Evolution

[Baron Samedi]

[quote] [b]Originally posted by Adahn[/b]

Do you think before your fingers move? This discussion is anything but innefective. If pondering that which we cannot currently understand is innefective, then all of technology is the result of innefectiveness. The greatest thing about being human is the ability to perceive beyond our immediate reality.

As for opinions not being able to be changed, I cannot even begin to describe how ludicrous that sounds. If there is ONE thing everyone has, it's an opinion, and the power to change it. I suggest you put a little thought into your own opinions. If you think nobody else can change theirs, then do you believe you don't have the power to change yours? I remember a quote from 7th or 8th grade, though I don't remember who said it. "Simple minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas." If you don't question your own opinions, how strong can they truly be?


[/quote]

OF course I think before my fingers move. They wouldn't move if I didn't think it. I do not dispute that our greatest ability is to think ahead and beyond. But what I [i]was[/i] saying, is that this will eventually go into circles, from the lack of facts, and the stubbornness of people. This leads to my other part, about opinions.

People are basically stubborn. From this discussion, I don't think anyone is going to refute their religion, or suddenly disbelieve Evolution. Sure, they may have another viewpoint on the matter after reading this thread. I don't need to think about my opinions- because they are not holdfast. How can they be, when nobody has [i]all[/i] the facts?

I believe that Evolution happened, however I am open to the possibility that a supreme being started it, and has helped us along. I am not narrowminded- maybe you are if you think that everybodys opinions must be holdfast and need to be constantly re-investigated? Not that [i]that[/i] is narrowminded, just set-in-your-ways.

I don't need to question my opinions. They are strong enough, for they are effectively based on all the facts that have and can be presented at this stage.

Of course everyone can change their opinions. What kind of stupid statement is that? I never said they couldn't change their opinions, I said 'no-one is [u]going[/u] to change their opinions' not 'no-one can change their opinions' Read my post again.

It is extremely unlikely that people are going to significantly change their opinion from some fact presented by othe rpeople. Look at Vash's Girl (Sorry to pick you but...)

She came in here and said her piece. Do you think anyone changed their opinions because of her?

I don't. This is so people can state and support their opinions, but the opinions are all pretty similar- in regard to evoultion anyway, so not many changes will occur.

Basically, I do not think you read my post correctly. I never said people 'couldn't' change their opinions.

Oh, and why isn't this discussion ineffective? Hhhhm. Who was it that started this thread? Uuuh. Ooh. Almost have the name...tip of my tongue...A-a- Uuh. Adahn! Thats it!

Sure we can ponder it, but it isn't going to get us any further down the path of discovery, really. Is it?

[Dagger]

Actually, I thought that this discussion has, so far, been very effective and interesting. My original post may have been a bit on the inaccurate side, due to a fit of extreme idiocy, but the other posters definitely made up for that. I consider myself to be pretty strongly pro-evolution. However, reading other people's responses made me think about how little we actually know.

I guess one could say that the problem with discussing evolution vs. creation is that very little about this topic is clearly defined. Most of it depends on your personal beliefs and interpretations of a few meager facts--and even those are rarely certain. People may ultimately believe whatever they want to believe, but I like to think that OBers are, for the most part, open-minded enough to participate in this kind of debate and simultaneously take into consideration the fact that others' ideas might be valid as well.

~Dagger~

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]Using evolving and permanent in the same sentence is oxymoronic. In lamens, you're saying that "changing" is "permanent". Then you say "adpations" "change". So adaptions are permanent? No, microevolution is VARIATION within a species, whether you call that genetic fluke, or adaptation, I don't care. Microevolution is any change within a species that does NOT change the species of an individual (i.e. it can still reproduce with members of it's species). Therefore adaption IS microevolution, just a form of it, a form of the genetic change.

[/B][/QUOTE]

It's not oxymoronic.... Plus i never said all evolution is permanent... I used the words "Tends to be" meaning... well I'm sure you know what it means. I always do that. You should know by now how sneaky I am with words. For thigns that evolve, they TEND to be permanent... meaning... If I evolved from a monkey, I'm not evolving back... I can evolve further, but as far as I know, you can't evolve backwards. That kinda takes away the whole meaning. You evolve into something else, you don't evolve back into what you previously were. Therefor, evolution is permanent. I can think of no instant where something evolves and then evolves back into it's original state.

No adaption is something different... when I moved to Florida from the north, I adapted to the warm and moist weather... if I move back up north, I can and probably will adapt to the cold weather. When I'm in the dark, my eyes adapt to the minimal light, but if I turn the light back on, they adapt to much more light, but they can easily adapt back to minimal light if I turn the lights back off... My eyes don't evolve to compensate the lack of light, they adapt. They change, but they easily change back.... evolution is a change, yes, but a completely different change.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Circuit/J [/i]
[B]Whoooooooaaa, just one second. Most Americans are Chirstians? Now, being as new as I am in this forum, I don't know whether you're an American or not, but most Americans are certainly [i]not[/i] Christians. True, we have more Christians than any other place in the world, but we're far, far from being the majority. Far, far, far. Farfarfarfar.


