explanation and try to find observations to support them.

u know your quoting 2 different people right..?

Excuse me. My bad

well all i can say is that i take the bible literally and believe that is the infallible word of God. Therefore i am a Creationist

You should start a thread talking about how you think the bible is the infallible word of God.

I would discuss it here, but I dont want to derail the current topic.

Please start a thread where we can discuss the infallible word of God as found in the bible.

Is there anyone else on here that would say "Christianity is not a religion"?

I would say Christianity IS a religion because it meets one of the standard definitions. Specifically, it requires you to believe something that is otherwise not believable. That seems to be the biggest thing that separates a religion from a philosophy, or something like that.