Proposed Law Would Tax Video Games

[farfromhome]

Well, one, my silly half-religion is Catholic, not the vatican >_<

Two, it doesn't matter what every one elses silly half-religion is, natch

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you insulting all of us, not lapsed Catholics.

 

[Cinge]

That's just it, there has never been any evidence to support the theory that we came from monkeys, yet it is taught as fact in schools.

There is a reason it's called the "Missing Link". It has never been and never will be found. There will always be that HUGE gap between monkeys and humans. I believe in alien intervention before I believe we came from monkeys, or that we came from the sea.

I believe in evolution in that things change to fit their environment, breeding and so on over time but going from one species to another is a messed idea with no evidence. I mean cats look a lot different than they did say a million years ago but, they are still cats.

 

[michael.pa2]

That's just it, there has never been any evidence to support the theory that we came from monkeys, yet it is taught as fact in schools.

There is a reason it's called the "Missing Link". It has never been and never will be found. .IQUOTE]

You've never heard of Bigfoot?

Seriously,that "big gap" you talk about comes down to a handful of genetic markers in our DNA.One species can't evolve into another? Birds evolved from dinosaurs. This whole argument is based on the whole conceit that humans are the"chosen ones" of God.The idea that we evolved from something more primitive and less "perfect" doesn't fit in that conceit.

 

[c.d.e]

That's just it, there has never been any evidence to support the theory that we came from monkeys, yet it is taught as fact in schools.

There is a reason it's called the "Missing Link". It has never been and never will be found. There will always be that HUGE gap between monkeys and humans. I believe in alien intervention before I believe we came from monkeys, or that we came from the sea.

I believe in evolution in that things change to fit their environment, breeding and so on over time but going from one species to another is a messed idea with no evidence. I mean cats look a lot different than they did say a million years ago but, they are still cats.

You do realize how species are defined right? By their attributes. Which cats do you mean? House cats or wild cats? Or both?

Lets take a species that I like better. Dogs, wolves, foxes, canines in general. Dogs come from wolves, yet look completely different, yet they are no longer wolves. A corgi is nothing like a grey wolf, as it doesn't meet the required height, weight, muscle tone, etc.

Or how about birds? Birds fly right? How do you explain penguins, dodos, and ostriches? Or bats? Mammals that fly? Or platypuses, the duck-billed egglaying mammal?

Besides the bigger the time period, the more evolution. Were cats cats 100 million years ago? Remember, thats 100,000,000 years, and lets assume just 5 generations of cats per year.

 

[w1retap]

lulz

evolution = higher video game taxes

 

[Cinge]

I mean dogs didn't come from cats (or canines from felines), rabbits from squirrels, man from apes and so on.

There are just WAY too many things that just had to happen perfectly for human life (and most other life) to come about from one single source. Human beings and most complex life are just, well, too complex to have evolved from amoeba, or whatever, in the ocean. That's on top of the how many number of times pretty much everything has been wiped out?

Evolving as in something going from hairless to survive in one climate to full fur to survive in another for instance is totally acceptable thinking and is backed by evidence.

Some form of intelligent design just had to have had a part in things. Just too many things point in that direction.

 

[Martyr]

I mean dogs didn't come from cats (or canines from felines), rabbits from squirrels, man from apes and so on.

There are just WAY too many things that just had to happen perfectly for human life (and most other life) to come about from one single source. Human beings and most complex life are just, well, too complex to have evolved from amoeba, or whatever, in the ocean. That's on top of the how many number of times pretty much everything has been wiped out?

Evolving as in something going from hairless to survive in one climate to full fur to survive in another for instance is totally acceptable thinking and is backed by evidence.

Some form of intelligent design just had to have had a part in things. Just too many things point in that direction.

prove it.

that all i ask of any religious person. real proof. dont TELL me you have evidence, lets see it.

evolution has absolutely tons of evidence, fossil records, simularities in dna between species, ect. you know how close chimp dna is to ours? not related indeed.

also, i think it quite cute how the bible tells one that testing god is not allowed. very convenient, that.

 

[Cinge]

No, evolution doesn't have any evidence. If they had evidence, then it would not still be classified as a THEORY.

So what if the DNA is 1 off from ours. That's doesn't mean jack. That isn't evidence.

Prove it, that's all I have ever asked from scientist. You know what? All these years, they still can not prove it.

I know what you are going to say too. That apes and humans are both classified as primates. Well, they labeled Pluto a planet too but, you see where that went don't you. Just because someone labels something, doesn't make it right. It's just a label.

Fossil records my butt. There are no fossil records that show we came from monkeys. Not one single fossil has ever been found to link the two. Like I said, it's called the "missing link" for a reason and will always be a missing link. Similarities in DNA is not proof. It just proves the same design was followed in the different species. It doesn't prove one came from the other though.

 

[w1retap]

Science invented nuclear weapons.

 

[The Red]

BTW, I agree with you about the whole creationism/evolution in schools though. Since religion is neither provable nor disprovable, and evolution is just a theory, not an established fact, then the textbooks should say the truth: that evolution is a theory by scientists, and mention the beliefs of several religions on the subject of creation but not present them as the truth. Basically, neither group of extremists should "win" that one.

Space travel was a theory, gravity is still a theory (we dont know for the most part how it functions), the earth being round was a theory, bacteria were a theory...and so on...

On the other hand, from the religious point of view... witches were a theory, the universe revolving around the earth was a theory, virgin birth is a theory, miracles are theories, and the divinity of the pope himself was a theory...

