LiberalLoather

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Evolution is descriptive. It describes how nature works. It says nothing about whether humans should function by survival of the fittest.

Know what you're talking about before you say something.
 

I'm sorry that you don't know what I'm talking about, Kyle, but I do know.
Question-Where did the building blocks of the universe come from? You know- protons, electrons, neutrons and, in the case of someone who believes like you, morons!
Difference between us? I know thw truth-you'tre still seeking it!
 

You're not arguing against what I said. Your post is twisting evolution (which is a descriptive theory, describing how things are) trying to put normative (describing how things should be) words in evolutions' mouth. Clearly you don't know, or else you would at least try to defend yourself from your clear logical and ethical blunder.

As to you trying to change the subject, what do you want me to say? The Big Bang? Ok, there. What are you trying to get at?
 

You keep saying that evolution is "logical" long enough-I might begin to change my mind-but don't hold your breath.
Where did the "big bang" come from?
You keep telling me, here and there, that I can't explain myself-you have told me nothing, only given me references where I can "learn" what evolution is really about.
A "theory" that continues to use references to long-exposed frauds as evidence does NOT meet my standards of "logical theory".
Why does it bother you people so much for someone to believe differently about this subject than you?
However much "evidence" you and those who want to promote this illogical "theory" tout-the fact is that NONE OF IT CAN BE PROVEN!
Guess that puts us in the samre boat, huh?
Admit it-your belief is just that-belief!
Same as me...but since you have had brilliant "scientists" explain to you that since this is thus-even though it can't be proven-thus must be this! I have the answer for all the holes in your "theory". Insert in place of the things you don't know and can't prove with "intellectual design" and the answer will be clear-if you are willing to do so. I doubt you will, because with "intelligent design" in place of your unknowns, your whole theory collapses into a pile of misguided observations.
 

You really need to read more carefully. I said your post was illogical. Don't put words in my mouth.

You keep saying evolution is illogical, care to explain that?

One of the things that Einstein proved was that time is simply another aspect of space. The theory of relatively has been consistently proven throughout the past 80 years. Satellites need to take into account time running faster in orbit since gravity isn't as strong. That's the only way that technology like GPS can work. Thus, if the Big Bang was the creation of space, it was also the creation of time: nothing happened before the Big Bang because time didn't exist.

You can't explain why, when evolution is a scientific theory to explain nature, you in your post try to make it into a moral belief. It's deceitful. It bothers me when people like you misconstrue other peoples' viewpoints.

You could find answers to your "frauds" with a simple Google search. We don't need to stretch this out even more.

You are advocating the "God of the gaps", that is, inserting God everywhere that we don't have a clear answer yet. Clearly that is a terrible idea. People used to ascribe all sorts of phenomenon to God, gods, or spirits, which have since been proven to be nothing mystical. Just because we don't know how something works yet doesn't mean that it must be God's hand.

The main difference between science and religion is that science is constantly revising itself to make more accurate descriptions of the world. Religion thinks it has all the answers already. Science admits when it is wrong.

I think you need to realize that evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive. Even intelligent design theorists say that evolution exists, just that God guides it.

Evolution is a theory that's here to stay; the rest of the educated world has moved on without you.
 