[/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] [quote]"The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001." ARIS Study.[/quote]

Still going to fight truth?[/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]
Oh, no they take the same facts. Take a tree, for instance. Evolution says the tree evolved into that specific species through random occurrences. Intelligent design states that some higher power created this species of tree for a reason. The fact remains: there?s a tree.

Evolution isn?t purely factual either. In fact, it?s taking the SAME facts, and wielding a system to them . Believing microorganisms were created by some higher power, believing that god shaped some sort of evolution, or believing that the microorganism evolved through random genetic mutation (and nearly impossible odds in it?s very conception) all require faith. Sorry :-\ , believing in evolution is as faith-based as believing in any religion, the fact remains: You can?t prove it.



[/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] I still don't understand your logic, but whatever. As far as I am concerned, the only truly FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE THEORY OF A HIGHER POWER is the Bible.

I am not going to argue that.

As far as evolution...if you still can't understand what I just said, evolution is still more factual and is actually based upon truths that have been proven in most cases, whereas God and such things is only written about in the bible. And as far as I am concerned, I could've written something like the Bible if I truly wanted to--that is how much I place anything in it. It is merely a document showing such things as that, and it is the only evidence which will support your belief in a "higher power."

I still do not understand why God even comes into this. God and evolution CAN coexist.[/size]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]1. OF course I think before my fingers move. They wouldn't move if I didn't think it. I do not dispute that our greatest ability is to think ahead and beyond. But what I [i]was[/i] saying, is that this will eventually go into circles, from the lack of facts, and the stubbornness of people. This leads to my other part, about opinions.

2. People are basically stubborn. From this discussion, I don't think anyone is going to refute their religion, or suddenly disbelieve Evolution. Sure, they may have another viewpoint on the matter after reading this thread. I don't need to think about my opinions- because they are not holdfast. How can they be, when nobody has [i]all[/i] the facts?

3. I believe that Evolution happened, however I am open to the possibility that a supreme being started it, and has helped us along. I am not narrowminded- maybe you are if you think that everybodys opinions must be holdfast and need to be constantly re-investigated? Not that [i]that[/i] is narrowminded, just set-in-your-ways.

4. I don't need to question my opinions. They are strong enough, for they are effectively based on all the facts that have and can be presented at this stage.

5. Of course everyone can change their opinions. What kind of stupid statement is that? I never said they couldn't change their opinions, I said 'no-one is [u]going[/u] to change their opinions' not 'no-one can change their opinions' Read my post again.

6. It is extremely unlikely that people are going to significantly change their opinion from some fact presented by othe rpeople. Look at Vash's Girl (Sorry to pick you but...)

7. She came in here and said her piece. Do you think anyone changed their opinions because of her?

8. I don't. This is so people can state and support their opinions, but the opinions are all pretty similar- in regard to evoultion anyway, so not many changes will occur.

9. Basically, I do not think you read my post correctly. I never said people 'couldn't' change their opinions.

10. Oh, and why isn't this discussion ineffective? Hhhhm. Who was it that started this thread? Uuuh. Ooh. Almost have the name...tip of my tongue...A-a- Uuh. Adahn! Thats it!

11. Sure we can ponder it, but it isn't going to get us any further down the path of discovery, really. Is it? [/B][/QUOTE]

I like how Drix did the numbering of paragraphs, and you made it easy for me :D.

1. Who in their right mind would want to discuss something known as factual. That, my friend, would be pointless. I chose this controversial topic for that very reason, the sake of discussion. As for people being stubborn, you're stereotyping the entire human race. Stubbornness is seen as a [i]flaw[/i], and I would bet it doesn't apply to everyone.

2. You repeat yourself here, but I think I've got the gist of it. You're the only one I've heard say that questioning one's opinions and beliefs is a [i]bad[/i] thing. I think it's a very good thing, because it allows us to step back and take a look at why we chose our opinions in the first place. As for having all the facts, that would leave little room for brain-stimulating discussion, wouldn't it?

3. Here you say you're open to the idea of Intelligent Design. Hmm, since that seems to be where this discussion has taken a slight turn, wouldn't this be an effective way to aid in choosing to take a stand on the issue? The rest of this paragraph makes little sense to me, perhaps it could be explained? Apparently holdfast (never heard that word before) means weak and without a strong foundation? It may just be me, but that seems to be the opposite of how it sounds. I don't feel like opening a dictionary, but perhaps you could post its definition?

4. Again, this discussion doesn't rely much on facts, because a discussion of facts truly isn't much of a discussion. This is all about [i]ideas[/i], which require a bit of intelligence to discuss. You also say your opinions are strong, and therefore don't need to be questioned. A bit of advice from me would be, [i]the strength of your opinions depends solely on how much they have been questioned[/i].

5. In saying that nobody is going to change their opinions, you are inherently stating that they cannot be changed. You stated it as a fact, without any questioning tone whatsoever, so I took it that you saw it as a fact yourself. If you want to say something that you don't know as a fact, use words such as "probably" or "almost." Otherwise, it will be taken that you perceive it as a fact.