What you're saying is, a theory made up of provable, visible, tangible, observable, recordable facts that bear cohesion is somehow equal in validity to a theory that is unprovable, invisible, intangible, unobservable, non-recordable and through its belief requires you to throw out the accepted conclusions of the greatest and most educated scientific majority that has existed since man has begun learning science? To equate the two is worthy of insult to many an intelligent person.

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." -- Isaac Asimov

 

[Martyr]

No, evolution doesn't have any evidence. If they had evidence, then it would not still be classified as a THEORY.

So what if the DNA is 1 off from ours. That's doesn't mean jack. That isn't evidence.

Prove it, that's all I have ever asked from scientist. You know what? All these years, they still can not prove it.

I know what you are going to say too. That apes and humans are both classified as primates. Well, they labeled Pluto a planet too but, you see where that went don't you. Just because someone labels something, doesn't make it right. It's just a label.

Fossil records my butt. There are no fossil records that show we came from monkeys. Not one single fossil has ever been found to link the two. Like I said, it's called the "missing link" for a reason and will always be a missing link. Similarities in DNA is not proof. It just proves the same design was followed in the different species. It doesn't prove one came from the other though.

not this bullshit again. its called a theory because that is the practice in science. everything starts with a theory, and you gather evidence and make further predictions and conduct experiments.

why would i say they are both classified as primates. big deal, call them whatever you want. the naming scheme means nothing, it is the criteria behind the name that matters. pluto lost its planethood because as we gathered more information about it, it became clear it was a binary system, not a plant orbited by a moon. it didnt fit the defintion decided upon for planet, and so was changed.

there is no necessary missing link. if you want one, see lucy. evolution is not one species, then bam, we are to the next. despite the nice drawings you typically see in science textbooks, you dont just go fish>mudpuppy>mammal. i could point out some people even today that have characteristics similiar to the other primates.

anyway, watch this http://www.sidereel.com/Penn_&_Teller:_Bullshit!/_watchlinkviewer/16 i am not much of an internet debater anymore, i just dont have the patience for it. refute penn and tellers points please.

 

[The Red]

I'm not going to join the ongoing side argument here about the validity of religion. All I will say is that I have read about and understand the religious beliefs of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. I have visited atheist website such as this one and evaluated atheist arguments. In the end, I conclude that Christianity makes the most sense by far for several reasons including:

-It does not advocate opression of those who believe differently (though many believers seem to have missed this point)
-It does not require a believer to follow a complicated set of rules (though some denominations have added rules)
-The Bible contains many historical and scientific accuracies that help validate the text as a reliable source of information

For these and other reasons I am a Christian. I am convinced that it is the true religion because, in my opinon, it is the only one that makes sense.

All of those points are made by every follower of every religion with respect to his own... what you have to prove is not how yours makes these points but how:

#1: The other religions lack them.

#2: Whether you can make the distinction between truth and its pursuit in contrast faith.

#3: Whether you can honestly state that the victories of the world faiths of old and new are lesser, and their failures greater.

Otherwise, you have no reason, and your decision is still based is superstition.

 

[Martyr]

also, what about other religions. are they are wrong? why, because you say so? they say you are wrong.

oops?

 

[w1retap]

The Muslim religion is the only religion we really have to be sensitive to and cater to. The liberal media told me so.

 

[The Red]

No, evolution doesn't have any evidence. If they had evidence, then it would not still be classified as a THEORY.

So what if the DNA is 1 off from ours. That's doesn't mean jack. That isn't evidence.

Prove it, that's all I have ever asked from scientist. You know what? All these years, they still can not prove it.

I know what you are going to say too. That apes and humans are both classified as primates. Well, they labeled Pluto a planet too but, you see where that went don't you. Just because someone labels something, doesn't make it right. It's just a label.

Fossil records my butt. There are no fossil records that show we came from monkeys. Not one single fossil has ever been found to link the two. Like I said, it's called the "missing link" for a reason and will always be a missing link. Similarities in DNA is not proof. It just proves the same design was followed in the different species. It doesn't prove one came from the other though.

Your definition of proof seems to require a finality that is un-atainable... because nature in itself is not fully comprehendable by its very nature... The theory of DNA is out there, they didnt have the DNA sequence of any creature when they made the theory, but they made it on facts, and right now, all the facts since and after have validated it.

Evolution is observable, comprehendable, recordable, and repeatable... it is evolutionary pressures put on a species by nature... nature has no malice, feelings, or preference... Nature is not god, yet dictates everything we attribute to god...

It wasnt long ago that acts of natural disasters, observed planets, lights in the sky, and all sorts of other phenomenon were attributed to gods and superstition, and now we know they are simply nature.

Religion is the primitive man's solution to not having an answer to his changing environment and trying to apply some kind of reasoning, will, and preference upon the actions of Nature, which hold no such bearings..

I can point you to mountains of quantifiable and verifiable research regarding Evolution, yet nobody can produce even one ioda of why the christian interpretation is either valid over evolution, or valid over ANY other religion.

 

[nilepez]

No, evolution doesn't have any evidence. If they had evidence, then it would not still be classified as a THEORY.

Parts of a theory can be proven without proof that the entire theory is true. Nobody would argue that there's no evidence supporting that theory (or perhaps you would), yet it's still, at least in part, theory.

The evolution may have all the holes filled in, but at least there's some evidence. We have seen that one type of bird can turn into another type of bird. There's no such evidence for ID.