I marvel at your supreme intelligence, Kyle-and your failure to recognize that "science" never admits mistakes until it is proven wrong-yet "science can go on making assinine assumptions about things it has absolutely no proof of.
You know-while you preach the religion of coming from amoebas and "energy" (where the hell the "energy came from-you'll never be able to explain), I am willing to except the possibility that organisms adapt within species. That would explain your "panda's thumb" crap.
You take this crap from these people who do everything they can to discredit any view acknowledging a supreme intelligence. You can throw all your idiotic ramblings compiled by idiotic haters-of-god you want to. But the fact remains-you don't know-so your a follower of the religion of evolution which strokes your ego because you are made comfortable by the thought that noone or nothing has authority over you.
Hell yes, I connect this "bullshit theory" with morality! Evolution breeds immorality-go ahead tell me I'm wrong about that.
Where do your moral judgements come from, Kyle, if you don't have a reference?
Doesn't evolution give you the green light to do any damn thing you want to do-even murder? What is mankind supposed to base its morality on?
We Christians, I know, seem like a bunch of behind-the-times Idiotsto you "logical" thinkers. I keep thinking about the scripture that says "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".
All these idiots out there scrambling to get published for their brilliance in "science". What a bunch of decievers. Time after time, these false "scientists" are proven wrong-I've never heard any admit it....just shift the blame.
I do remember a segment of secular scientist re-examining the myth of the Grand Canyon's creation. There is a segment that says, rightly, that the Grand Canyon was not a drawn out event as generations of people have been taught, but a rapid event that formed the feature over a matter of days or weeks. That is not something people like you want to dwell on, is it? The "time" factor is critical to your deception, isn't it?
You count on "intellect" so much, that you throw common-sense aside.
We'll never resolve this, but one fact is clear!
I am willing to accept the fact that "evolution" is a theory worth looking at. You refuse to accept the fact that "intelligent design" has any merit.
Another thing that evolution breeds? Intolerance!
I hope you are comfortable in your own private "theocracy", Kyle. That's what you think you have, anyway. King of your own life, and all that! The fact is-you are NOT in control.
If evolution is true-God help us-our species will not survive, unless of course-nature finds a way for humans to procreate with the same sex! The future of mankind-fagness-that does seem to be the trend, doesn't it? You know-homosexuality being genetic and all that....excuse me...ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha....har!
Ridicule me all you want, boys and girls, but while I'm comfortable in my beliefs-your response to this post on my blog (which was honestly intended as a joke)proves that you yahoos are NOT comfortable in yours!
 

Once again, I am very comfortable with accepting evolution. I am not comfortable with people misrepresenting evolution. There's the big difference.

I'm sorry, but if you think that we have "absolutely no proof of" evolution, you're being ignorant. If you're not willing to acknowledge that, God forbid, science has had good reasons for working with this theory for nearly a hundred years, there's no use arguing.

Again, you seem to think that because, in your view, science can't fully explain a phenomenon yet (creation of the universe, creation of energy), that science is wrong. Scientists themselves will freely admit that there are many problems that science doesn't have an answer for yet, and many more that science can never answer. That's a big difference between science and religion: admitting when you don't know.

I'd hope you'd be willing to accept that organisms change within species, no one has ever doubted that fact, even before the theory of evolution was formulated. On that note, no one doubts that "survival of the fittest" occurs in nature. Weak and sick animals don't reproduce as well as fit animals. Look outside for evidence.

"Evolution breeds immorality-go ahead tell me I'm wrong about that". Ok, you're wrong. Do you see scientists running around killing whoever they want? I sure don't. I do see religious fanatics doing just that, though.

Moral judgments come from an innate sense of right and wrong. If the only thing that your morality rests on is fear of God punishing you, then that isn't really morality, it's just trying to avoid punishment. Are you telling me that if evolution were true, you'd have no reason not to run around killing and stealing? I'd hope you have stronger moral convictions than that.

Christians don't seem behind the times to me. I am Christian. I am able to see that religion concerns faith and belief and that science is a better tool for examining the objective characteristics of the natural world. There is no contradiction between science and Christianity unless you adhere to a strictly literal translation, which I think is foolish.

I think it's pretty clear that your post wasn't meant as a joke, otherwise you would have said so earlier and wouldn't be defending what you posted. That doesn't make sense.

You have yet to show how anything I've said isn't correct. I've asked you to back up different assertions and you haven't. I've done my best to explain myself and why intelligent design isn't science, it's philosophy/religion. I'm not saying that there definitely isn't a creator or intelligent design, I'm saying that those issues are philosophical, not scientific.
 

You have yet to prove to me that evolution is correct, Kyle.
I did NOT say that my post was a farce-I do believe that evolution is a deception eagerly gobbled up by those whose desire it is to be considered "intellectuals".
People like you have allowed your brains to become so filled with complications generated by flaws in your own core of beliefs, that you forego simple, common-sense approaches.
For someone to dismiss the Bible as "fable", in my opinion, is foolish.
I had an instructor in college, one time, who preached, religiously, "literal translation". Until we got to the "leviathan" in the book of Job. I take it literally-he censored me in his classroom for that. It is clear evidence that man lived alongside dinosaurs, in my opinion-he told me (the only place in scripture, mind you) that this description of "leviathan" was symbolic of satan.
It seems I remember reasing or seeing photos, once, of dinosaur tracks in Waxahatchee(sp?), Texas-which clearly had human footprints embedded within them. Have you ever heard of that?
 