6. Again, you're insinuating that every human being is incurably stubborn. If I'm not mistaken, most intelligent people [i]know[/i] that the strength of their opinions is derived from the thought put into them. Also, not everyone who reads the thread is going to post on it. It is possible (note the uncertainty) that people's opinions [i]are[/i] being changed, though we will not see the effect of it.

7. Again, I believe (more uncertainty) that it [i]is[/i] possible.

8. Again, you're stating things as fact, when you truly aren't sure whether they are true or not. The uncertainty strategy will protect you from many biting comments.

9. Again, in stating people [i]aren't[/i] going to change their opinions, you are insinuating that they don't have the ability.

10. I think you were trying to be sarcastic here, but with your wording, you are saying the discussion isn't innefective, which makes it effective. You then go to say that I was the one who started this [i]effective[/i] discussion. I thank you for the compliment :D.

11. Ah, but it will get us further down the path of discovery within ourselves. As we see other people defend their opinions, and find flaws in others', we are expanding our horizons. If we didn't have such discussions, we wouldn't be able to incorporate the well-thought-over beliefs of others. This is a melting pot of minds, and I, personally, find it to be quite an enjoyable, worthwhile experience.

Ah, I really do like Drix's strategy, it's so satisfying. I truly am enjoying this. Would you care for another round?
::cracks knuckles::

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]It's not oxymoronic.... Plus i never said all evolution is permanent... I used the words "Tends to be" meaning... well I'm sure you know what it means. I always do that. You should know by now how sneaky I am with words. For thigns that evolve, they TEND to be permanent... meaning... If I evolved from a monkey, I'm not evolving back... I can evolve further, but as far as I know, you can't evolve backwards. That kinda takes away the whole meaning. You evolve into something else, you don't evolve back into what you previously were. Therefor, evolution is permanent. I can think of no instant where something evolves and then evolves back into it's original state. [/QUOTE]

Ah! That's what you meant. Ok, You should say the change evoked by evolution is permanent, although it is not. Even when a species evolves forward (if evolution were true, hypothetically) it is CONSTANTLY evolving through random mutations being supported by natural selection. You?ve ALSO happened to point out ANOTHER flaw in evolution; because of all the wide-margins of error (i.e, the commonly minute changes in evolutionary biology) who?s to say a creature cannot evolve backwards? Technically there is no forward or backwards. Let?s say a creature gains a trait that makes it WEAKER (not incredibly substantial, maybe a bit less fur or dull teeth). Let?s say the creature survives, I mean it?s that that huge of a change, so it passes the weakness to the offspring. Let?s say the offspring survive, and eventually they change into creatures far less effective than it?s previous form. This is entirely possible, especially with humanity in the picture (we kill off predators, try to save certain weak species, etc). So evolution isn?t always the [B]betterment[/B] of species, now is it?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]No adaption is something different... when I moved to Florida from the north, I adapted to the warm and moist weather... if I move back up north, I can and probably will adapt to the cold weather. When I'm in the dark, my eyes adapt to the minimal light, but if I turn the light back on, they adapt to much more light, but they can easily adapt back to minimal light if I turn the lights back off... My eyes don't evolve to compensate the lack of light, they adapt. They change, but they easily change back.... evolution is a change, yes, but a completely different change. [/B][/QUOTE]

What you are experiencing is the psychological change to your environment. This has nothing to do with evolution, genetics, and there is NO evidence to prove any creatures besides humans experience this "adaptation". If I took you and an Eskimo, stuck you both in death valley without any water, you would both die of the same thing: dehydration. Human physiology doesn?t change, so you would probably die about the SAME time, granted, the Eskimo would be a hell of a lot more uncomfortable than you because you are more "adapted" to the environment. As for the adaptation to light? you don?t adapt to anything. The reason you see in the dark better after a while is because your iris dilates, allowing more light in, after a while your lens adjusts to focus this extra light into better vision.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch[/I]
[B]
I still don't understand your logic, but whatever. As far as I am concerned, the only truly FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE THEORY OF A HIGHER POWER is the Bible.

I am not going to argue that.

As far as evolution...if you still can't understand what I just said, evolution is still more factual and is actually based upon truths that have been proven in most cases, whereas God and such things is only written about in the bible. And as far as I am concerned, I could've written something like the Bible if I truly wanted to--that is how much I place anything in it. It is merely a document showing such things as that, and it is the only evidence which will support your belief in a "higher power."

I still do not understand why God even comes into this. God and evolution CAN coexist. [/B][/QUOTE]

I choose to believe in creationism. I suppose they could, as a means for god to create the world, as I?ve stated earlier. But believing in evolution as a concrete, and applicable-to-all theory means God had no hand in it?.

Evolution is NOT more factual! Granted, the belief in evolution has caused MUCH scientific research and development! However, believing in the random nature of evolution and the sheer odds of it NOT happening, makes evolution just as "religious" as Intelligent Design. As I?ve said earlier, evolution and creationism both believe the same FACTS (there?s a bunch of species, they work together, there?s a beautiful and complex ecosystem everywhere) evolution attributes the facts to EVOLUTION, and creationism to a higher power. It?s just the model. Neither are more or less factual.

As for your conception of the Bible, well believe what you want. I?m not going to argue with you on that, I have my faith, you have yours.