Saying that X is to complex to have happened by chance is meaningless drivel. We are like we are, because of the environment we are in. If this world had become a world of Methane gas, live could still exist. it'd simply be different.

 

[nilepez]

Nobody would argue that there's no evidence supporting that theory (or perhaps you would), yet it's still, at least in part, theory.

That should read nobody would argue that there's no evidence supporting relativity theory

 

[c.d.e]

I mean dogs didn't come from cats (or canines from felines), rabbits from squirrels, man from apes and so on.

There are just WAY too many things that just had to happen perfectly for human life (and most other life) to come about from one single source. Human beings and most complex life are just, well, too complex to have evolved from amoeba, or whatever, in the ocean. That's on top of the how many number of times pretty much everything has been wiped out?

Evolving as in something going from hairless to survive in one climate to full fur to survive in another for instance is totally acceptable thinking and is backed by evidence.

Some form of intelligent design just had to have had a part in things. Just too many things point in that direction.

But maybe canines and felines and Hyaenidae and etc came from the same base animal species. Just like Horses and Zebras and Llamas and Giraffes.

And thats the thing, what makes you think we are too complex, or that evolution isn't capable of handling complex changes? If it wasn't for Science, you would have no idea of how complex we are.

And now you are contradicting yourself. To think that for a species thats hairless, would mean the lack of hair producing facilities, to suddenly develop hair producing facilities is just a big of a leap in logic as amoebas to go from soft cell to hardcell, to go from single cell meiosis to multicell reproduction. What you are thinking is what Martyr alludes to, that you are thinking x -> y when it is really a->b->c->d->e, ad-nausium. Evolution is the PROGRESSIVE changes inbetween two reference specimens in a given period of time. Corn plants 100 generations ago didn't have hard, unpenetrable husks that they do today. But you wouldn't see the link between the the two unless you look at two different examples, and see the logical changes. The corn with long, stiff leaflets generation by generation continued to get longer and stiffer, and as more of that corn was created and grew, the less of the other kind grew, so it eventually became husked covered sweet corn we have today. Because of a plants life-span, we are able to see small scale evolution in a relatively quick pace.

Oh, and I see you completely skipped over the ostrich/penguin/regular bird question.

Science invented nuclear weapons.

God kills first-borns for fun.

not this bullshit again. its called a theory because that is the practice in science. everything starts with a theory, and you gather evidence and make further predictions and conduct experiments.

why would i say they are both classified as primates. big deal, call them whatever you want. the naming scheme means nothing, it is the criteria behind the name that matters. pluto lost its planethood because as we gathered more information about it, it became clear it was a binary system, not a plant orbited by a moon. it didnt fit the defintion decided upon for planet, and so was changed.

there is no necessary missing link. if you want one, see lucy. evolution is not one species, then bam, we are to the next. despite the nice drawings you typically see in science textbooks, you dont just go fish>mudpuppy>mammal. i could point out some people even today that have characteristics similiar to the other primates.

anyway, watch this http://www.sidereel.com/Penn_&_Teller:_Bullshit!/_watchlinkviewer/16 i am not much of an internet debater anymore, i just dont have the patience for it. refute penn and tellers points please.

Actually, Pluto was considered a dwarf planet at first, as well as some of the larger asteroids/dwarfs in the belt between Mars and Saturn. One of those asteroids was given a brief status change as planet as well.

 

[w1retap]

lol, now it's getting good. ahaha

 

[Cinge]

You still have yet to produce one shred of evidence that we came from monkeys. Ok, you may have since we have people like you with your hair brained ideas, but I sure didn't.

If we are so close genetically, then why aren't they able to change that gene and create humans from monkeys?

Nope, never has been and never will be any evidence to support your claims.

Humans appeared but they didn't come from monkeys. They will never find any link to prove it.

You can no more prove we came from monkeys, as I can prove there is a God and you know it. It's nothing but a theory that atheist have come up with.

 

[Martyr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Read it. It's all cited at the bottom.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Wow, the rate or replies to this thread just keeps growing.

How convenient that you come to the conclusion that suits you the best. Anyway, allowing Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc... displays would offend even fewer people than displaying exclusively Christian imagery. And frankly, those who are offended by the display of, for example, Hindu imagery but expect everybody to be fine with Christian displays is hypocritical and should not be taken seriously (not talking about you here as I don't know your views about that, just in general). What is objectively fair should take precedence over what offends the fewest anyway. And what is fair is all or nothing.

BTW, I agree with you about the whole creationism/evolution in schools though. Since religion is neither provable nor disprovable, and evolution is just a theory, not an established fact, then the textbooks should say the truth: that evolution is a theory by scientists, and mention the beliefs of several religions on the subject of creation but not present them as the truth. Basically, neither group of extremists should "win" that one.

"How convenient that you come to the conclusion that suits you best." Do you have a better conclusion? Are you going to say that the 8% of American citizens who are atheist should have their way instead?

I am not offended by displays of other religions besides Christianity. What I don't like it when someone is required to display all religions if they display one religion. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have seen a Christmas tree in a government office with a Star of David on top and a menorah right next to it. Apparently whoever put it up didn't want to get in trouble for having a Christmas tree so he or she made sure to cover all of the other religions as well. That's ridiculous.

I appreciate your support regarding the textbook.

Evolution is a fairly old theory and nothing in that time has disproved it and we regularly find more evidence to support it..

True, but also remember that nothing has disproved the existence of God or Jesus, either. In fact, there is some archeological proof that an important man named Jesus existed in Jerusalem during the first century AD.