It amuses me when these "science" worshippers say things like: "Oh he's not talking about the evolution model we accept, today-he's talking about the evolution model we follow presently".
Comical, isn't it?
 

I can't prove to you that evolution is a useful theory if you're not willing to enter with a critical approach. If you investigate material written by the vast majority of educated scientists, you will find the support you need. Again, there is a reason that evolution is by far the most widely accepted theory among scientists.

I think there is middle ground between interpreting the Bible as fable and as literal. 1 Samuel 2:8 states that the "pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them". Clearly this is using figurative language; the Bible was written as poetry and I think should be interpreted with that in mind.

I had not heard of the dinosaur tracks you mentioned, but did a quick Google search. Turns out it's spelled 'Waxahachie', and it looks like they've been solidly disproven. There is a very thorough analysis here and here. Although I didn't search around too much, I didn't see a single scientist supporting the claims.

The impact of the investigations by Hastings and other scientists was significant. While the creationist community did not completely nor consistently recant its past "mantracks claims, statements were issued by authors of several "mantrack" books and films advising other creationists not to cite the Paluxy River footprints as evidence against evolution or represent the tracks as proven evidence of human existence during the deposition of the Cretaceous rock system.

As the case with most creationist 'finds', they simply cannot stand up to even simple scientific investigation.

As to your second post, I'm not sure what you mean.
 

I've gone to your links-and see nothing but a biased opinion.
You tell me that "science" doesn't accept the "creation" theory-I go to sites and find lists of notable scientists who give it credence. But I'm just a dumb-ass, I guess!
 

Something isn't 'biased' just because it doesn't conform with your expectations.

Did scientists investigate the supposed human footprints intermingled with dinosaur footprints with a critial mindset? Most certainly, and deservedly so.

Again, scientists are pretty smart and investigative people. There's a reason why the vast majority of them support evolution.
 

The same reason a majority of this nation has little regard for morality.
 

We should expect evolutionists running around stealing and killing, no? Or try comparing crime records of Bible Belt states vs. blue states. I'll give you two guesses as to which have less crime. You'll find that, actually, people do still have regard for morality even if they accept evolution.

Morality has nothing to do with whether or not someone believes that God actually did battle a giant sea monster.
 

What is morality based on, then?
 

see the above post
 

Dude, look around you at the baby-killing, child raping/murdering, sexually immoral, irresponsible idiots your faith has resulted in!
I would venture to say, if you made two lists of scientist/murderer/rapist/thieves-one labled "Evolutionist", the other "Creationist"-their would be many mor "evolutionists" than "creationists.
 

We have no way of telling. What we can see is that Bible-thumping states have more violent crime. Chew on that, moral supremist.
 

What an elitist assinine statement-hell, they've been teaching your faith everyday of those people's lives in public schools for generations, now! The idiots who commit violent crimes and have no personal responsibility do so on large account because most of them believe that they are just a human animal and don't have to answer to anyone or anything. Thanks, evolution!
 

haha, think maybe it has to do with crappy parenting and a culture of hate than what kids learn for a week in science class? Don't blame evolution for your social problems.
 

I wonder where the "crappy parenting" thing originated-liberal philosophy or conservative?
 

Nice rhetorical question. I'd say that deadbeat dads and oblivious moms exist on all points of the political spectrum. Or are you trying to say that kids that are taught evolution grow up to be bad parents?
 

I say that evolution has brought with it a serious decline in moral values-I know-to your biased mind that seems incredible-but -that's o.k.-I'm sure it won't be the last thing you are wrong about!
Boy-that "seal-killing" thingy really got to you , didn't it?
 

No, actually I thought the picture was pretty funny.

You can say that "evolution has brought with it a serious decline in moral values" all you like, but without evidence, a way of measuring, or common sense, that statement will always be stillborn.

Let's move this argument back to the main page so that we don't have to go into the archives.
 

You can say that evolution exists all you want-but until you find a way to measure it-display it in action-you'll never prove it!