[Vash's girl]

Don't be offended or anything, but I just don't understand how ya'll can believe a little cell evolved and created all this very complex stuff. I know the Bible is only a book and that's not enough proof for some of ya. But, a cell evolved and created the world? Yeah.... There is no proof of the big bang theory or anything. Don't put a post saying I offened you because you're putting posts against what I believe. So don't get mad *cough cough * transic nerve**cough

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]

I choose to believe in creationism. I suppose they could, as a means for god to create the world, as I?ve stated earlier. But believing in evolution as a concrete, and applicable-to-all theory means God had no hand in it?.

Evolution is NOT more factual! Granted, the belief in evolution has caused MUCH scientific research and development! However, believing in the random nature of evolution and the sheer odds of it NOT happening, makes evolution just as "religious" as Intelligent Design. As I?ve said earlier, evolution and creationism both believe the same FACTS (there?s a bunch of species, they work together, there?s a beautiful and complex ecosystem everywhere) evolution attributes the facts to EVOLUTION, and creationism to a higher power. It?s just the model. Neither are more or less factual.

As for your conception of the Bible, well believe what you want. I?m not going to argue with you on that, I have my faith, you have yours. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] Tell me then, where are the facts in nature telling us that there's some "higher power"? Can you give me cemented, true, FACTUAL meaning to this? Can you supply me with proofs, other than faith, that there is a higher power influencing and affluencing all of this? Obviously not. That is what I mean: evolution is based upon factual observations, the taking of things which are very obviously true: such as fossils, and other things; all of this shows that over large amounts of time, things have been changed due to evolution. It doesn't point that some God is up there doing this all.

And yes, God and evolution can coexist. God could be the one that created evolution as a means for his hands to work as his head. I certainly don't believe this, but I can understand it at least.

We're talking FACTUAL imformation here. We're talking information that has been PROVEN and is TRUE and cannot be wrong in most case. Is a higher power such as this? No.

I am not saying you are wrong in saying that God could've created things, and that evolution is not part of it; nor am I saying that your beliefs are wrong, but they are just what they are: notions to faith. Evolution IS and does have more factual information than that of your God you seem to constantly say has "factual" information.

You may argue that this information of evolution itself isn't even factual..rather guesses. That's not right. These things have factual, beaten facts. We have skeletons of humans in their inferior, earlier forms. I'm sure you know this...why are you contradicting it and being hypocritical when the information is right in your face? I mean, you seem to be educated on the subject of evolution.

Evolution and God can coexist, you just need to be more open-minded and see that. There's no bars but where you place them, no wounds but where you gash them, and no hands but where you brush them. Get me?

I totally respect what you're saying and all, but at least put yourself in my shoes: I don't care either way if there's a god or not. If there is a God, fine. If there isn't, fine. I'm not going to sit here and pray, put my faith in something that I don't even know is true. And if I go to Hell for it, fine. I don't care. I'd rather just die and cease to exist by that draw.

So yes, as I said, evolution is far more factual than the theory of a higher power. And they can coexist.

Hopefully this is the last time I have to repeat these things and expand on them. I do enjoy debating things, and I'm not cutting you down at all. I see well where you stand here, and you should do at least the same.[/size]

[Adahn]

There's this funny little thing about faith, if it's proven, it's not faith anymore. Faith requires belief in something that cannot be proven. To argue that you will never have faith in anything because it can't be proven, is, well, I'm sure there's a word for it :). Belief without proof is the definition of faith, and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Other than that, I am glad you can see where other people are coming from, and how it could be possible that they might be correct. I do wonder if there is some explanation for your position on faith, or if you truly didn't know what faith implies.

[Xaru Silverfire]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vash's girl [/i]
[B]Don't be offended or anything, but I just don't understand how ya'll can believe a little cell evolved and created all this very complex stuff. I know the Bible is only a book and that's not enough proof for some of ya. But, a cell evolved and created the world? Yeah.... There is no proof of the big bang theory or anything. Don't put a post saying I offened you because you're putting posts against what I believe. So don't get mad *cough cough * transic nerve**cough [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you understand what you are saying?

Transtic Nerve had slight reasoning for what he said. He simply said what you said, but replaced words. So he may have been rude, as you were also.

I believe none of the people who posted in here said anything about one cell evolving in trillions of organisms. It would have taken billions of cells to start up life.

As you stated your opinion about evolution. I shall state mine.

Imagine the [b]inbreeding[/b] that would have taken place with TWO people starting all of mankind... impossible we would all be retarded and dead.

You are correct. There is no of the Big Bang THEORY as it is just a theory. There is proof of evolution. Not a lot, but still it is there.

Mitch I have to say, I totally agree with you. You point out the fact that evolution has proof, which is why it is more reliable for information.

Really try to answer a biology test with a question about religion, "God created us." I'm pretty sure you might get a lower grade.