Nilepez, where is the universe expanding to, and why is it accelerating, contradicting the laws of gravity and science?

It's expanding because the energy from the Big Bang is too great for gravity to counter.

Why does an expanding universe matter, anyway? There's nothing in the Bible that would even begin to contradict that, and we have very obvious evidence for it (Doppler Effect), too.

It's the same with the age of the universe. Light from stars billions of light-years away has reached us, so the universe is obviously billions of years old. Once again, many Christians believe otherwise, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to contradict the overwhelming evidence that the universe is billions of years old. You could say that God created light en-route so we could see the stars, but we can also see events such as supernovae and the formation of new stars. That means God must have created records of events that never happened. I do not believe God plants false evidence.

The thing is, that some of these points are flawed, and even I as a Catholic cannot support.
One, the Bible, and Christianity by reason of past acts, is not only contradictory in various parts, but has shown that oppression is acceptable when preformed by God's (old and new) chosen people. The Ten Commandments allude to that, not only by not condemning slavery, but by implying it is okay as long as you do not make your slaves work on the Sabbath, or steal(kidnap) other of God's chosen to be slaves. It has been attributed to God that he said to destroy the people and nations of gentiles, for they worship their (false) gods.
Two is purely opinion, and a biased one at that, since (I'm assuming here) you were raised Christian. What you are familiar with always seems simple, as you are familiar with its intricacies without knowing that they are intricacies. The ritual you or I go through in church is no way simpler then the ritual preformed by pagans, or Muslims or Buddhists, and since most people are not fully entrenched in a religion as the clergy/ritualists/monks, we are also told simplified rules.
On the third, the Bible, as a historical text, does have references to historical events, and scientific accuracies, but to believe that because x is true, y must be true when x and y have no logical connection is purely on faith and has no logical reasoning. To be controversial, it is like if I write a text about what I believe in terms of God, and cite specific examples and testimony about a current event like 9/11. I have shown accurate historical and scientific events and connected it to a supreme being. The difference between my text and one of the books in the bible is that alot of people believe in the book in the bible, but on its face, there is no <i>reason</i> to believe that every statement in the book is fact.

First argument: That's a really good point. I'll have to think about that one for a while. For now I'm just going to have to say you're right until I can take the time to really think about it.

Second argument: The simplicity of Christianity is that, according to the Bible, the only requirement to spend eternity with God is to believe that Jesus died to forgive sins and express a desire for that forgiveness. You don't have to do good deeds and hope that you were good enough to make it to heaven. You don't have to pray five times a day and make a pilgrimage to a holy city. All you have to do is pray one time. John 3:16 is the key verse in the Bible. The rest of the Bible - historical accounts, hymns, proverbs, letters, perdictions, basic morality teachings - is almost irrelevant when compared to that verse. I don't know of any other religion that requires nothing but faith for salvation.

Thrid argument: I agree that historical accuracies in the Bible do not validate it completely. They don't prove that the rest of it is correct. Still, unverifiable historical references are more likely to be correct when within the context of verifiable historical references.

Two things you need to consider is, 1) as a legend/story/myth/event gets retold, and spread, it changes, takes on the ideals of the people retelling it, and grows beyond its truth. (As what's his name said) When the Legend becomes fact, print the legend. 2) History is written by the winner, or in this case, history is changed to suit the needs (or beliefs) of the writer. Someone who has truly come to believe that Jesus is who Jesus said to be, will no doubt be moved to avoid writing about his flaws. Those who believe the writer, will be moved to ignore the flaws as well. As the Bible gets translated, rules of grammar and "local color" color the translation, as well as the translators belief blinding their choice inbetween two differentiating meanings. If a given section had two meanings, one fitting the general idea of the chapter or overall text, and the other not, which one would a believer (a.k.a. biased) translator choose? As the Bible got collected, spread, copied (Back when copies were done by hand, bit for bit copies were not common) and translated, each event changed the meaning with the person handling the event.

Agreed. I do not believe the entire Bible is translated and interpreted 100% as intended. I do believe, however, that God would prevent the most important parts of it (i.e. the gospels) from losing its intended meaning.

You need to look at it a bit differently. The government (the position/role of, not the people who make up those positions) is a representative of everybody. By displaying one religions (or non-religions) belief over others, they are taken the stance that that religion is more correct then others. Yet by not displaying any belief, they do not say that that religion's beliefs are wrong or less right. It is not atheist to not have In God we Trust, and it is not not-christian either. When the government places "There Is no God" then they have taken a atheist stance, or if they place "There is no god WE believe in" then they have taken a agnostic stance, but by not acknowledging either religious or anti-religious notions, they only take the stance of Not having a Stance. They take a stance of "There might or might not be a God or Gods. It is not our place to say otherwise"

You say that the government should be representative of everyone in its population. Therefore, because a majority of the population believes in God, the majority of government displays should also mention God. And, because a plurality of those who believe in God believe in the Christian god, there should be more Christian displays than others.

Taking no stance on religion isn't representative of the entire population because only a very small percentage of the population takes no stance on religion.

Could you give an isbn for that textbook? I would like to know where to send disapproving letters, as any scientific text (or person) who in no uncertain terms completely states that something unprovable is untrue, should not be used for scientific teachings. To say that God (Or ""an intelligent creator"" *eyeroll* Anyone who uses Intelligent Design instead of brazenly stating their faith because others disapprove should have no place in any political or religious discussion...) did not create the universe is a blatant disregard for the tenets of science, where proof is needed for such a bold statement. As it stands, evolution as origin of species, and the big bang, are all theories, yet to be proven, just like the existence of a god and a god being the creator of the universe, but evolution is taken as fact, as it is the most probable, continually meeting the burden of proof in scientific trials. A God cannot meet that burden (or can the lack of proof be taken as proof of a lack-there-of) because of the whole idea of a God requires faith, belief for the sake of belief without the needing of proof.