[quote][i]Originally posted by Adahn.[/i]

[b]There's this funny little thing about faith, if it's proven, it's not faith anymore. Faith requires belief in something that cannot be proven. To argue that you will never have faith in anything because it can't be proven, is, well, I'm sure there's a word for it . Belief without proof is the definition of faith, and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Other than that, I am glad you can see where other people are coming from, and how it could be possible that they might be correct. I do wonder if there is some explanation for your position on faith, or if you truly didn't know what faith implies.[/b]

Adahn, I think you mean atheism, not believing in a religion. And I think people in a religion are basically pushed to believe in that when they are born. People's parents make their kids a religion. Some people choose to believe actual information rather than what other people try to make them believe.

I'm short on time...ack.

~Xaru

Feel free to correct/state opinions.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i]
[B]
Imagine the [b]inbreeding[/b] that would have taken place with TWO people starting all of mankind... impossible we would all be retarded and dead.

[/B][/QUOTE]

You mean we're [b]not[/b] all retarded? Huh, must just be the population of Hollywood...

See, I think that's a rather weak arguement, to say that just having two people would cause inbreeding. If yu look at evolutionary theory, that species will arise from a sporadic mutation/adaptation, then logically the human race didn't start with two people.

It started with one single person, who was forced by biological necessity to mate with the primates that s/he had just evolved from. Eww. (Now you see why Victorians got miffed at Darwin.)

Anyway, this process of semi-bestality/inbredding continued until it reached it's natural climax: the guests on the Jerry Springer show.

Evolution doesn't answer everything, but creationism does. Why do you think so many people believe it? No loose ends! (I myself subscribe to a merger of the two beliefs, which is even more convenient.)

Although, I always did wonder about the Adam/Eve thing...Justin, if you're still following this thread, can you answer that?

(I'm not being snide; I'm actually curious to know. =) )

[Baron Samedi]

[quote] [i]Originally posted by Adahn[/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Baron Samedi
1. OF course I think before my fingers move. They wouldn't move if I didn't think it. I do not dispute that our greatest ability is to think ahead and beyond. But what I was saying, is that this will eventually go into circles, from the lack of facts, and the stubbornness of people. This leads to my other part, about opinions.

2. People are basically stubborn. From this discussion, I don't think anyone is going to refute their religion, or suddenly disbelieve Evolution. Sure, they may have another viewpoint on the matter after reading this thread. I don't need to think about my opinions- because they are not holdfast. How can they be, when nobody has all the facts?

3. I believe that Evolution happened, however I am open to the possibility that a supreme being started it, and has helped us along. I am not narrowminded- maybe you are if you think that everybodys opinions must be holdfast and need to be constantly re-investigated? Not that that is narrowminded, just set-in-your-ways.

4. I don't need to question my opinions. They are strong enough, for they are effectively based on all the facts that have and can be presented at this stage.

5. Of course everyone can change their opinions. What kind of stupid statement is that? I never said they couldn't change their opinions, I said 'no-one is going to change their opinions' not 'no-one can change their opinions' Read my post again.

6. It is extremely unlikely that people are going to significantly change their opinion from some fact presented by othe rpeople. Look at Vash's Girl (Sorry to pick you but...)

7. She came in here and said her piece. Do you think anyone changed their opinions because of her?

8. I don't. This is so people can state and support their opinions, but the opinions are all pretty similar- in regard to evoultion anyway, so not many changes will occur.

9. Basically, I do not think you read my post correctly. I never said people 'couldn't' change their opinions.

10. Oh, and why isn't this discussion ineffective? Hhhhm. Who was it that started this thread? Uuuh. Ooh. Almost have the name...tip of my tongue...A-a- Uuh. Adahn! Thats it!

11. Sure we can ponder it, but it isn't going to get us any further down the path of discovery, really. Is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I like how Drix did the numbering of paragraphs, and you made it easy for me .

1. Who in their right mind would want to discuss something known as factual. That, my friend, would be pointless. I chose this controversial topic for that very reason, the sake of discussion. As for people being stubborn, you're stereotyping the entire human race. Stubbornness is seen as a flaw, and I would bet it doesn't apply to everyone.

2. You repeat yourself here, but I think I've got the gist of it. You're the only one I've heard say that questioning one's opinions and beliefs is a bad thing. I think it's a very good thing, because it allows us to step back and take a look at why we chose our opinions in the first place. As for having all the facts, that would leave little room for brain-stimulating discussion, wouldn't it?

3. Here you say you're open to the idea of Intelligent Design. Hmm, since that seems to be where this discussion has taken a slight turn, wouldn't this be an effective way to aid in choosing to take a stand on the issue? The rest of this paragraph makes little sense to me, perhaps it could be explained? Apparently holdfast (never heard that word before) means weak and without a strong foundation? It may just be me, but that seems to be the opposite of how it sounds. I don't feel like opening a dictionary, but perhaps you could post its definition?

4. Again, this discussion doesn't rely much on facts, because a discussion of facts truly isn't much of a discussion. This is all about ideas, which require a bit of intelligence to discuss. You also say your opinions are strong, and therefore don't need to be questioned. A bit of advice from me would be, the strength of your opinions depends solely on how much they have been questioned.

5. In saying that nobody is going to change their opinions, you are inherently stating that they cannot be changed. You stated it as a fact, without any questioning tone whatsoever, so I took it that you saw it as a fact yourself. If you want to say something that you don't know as a fact, use words such as "probably" or "almost." Otherwise, it will be taken that you perceive it as a fact.

6. Again, you're insinuating that every human being is incurably stubborn. If I'm not mistaken, most intelligent people know that the strength of their opinions is derived from the thought put into them. Also, not everyone who reads the thread is going to post on it. It is possible (note the uncertainty) that people's opinions are being changed, though we will not see the effect of it.

7. Again, I believe (more uncertainty) that it is possible.

8. Again, you're stating things as fact, when you truly aren't sure whether they are true or not. The uncertainty strategy will protect you from many biting comments.

9. Again, in stating people aren't going to change their opinions, you are insinuating that they don't have the ability.

10. I think you were trying to be sarcastic here, but with your wording, you are saying the discussion isn't innefective, which makes it effective. You then go to say that I was the one who started this effective discussion. I thank you for the compliment .

11. Ah, but it will get us further down the path of discovery within ourselves. As we see other people defend their opinions, and find flaws in others', we are expanding our horizons. If we didn't have such discussions, we wouldn't be able to incorporate the well-thought-over beliefs of others. This is a melting pot of minds, and I, personally, find it to be quite an enjoyable, worthwhile experience.

Ah, I really do like Drix's strategy, it's so satisfying. I truly am enjoying this. Would you care for another round?
::cracks knuckles::[/quote]

Another round? How delightful!

1: Of course it is a controversial topic.... because no-one knows the answer. All I was saying was that the constant presnting of opinions over facts is not going to change peoples minds. Of course, that is only my opinion that it won't change people's minds, but there are so few facts, and so many conclusions drawn from them. All the facts have been represented, now it will not get to further. I believe, anyway.

2: Once again. how the hell did you end up with me saying that questioning your beliefs is a bad thing? Please, back up your accusations.

3: Eh? I am open to the idea. I don't believe in it. I believe in Evolution, but I am open to the possibility of a supreme being. Perhaps 'believing' in Evolution is the wrong word. I am inclined to side with that, whilst not saying there is no God. Holdfast means strong and unyielding. I was saying that opinions needn't be unyielding, especially when you don't know the truth of it. Stick up for your opinion, but don't view it as the Bastion of humanity. [i]Especially[/i] if you on't have all the facts. We could all be wrong.

4:A discussion needs to be based on facts. Otherwise you will end up with people spouting off beliefes without justification. Which will not change other people's opinion, see? You don't need to discuss the facts, just be able to back yourself up with them. I do not know the truth. my opinion is currently based on all the facts that are represented. Until there are new facts, how can I change my opinion? Unless I say that some facts aren't true...

5: Not that they [u]can't[/u] but that they probably [u]won't[/u]. There is a difference, yet it was based on my belief. Maybe I am wrong... maybe not. No-one is infallible. Anything I say is what I believe. I am human. Humans can believe wrong. Therefore, take nobodys word as truth, but as an opinion. You proved my point; I percieved it as a fact, based on [b]my[/b] own emotions and ways of operation.

6 and 7: Would you change your POV without sufficient justification? If that is a Yes, well, nothing I can do for you. Of coursem this is just my opinion and Modus Operandi, so it is your choice. No-one can base their ideas of people without it being tainted by their own experiences and self.

8: Gah?!?! All the opinions that have been presnted are either God, Evolution or mix. Any other ones? Please, tell me and I will withdraw my case. Just don't say that we were created by Jell-O monstrs or anything? unless you [i]truly[/i] believe that. who knows, it may be true...

9: Must I bash it through your skull? Saying they won't is entirely diferent from they can't. Will not- an element of free will. Can not- impossible move.

10: Wrong. [quote][i]Originally posted by... ME![/i]
Oh, and why isn't this discussion ineffective? Hhhhm. Who was it that started this thread? Uuuh. Ooh. Almost have the name...tip of my tongue...A-a- Uuh. Adahn! Thats it!
[/quote]

I said this discussion was getting ineffective. You said it wasn't. I said 'Why isn't it ineffective?', Because you said it wasn't ineffective, as I believed it to be.
Then I said it was because you started the thread. A low blow :toothy: but not necessarily unjustified... Is it just me or is that very simple to understand? Sorry, bad luck, no compliment.

11:What I was saying was that [i]now[/i] it becomes ineffective, as I believe all viewpoints have been made, and people can peruse them, but there isn't much more to be generated. Thats all.

12: Whaa?!?! No more?!?! I was just getting into gear... hehehe.

I hope you seriously weren't cracking your knuckles, as that can give you Arthritis, and then we wouldn't be able to continue this discussion.

I can't wait to see you pull this apart!

Note: I may be a while replying because I am going camping... but I'll be back!:toothy:

Oh, and Vash's girl... little pedantic I am (Heh. Not really) You might want to get your banner edited so that the $$ are in front of the money amount. it lokks a bit... off, otherwise.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i]
[B]There's this funny little thing about faith, if it's proven, it's not faith anymore. Faith requires belief in something that cannot be proven. To argue that you will never have faith in anything because it can't be proven, is, well, I'm sure there's a word for it :). Belief without proof is the definition of faith, and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Other than that, I am glad you can see where other people are coming from, and how it could be possible that they might be correct. I do wonder if there is some explanation for your position on faith, or if you truly didn't know what faith implies. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] This shall be nearly my last post in this thread; I've said what I've said over and over again, and yet people such as yourself seem to not understand what I am saying as far as I make it clear. So basically I am not accomplishing anything to these people such as you.