I appreciate the support. Yes, I will PM you the info about the textbook sometime next week when I see it again. I don't have it with me right now.

In fact, that statement in the book was obviously a personal statement by an atheist author, as it wasn't even necessary. The book said, when talking about evolution, said something like (paraphrasing) "the complex design of the human genome is amazing". The next paragraph then stated "that's not to imply that the human genome had a designer. The DNA storage system and its unique sequences occured as a reult a random chance, not as the work of an intelligent creator." Completely unecessary. The sad thing is, if the inverse of that comment was in the book (that the human genome was designed by a creator), no public educational institution would even consider allowing it.

Before either of you two or anyone reading start/continue arguing about Evo vs I.D, define fact. Evolution is taken as fact, as it is the leading theory, backed by evidence, and has proven itself versus countless challenges in a peer-reviewed circle. But fact is a funny thing, as fact is never always fact. Fact changes from area to area, culture to culture, time to time. Remember, the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, Solar eclipses were really dragons trying to eat the sun, and only witches floated in water were all considered facts until disproven (Sure, with Science). Evolution AND I.D. might both be disproven one day. Fact = reality = a general consensus by a group of people on what is real and what is not real. If everyone thinks God spoke to you in your dreams, then by-george, he did. If everyone thinks your some loon who hear voices, your screams that God spoke to you will fall on white, padded walls. Which is true/fact/real is all in the eyes of the beholders (Also known as the majority/mob rule).

Oh, and just so you guys know, unlike your silly half-religions, mine (the Vatican) has taken the stance that Evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive, and that evolution/science is the explanation of the NATURAL path that God has used to implement his design. People who say God causes hurricanes and such are wrong according to them, because hurricanes as a supernatural event are signs of nature-gods/pagan ideals that God is super-natural, when God is supposed to be natural. Hurricanes/Shit happens, basically.


What makes you think it is contradicting the laws of gravity? You seem to be making the assumption that there is something with enough mass to create enough gravitational force to slow the kinetic energy of expanding outer rim gas, that would yet not be powerful enough to pull all other objects in space around it (Namely us, our S.S. and galaxy, and everything else) into itself. If you believe the theory of the Big Bang, the universe was created with enough explosive force that the movement of everything reached the escape velocity of whatever mass producing object appeared first.

But also, gravity (and any other scientific law) has its exceptions, corollaries and special circumstances. Gravity itself for example. All things that go up must come down. Unless it has enough force to escape gravity's grasp.

I suppose I should disclose at this time that I am one of a few Christians who believes that science and scripture go together quite nicely. There are scientifc reasons why I do not believe humans evolved (several unexplainable emotions that do not exist in other animals), but can/did animals evolve? Sure. I'm not going to say otherwise when we can see it happening right in front of us (bacterial resisting antibiotics, for example).

Some of the reasons why I believe the universe and Earth are very old, evolution is possible and did happen to an extent, and the universe did start with a big bang include:

-There is nothing in the Bible that directly contradicts these theories. Nothing says that God didn't use evolution to create the world.
-Since God created such an extraordinarily complex universe, does it not stand to reason that he would use an equally complex process to do so?
-Some statements in the Bible actually support the scientific theories that Christians often reject. For example, the Bible says that the first thing God created was light. Scientists believe that, during the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was nothing but electromagnetic energy. "Light" is a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and the rest of it is essentially the same as light but with a higher or lower energy level.
-God would not plant false evidence. There is a background of radiation in space that indicates an explosion of energy started the universe. God would not just put that there to fool us. Carbon dating indicates the ages of various fossils. God would not have put extra Carbon 14 in those fossils to make them seem older than the really are.

You do realize how species are defined right? By their attributes. Which cats do you mean? House cats or wild cats? Or both?

Lets take a species that I like better. Dogs, wolves, foxes, canines in general. Dogs come from wolves, yet look completely different, yet they are no longer wolves. A corgi is nothing like a grey wolf, as it doesn't meet the required height, weight, muscle tone, etc.

Or how about birds? Birds fly right? How do you explain penguins, dodos, and ostriches? Or bats? Mammals that fly? Or platypuses, the duck-billed egglaying mammal?

Besides the bigger the time period, the more evolution. Were cats cats 100 million years ago? Remember, thats 100,000,000 years, and lets assume just 5 generations of cats per year.

There is one scientific fallacy in this post that I would like to correct. The most widely-accepted defenition of species is not based on characteristics. Instead, it defines a species as a group of organisms able to mate and reproduce. That's why the different dog breeds are called "breeds" instead of "species".

 

[c.d.e]

You still have yet to produce one shred of evidence that we came from monkeys. Ok, you may have since we have people like you with your hair brained ideas, but I sure didn't.

If we are so close genetically, then why aren't they able to change that gene and create humans from monkeys?

Nope, never has been and never will be any evidence to support your claims.

Humans appeared but they didn't come from monkeys. They will never find any link to prove it.

You can no more prove we came from monkeys, as I can prove there is a God and you know it. It's nothing but a theory that atheist have come up with.