I'm saying that I'm a logical person. I will only believe in someting if it's true. Isn't that was belief is, knowing something is near true and choosing it to be true? I'd say yes. At least in the way I define "belief."

I do not believe in faith, then. I simply refuse to choose it due to what it is: either a lie or a truth. Obviously, in every single thing there is some truth to be gleaned as well as something false. Nothing will ever be completely true, that is, as long as you have the depth to understand things to their very deepest roots.

So basically I am saying, because I believe in logic above all else, and I refuse to just be all, "Yes, I believe in this for [stated reason] because I think it'd be worth it to me as a person to believe this, and I think also that it's right."

To me that doesn't work. You either choose to completely believe in something upon TRULY seeing it. Obviously you cannot see God TRULY until you are dead...and thus, this is another reason: I am not going to put faith in something that most likely, in today's definition, isn't true. I'm sure some things in religion have to be right...I mean, it bases itself upon a lot of things which are easily relatable...and with the bible seems to dramatize often. But I choose simply to stand in the center of all this; I chose to be cautious and wary towards it: I choose not to simply accept it upon someone else's stated fact, or that it's ingrained in my parents and what they've taught--rather, I choose to be indifferent to it.

Since I can't choose either side without being completely correct...and I figure that most likely I'd hate god if he were true, I choose to be apathetical, an apatheist, and stand in the center, not choosing either one; those being that God is real or he isn't. Therefore I cannot be erroneous in my decision...since I didn't have to make one in the first place. I'm sure it's sort of an ablogical way to look at things...but it's as far as I can go to being true to myself.

And as for God, even if this is rather off topic, if he's so great, then I don't understand. Why is there so much injustice placed in humans, why is there so much fragmented and so horrid things in this world?

Supposedly, God gave his wills into us and his ways. Are these his ways? Are the human natures the very way of God? To me, I see us as mere toys to God. Why would he, after being prayed for by millions, give abosolution? WHy would he, being so greedy, taking all these prayers to fix our imperfections, give us that? It doesn't make sense.

And yet God in Bible is portrayed as something great. He doesn't have to be great and rigtheous, you know.

I'm not going to die for that.[/size]

[AutoKill]

I have to agree with Baron Samedi.
Even if some odd event happened that showed us all the answers, and it was fact that god created everything. I think Am to stubborn to even go along with it. I would be against the hole idea and probably give god the finger.
So it is true your not going to ?turn? some one into a atheist, or religious person just by fighting over stupid factuality?s. One day we are just going to have to agree, for every one to shut the hell up and let people believe whatever they want. The only real reason why this is even that big of a deal. Is the fact that society backfired on being able to support the different beliefs that we have today.
I think this will continually be a problem. I just hope it wont become so big we have to pull off another ?King George III?. And ship all of you non-atheist people to a ?New world?.

[Justin]

Sorry, DeathBug, I haven't been following this too closely of late. I'm also not sure what you're asking, but I'll try:

Adam and Eve were the only two original humans, by my faith. Many have come to believe that God 'planted' other humans on the earth in a similar fashion to how he created Adam and Eve themselves. This is not biblical; the Bible clearly states that we're all of Adam's descent.

Many people also have the impression that Adam and Eve only had two sons(some slightly more informed say three), but neither of those beliefs are biblical. After Cane and Abel, the Bible mentions a third son--Seth. And, if you're thinking how I am, they had [i]many[/i] children in their time on Earth. Of which I'm sure none of those mentioned in the Bible were the first or last---unless it says differently. You have to understand, I'm not big on creation. I say that God did it, and no matter how He did it, it was still He who did it, and I give Him the glory for it.

I'll wrap up everything I've said and haven't said thus far: Evolution and the Bible, given the right theorizing CAN line up.
This, however, doesn't mean that they do or don't.
Petty arguements such as this should [i]always[/i] take a backseat to the Gospel in the minds of Christians. Never let yourselves, as Christians, get caught up in what is not important for the Kingdom.
Logic? God is far more logical than any other god, or no god at all.
Faith? The faith I have is made stronger all the time as I see that it does not go to waste. As I see the words spoken by God fulfilled. Blind faith--haha. Who needs blind faith when you can [i]SEE[/i] the evidence everyday, and at any time? Seek and you'll find, there are just lengths many are scared to go to to find truth, so they choose to live the lie. Not that that makes one any less than another; afterall, I hated Christians up until a year or so ago, so I understand everyone else completely. That's the power of the Holy Spirit in it's most beautiful state--absolute transformation. Haha.

Anyway, I hope I've answered questions. That's one of my few purposes on this earth, after all.

-Justin

[Baron Samedi]

I like you Justin, even if your.... absolute faith in God is..... stran....different. It just seems odd to me to have that much Faith in something. I think the fact that you have that much faith in your beliefs is fantastic. I do not agree with you, but I may be wrong. So may you be. Who knows? It is a wonderful trait you have there anyway. Really loyal etc.