So it's hair-brained to believe that two similar things are related, yet its not hair-brained to believe in a giant imaginary thing took its time or boredom and created things for its own amusement, who kills things off from a sense of entitlement with no respect for their lives, because "he created us and he can uncreate us'. Right.

Besides, I give it 92 years before we can selectively switch genetic markers and sequences. Hell, we went from computers being the size of an office building to being able to fit in our pockets in half that time, and from realizing dna exists to mapping and cloning in what, 40 years? So 92 years, and they'll prove that you can make a human from a monkey.

Wow, the rate or replies to this thread just keeps growing.

True, but also remember that nothing has disproved the existence of God or Jesus, either. In fact, there is some archeological proof that an important man named Jesus existed in Jerusalem during the first century AD.

Yes, Jesus did exist. The debatable part is his divinity. Because there is historical proof that 32 Jesus's existed in the Bellview Asylum last year alone ;D.

Second argument: The simplicity of Christianity is that, according to the Bible, the only requirement to spend eternity with God is to believe that Jesus died to forgive sins and express a desire for that forgiveness. You don't have to do good deeds and hope that you were good enough to make it to heaven. You don't have to pray five times a day and make a pilgrimage to a holy city. All you have to do is pray one time. John 3:16 is the key verse in the Bible. The rest of the Bible - historical accounts, hymns, proverbs, letters, perdictions, basic morality teachings - is almost irrelevant when compared to that verse. I don't know of any other religion that requires nothing but faith for salvation.

That's one of the things that irk me about it. One, with so many contradictory rules and speakers, which part is the final, definitive rule? In the New Testament, Jesus released us from the rules of old, supposedly removing us from needing to strictly follow the Ten Commandments, but the Ten Commandments are taught/preached like they are still required. Then there is the rules of Leviticus (but I like my shrimp), as well as the rules God gave to Abraham, Noah, and Moses. Two, it leaves a huge moral loophole, when you can lead a life of vice and sin (including murder and rape) yet, on your deathbed, say (well, believe) you had a change of heart. (But on the other side, I get irk by the "believe or burn" faith/obedience by fear message too)

Thrid argument: I agree that historical accuracies in the Bible do not validate it completely. They don't prove that the rest of it is correct. Still, unverifiable historical references are more likely to be correct when within the context of verifiable historical references.

Thats a bit of the faith vs proof argument :/

Agreed. I do not believe the entire Bible is translated and interpreted 100% as intended. I do believe, however, that God would prevent the most important parts of it (i.e. the gospels) from losing its intended meaning.

Why should any part loose its meaning, or then why have it there in the first place? Or better yet, why create the problem in the first place (Tower of Babel incident). Its just that God himself has called himself a jealous god, and he will punish the 1st to 4th generation of a family for the parents deeds, but creating tongues has lead to so much war and bloodshed... You see where I'm going with that, right?

I appreciate the support. Yes, I will PM you the info about the textbook sometime next week when I see it again. I don't have it with me right now.

Thanks.

In fact, that statement in the book was obviously a personal statement by an atheist author, as it wasn't even necessary. The book said, when talking about evolution, said something like (paraphrasing) "the complex design of the human genome is amazing". The next paragraph then stated "that's not to imply that the human genome had a designer. The DNA storage system and its unique sequences occured as a reult a random chance, not as the work of an intelligent creator." Completely unecessary. The sad thing is, if the inverse of that comment was in the book (that the human genome was designed by a creator), no public educational institution would even consider allowing it.

Sounds like over protective Editor doing too much CYA. PC is never a good thing.

I suppose I should disclose at this time that I am one of a few Christians who believes that science and scripture go together quite nicely. There are scientifc reasons why I do not believe humans evolved (several unexplainable emotions that do not exist in other animals), but can/did animals evolve? Sure. I'm not going to say otherwise when we can see it happening right in front of us (bacterial resisting antibiotics, for example).

According to the Catholic Church, all Catholics should have that belief too (God uses Science, etc, etc). Then again, the Vatican thinks condoms are evil :/
Me, I tend not to connect the two, as the two are separate in my eyes. God exists, and science/evolution/stuff happens exists. I don't have a need to connect the two. (and yes, I know how this makes all my posts look)

Some of the reasons why I believe the universe and Earth are very old, evolution is possible and did happen to an extent, and the universe did start with a big bang include:

-There is nothing in the Bible that directly contradicts these theories. Nothing says that God didn't use evolution to create the world.
-Since God created such an extraordinarily complex universe, does it not stand to reason that he would use an equally complex process to do so?
-Some statements in the Bible actually support the scientific theories that Christians often reject. For example, the Bible says that the first thing God created was light. Scientists believe that, during the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was nothing but electromagnetic energy. "Light" is a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and the rest of it is essentially the same as light but with a higher or lower energy level.
-God would not plant false evidence. There is a background of radiation in space that indicates an explosion of energy started the universe. God would not just put that there to fool us. Carbon dating indicates the ages of various fossils. God would not have put extra Carbon 14 in those fossils to make them seem older than the really are.

There is one scientific fallacy in this post that I would like to correct. The most widely-accepted defenition of species is not based on characteristics. Instead, it defines a species as a group of organisms able to mate and reproduce. That's why the different dog breeds are called "breeds" instead of "species".

Well, every taxonomic rank is a grouping based on characteristics. Species is the last major grouping of characterization, but is not necessarily depended the last level of interbreeding. Interbreeding can occur in both Genus and Family levels of classification. Main example, Wolves (Dogs are a sub-specie of Canidae Canis Lupus, Domesticus. Dingos being domesticated wolves turned dogs turned feral again, are Canidae Canis Lupus Dingo), Foxes (Foxes vary in Genus, a Red Fox is Vulpes Vulpes, while Crab Eating Foxes are Cerdocyon thous, and Island Grey foxes from remote Islands offa California [They are isolated] are Urocyon littoralis, all Canidae family), Zorros (Are all Genus Lycalopex, but Zorros are actually "just" Foxes native to South America) and Coyote (Canis latrans) can all interbreed, especially Wolves and foxes, which have been a bit of a "problem" in New Jersey recently, according to the local news.
http://www.lioncrusher.com/family.asp?family=Canidae is a great source of taxonomic information. They also have felines and other families.

 

[c.d.e]

Damn. Two things I missed.

Some of the reasons why I believe the universe and Earth are very old, evolution is possible and did happen to an extent, and the universe did start with a big bang include:

-There is nothing in the Bible that directly contradicts these theories. Nothing says that God didn't use evolution to create the world.
-Since God created such an extraordinarily complex universe, does it not stand to reason that he would use an equally complex process to do so?
-Some statements in the Bible actually support the scientific theories that Christians often reject. For example, the Bible says that the first thing God created was light. Scientists believe that, during the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was nothing but electromagnetic energy. "Light" is a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and the rest of it is essentially the same as light but with a higher or lower energy level.
-God would not plant false evidence. There is a background of radiation in space that indicates an explosion of energy started the universe. God would not just put that there to fool us. Carbon dating indicates the ages of various fossils. God would not have put extra Carbon 14 in those fossils to make them seem older than the really are.

There is one scientific fallacy in this post that I would like to correct. The most widely-accepted defenition of species is not based on characteristics. Instead, it defines a species as a group of organisms able to mate and reproduce. That's why the different dog breeds are called "breeds" instead of "species".

Oh, and breeds are sometimes the same thing as subspecies, but not always. Dogs are subspecies Familiaris (I mistakenly called it Domesticus in my last post >_<). Breeds for dogs would be either subsubspecies or... breed. But breed as we understand it is not a taxonomical classification but a Kennel classification, created by various animal trade groups.

 

[c.d.e]

I did it again >_<

Damn. Two things I missed.

Some of the reasons why I believe the universe and Earth are very old, evolution is possible and did happen to an extent, and the universe did start with a big bang include:

-There is nothing in the Bible that directly contradicts these theories. Nothing says that God didn't use evolution to create the world.
-Since God created such an extraordinarily complex universe, does it not stand to reason that he would use an equally complex process to do so?
-Some statements in the Bible actually support the scientific theories that Christians often reject. For example, the Bible says that the first thing God created was light. Scientists believe that, during the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was nothing but electromagnetic energy. "Light" is a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and the rest of it is essentially the same as light but with a higher or lower energy level.
-God would not plant false evidence. There is a background of radiation in space that indicates an explosion of energy started the universe. God would not just put that there to fool us. Carbon dating indicates the ages of various fossils. God would not have put extra Carbon 14 in those fossils to make them seem older than the really are.

Oh, and breeds are sometimes the same thing as subspecies, but not always. Dogs are subspecies Familiaris (I mistakenly called it Domesticus in my last post >_<). Breeds for dogs would be either subsubspecies or... breed. But breed as we understand it is not a taxonomical classification but a Kennel classification, created by various animal trade groups.

I just wanted to say that the whole "God put things to fool us" or "Your readings are wrong" are actually things I.D. believers say are true. God put dino bones there. The earth is only 6000 years old, so your readings of 14million years are bullshit, etc. (oh, and Dinosaurs and Humans coexisted, Dino's dying out during noah's flood, etc, but those are just wayyyyy too silly)

 

[Cinge]

Lol, you use wikipedia and Penn and Teller (two of the biggest idiotic morons in existence) as your evidence that we came from monkeys? Lol, I can see now why you think you came from a monkey. In your case, more like a donkey's cousin.

No one has proved or disproved we came from monkeys and no one has proved or disproved the existence of God. Christ has been proven to have existed.

There is no evidence showing we came from monkeys, period. There is the monkey line and there is the human line and there is absolutely nothing in between or connecting the two.

 

[w1retap]

Science is a religion.

 

[Cinge]

Also, just because people believe in creation and God, does not mean they all believe the Bible as a totally accurate document. The story of creation was taken from much older text. That doesn't prove that it's wrong, it just proves that the timeline we use to calculate is wrong. Of course the earth is older than 6000 years.

The idea of believing in God and creation and Christianity goes way beyond the Bible. The Bible is a guideline on how to live and a historical record of events, even though that history may be much older that it appears. It's also missing a LOT of stuff that groups of people decided shouldn't be there.

You keep trying to throw the Bible in there to try and dispute the existence of God or bash the religion. That does not prove your theory nor does it disprove ours. It just means you are bashing something in order to divert someone from the fact you have yet to prove man came from monkeys.

 

[michael.pa2]

Since we're discussing the mysteries of life - how did an article about taxing video games turn into a 10 page argument about evolution? Don't know about the connection between monkeys and humans,but some people sure seem to have a lot of mule in them!

 

[w1retap]

This is how it went..

- Religion is stupid because things are made up
- Science is stupid because if scientists can't prove something they make it up
- Mule

 

[Cinge]

The same way that something that is said to one person, changes by the time it gets down the line to the last person. One person says something that gets it all started and it goes from there.

 

[Azhar]

This is how it went..