Un-knowledgeable non-christian that I am, I concur with Justin, even though my base is different to his... I believe that Religion and Evolution can co-exist. Whether or not they do is another matter, but they can. The Bible may easily be wrong. Or maybe god was of a scientific bent, as I find myself repeating often. We are unlikely to be able to disprove either theory. So now all that is left is to say what we believe. All reasons (that are plausible, based on fact) have been presented. As I have mentioned before...

[lea]

wow, after reading this WHOLE thread, i have to agree with justin, being a non christian, but, still having the same faith in god, just believing some different things ^_^

[Dan L]

(Sorry in advance for bringing up an old topic)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1] Tell me then, where are the facts in nature telling us that there's some "higher power"? Can you give me cemented, true, FACTUAL meaning to this? Can you supply me with proofs, other than faith, that there is a higher power influencing and affluencing all of this? Obviously not. [/b][/quote]

Well, somehow everything got here, didn't it?

There's a general scientific principle- cause and effect. For there to be an effect, there needs to be a cause. In order for the big bang to start everything off, something needed to spark it off in the first place. In order for matter to be here, something needed to create it.

Tell me this, can you even begin to comprehend the concept of matter? It doesn't necessarily [i]have[/i] to have been created in that it could have just always been here, but can you even begin to comprehend the thought of matter that's of infinite age? You essentially have two choices. Either all the matter in the universe is mind-bogglingly old (mind boggling in the way that we have to think "if it was always there, where did it come from?"), or you choose to have faith in a mind-bogglingly big God, despite the apparent contradictions.

There's another general scinetific principle, which says that nothing simple can ever turn into something more complex by purely chemical reactions alone. Look around you, at all the complex things you can see. Computers are much more complex than the ores and materials from which their components came. Watches are more complicated than the natural materials they were made of. Even my Bible, with the written language in it, contains information in it that cannot be conveyed purely by it's chemical composition. All these things have a purpose, and all of them were created, they required an outside force to take them from the simple materials from which they came, to a working product. Some people say evolution is a lot like throwing components into a tornado and expecting to get a harrier jet out of it. In reality, it's not even that easy. The components themselves were created. In reality it's a lot more like watching a rock for a million years or so and waiting to see if the natural forces eventually turned it into a watch. That doesn't take you from microbe to man, that's just the level of improbability that a fully structured single celled micro-organism could evolve from a soup of minerals.

It's not exactly concrete proof of God, but then, I haven't even gotten started on the other side of things.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B]That is what I mean: evolution is based upon factual observations, the taking of things which are very obviously true: such as fossils, and other things; all of this shows that over large amounts of time, things have been changed due to evolution. It doesn't point that some God is up there doing this all.[/b][/quote]

Let me correct you on that:

Evolution is [b]based[/b] on factual observations, but the theory of evolution itself is mostly extrapolations of those observations, in order to prove observations that weren't actually there based on the fact that they should theoretically be made in the future.

Let me explain that:

Evolutionary theory has one thing correct: All the species that are recorded as having existed due to fossil records, did exist. Assuming the accuracy of the dating methods, they existed at the times stated.

However, the idea that the species, through countless generations of reproduction, formed new species, has not actually been proven. Sub species are a different matter. In the same way that various breeds of dogs are still dogs, and they can interbreed, such is the case for sub-species which evolve. However, it hasn't been proven that entirely new species can come from old ones (ie dogs and cats having a common ancestor), it is merely extrapolated from the fact that certain species existed before others.

If species gradually changed into newer ones, then there [i]should[/i] be some intermediaries, ie. species which are neither one nor the other, but in between. However, none of these have actually been found, they are just assumed to be there on the assumption that they will be found at a later date.

If something which is necessary to prove evolution of species to species hasn't been found yet, then surely it isn't proven yet, and evolution of this sort is neither cemented, known to be true, or factual.

Hence, if neither argument is proven but both have supporting points then what is it other than faith that you go by to decide what to believe with?

Faith doesn't necessarily have to be in God. Faith is why you sit in a chair without fearing that it will collapse on you, because you've done it so many times and it's never failed you yet. Faith is why you believe in everything you're told about evolution in the texbooks, and it's also why people have difficulty believing in God, because they have had bad experiences of believers, or they've been brought up in an unbelief to the point that they have faith in the fact that God doesn't exist.

Faith is also what believers have, in that in the same way as the chair, we've often relied on God in difficult times (rather than dismissing him because of them) and he's never let us down yet.

Most of your beliefs are a matter of faith, not of fact, it's just a matter of where you put your faith, whether you recognise it as such or not.

[Erika]

[COLOR=indigo]Evolution? All I know is that it's a bunch of bullsh** theories made up by a flock of cocknbull, coke-sniffing "scientists". So, I guess we all came from a worm or turd-tossing, bug-sucking monkeys. That makes me feel so enlightened. The only reason monkeys are the way they are now is because they were TRAINED to be like that. You don't see women on all fours with kids hanging off their backs, d'you? [/COLOR]