- Religion is stupid because things are made up
- Science is stupid because if scientists can't prove something they make it up
- Mule

Actually it all started because of my first post saying that religion creates violence more than video games or anything else in the world, and yet religion are still encouraged and fostered by all. Oops.

 

[Martyr]

Lol, you use wikipedia and Penn and Teller (two of the biggest idiotic morons in existence) as your evidence that we came from monkeys? Lol, I can see now why you think you came from a monkey. In your case, more like a donkey's cousin.

No one has proved or disproved we came from monkeys and no one has proved or disproved the existence of God. Christ has been proven to have existed.

There is no evidence showing we came from monkeys, period. There is the monkey line and there is the human line and there is absolutely nothing in between or connecting the two.

penn & teller may like to push their specific political view, but that does not invalidate their arguement. and wikipedia is an open, extremely powerful source. obviously there are a lot of silly articles about random things people have an intrestest in, but in well established and researched areas it has extensive data and links all kinds of data.


like i said, READ IT. dont just start throwing insults because you dont want to look at the proof you say dosent exist.


and yeah, jebus existed. what does that prove? muhammad existed, buddha existed, confucius existed. hell, i exist, can i go around preaching bullshit and have someone 2 thousand years from now say that my existense is proof that what i said is true? NO.

and your precious missing link arguement is very old. try reading some books on human evolution written past the 1950's.

 

[Azhar]

penn & teller may like to push their specific political view, but that does not invalidate their arguement. and wikipedia is an open, extremely powerful source. obviously there are a lot of silly articles about random things people have an intrestest in, but in well established and researched areas it has extensive data and links all kinds of data.


like i said, READ IT. dont just start throwing insults because you dont want to look at the proof you say dosent exist.


and yeah, jebus existed. what does that prove? muhammad existed, buddha existed, confucius existed. hell, i exist, can i go around preaching bullshit and have someone 2 thousand years from now say that my existense is proof that what i said is true? NO.

and your precious missing link arguement is very old. try reading some books on human evolution written past the 1950's.

Are you sure you exist? We could be in the matrix.......

 

[Cinge]

I have read it all, seen it all, grew up with it all. There is still nothing that proves man came from monkeys.

Penn's arguments are about as stupid and invalid as the monkey you claim to come from.

It's no insult to say that anyone that believes and uses Penn and Teller and Wikipedia as evidence is just crazy and may have come from something else. They are not scientist and scientist can't even prove we came from monkeys so, how can they? They can't. They just go off on stupid ranting temper tantrums full of BS.

My missing link argument may be old but, it's true. There is STILL to this day, like there has been since Darwin began his stupidity, been a HUGE gap between monkeys and humans in the two seperate chains that exist.

 

[Martyr]

ok, lets hear exactly what YOU think happened, so we can make insults about you and pick your argument to pieces.

 

[Cinge]

ok, lets hear exactly what YOU think happened, so we can make insults about you and pick your argument to pieces.

roflmao, obviously you haven't been reading the post here. People have already picked my arguments to pieces and insulted me. Nothing new there lol.

It still doesn't make you right or me right or prove we came from monkeys lol.

I think it's pretty obvious I believe things developed along their own chains, as has been stated in several post. I don't believe they *all* developed from the single celled stuff in the ocean either. I believe there was intelligent design in all things. To me, there are just way too many things that just had to happen perfectly.

I can't prove it and you can't disprove it. I can't disprove you came from monkeys but, you can't prove it either. So, we all go on faith in what we believe in.

 

[Martyr]

roflmao, obviously you haven't been reading the post here. People have already picked my arguments to pieces and insulted me. Nothing new there lol.

It still doesn't make you right or me right or prove we came from monkeys lol.

I think it's pretty obvious I believe things developed along their own chains, as has been stated in several post. I don't believe they *all* developed from the single celled stuff in the ocean either. I believe there was intelligent design in all things. To me, there are just way too many things that just had to happen perfectly.

I can't prove it and you can't disprove it. I can't disprove you came from monkeys but, you can't prove it either. So, we all go on faith in what we believe in.

so, when some scientist in asia flips a few dna bits, and a mother drops out a chimp instead of a baby, would that do it?

 

[DeathFromBelow]

My missing link argument may be old but, it's true. There is STILL to this day, like there has been since Darwin began his stupidity, been a HUGE gap between monkeys and humans in the two seperate chains that exist.

Not true. Watch:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
This basically guarantees we have a common ancestor.

I know you won't, but you really should watch the entire discussion this guy gave on evolution. It's all on YouTube. He talks about the "missing links" between land mammals an cetaceans/reptiles and birds and other common anti-evolution arguments.

 

[nilepez]

True, but also remember that nothing has disproved the existence of God or Jesus, either. In fact, there is some archeological proof that an important man named Jesus existed in Jerusalem during the first century AD.

Nobody, as far as I know, denies the existence of Jesus. However, there's no evidence that God exists, much less that Jesus was, in fact, the son of God. I'll go a step further and say that many, of the things attributed to Jesus are great and worth aspiring to, but I fail to see how that's evidence of God.

There is one scientific fallacy in this post that I would like to correct. The most widely-accepted defenition of species is not based on characteristics. Instead, it defines a species as a group of organisms able to mate and reproduce. That's why the different dog breeds are called "breeds" instead of "species".

That's not exactly true. You can mate a horse and a Donkey and get a mule or a Zebra and a Donkey and get a Zonkey. As I understand it, the offspring is generally sterile, but that, apparently, is not always the case.