So you're a dualist?

I am just consciousness seeing life through a different lens.

Yea, so just because you believe DNA to be a language/code that makes it so? HAHA no wonder you believe in a god.

Also cut the "God bless you" bullshit, don't act all high and mighty because you have an imaginary friend.

I'm sure he'll never read this but I had to say it.

Well, what the heck, I'll chime in too.

The major mistakes people make in this debate are usually in thinking there is a unified Christian creationist stance. Since the 19th Century, the Catholic Church has accepted evolution. It actually thanked Darwin for his discoveries. Any denomination of Christianity that sees the bible as "inspired truth" instead of "literal truth" has no problem with evolution. (Episcopalians and Anglicans come to mind, but I'm no sure who else does as well.)

The book of Genesis, even in the "literal" camp was not seen as much more than ancients myths to instill morality. (Before you say...but Moses, that's Exodus) The fact that creation is told, and then RE-TOLD in a different manner should negate that either are historical accounts unless you think God flushed universe A down the toilet, and restarted the process. The idea that Creation was "fact" came into prominence as a widespread view roughly 150 years ago during major religious revivals in the United States.

While other branches of Christianity have no trouble with "literal truth" the Catholic Church has a precarious position. They have the documents from the early Church that describe the council that put together the books of the Modern bible. There were many gospels, but they were scrapped for being "too eastern" or "too ____." The selection process was somewhat frivolous, and they couldn't very well say these books are literally true, because "we said they were," they said they had to use the "divine" to select them. The modern Church knows this, and it's why they teach that parts are true, while other parts are stories. This fits well with the fact that Jesus told parables to teach morals. Why would the ancient Hebrews not have set a framework for that kind of teaching throughout their history?

Then there's the whole "6,000" year figure. NOWHERE, nowhere in the bible, is the age of the planet or universe mentioned. It was "extrapolated" by some random guy in the 18th Century. Which leads me to my next problem: we have little faith in our ancestors.

If you mention to people that ancient China and Rome had established basic diplomatic ties and indeed an embassy or two was built, they'd look at you like you were insane. Some people can't believe that Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The idea that in a modern world where many don't travel 50 miles from home, that people would bother to cross oceans and travel long distances in the ancient world is one of the biggest mental farts people are suffering from these days. People HAD to travel to get resources. Fruit and veggies, and meat were regional. Trade meant travel, and mankind always has had an itch for exploring.

Why bring this up? All this trade and interaction built wealth, and the desire to show off. You want to show off? BUILD SOMETHING HUGE. To do that, you lay a foundation, during which you hit something solid, and dig up a massive skull, and a neck...and legs...and what the holy hell is this thing? Congratulations foreman on Emperor Swishyimbred the XVIII's palatial estate, you dug up a dinosaur...wait that world didn't exist...a DRAGON, or maybe a hydra....some kind of lizard-monkey?

It didn't matter, you found a huge corpse of SOMETHING, and some old storyteller recounts the story of an ancient hero who fought near here years ago. The emperor's ancestor. So you take a good look at this thing, and incorporate it on the structure.

Ancient man was equal parts genius and superstition, trying to make sense out the world around them. A Greek exploring north Africa sees an elephant skull. He thinks "a cyclops." The tale is told, he legend grows, and it becomes part of the popular imagination. Any fossil becomes proof of legends, and is placed on seals and temples.

A lot of this debate gets mired in people trying to justify parts of the bible as "literally true," but when you get down to it, the authors of the books in the bible were scholars imparting wisdom and life lessons. They weren't scientists, or rigorous historians, (The cribbed ideas from the Enuma Elish) , they were people who had to keep a culture alive during many periods of exile and invasion.

You CAN believe in a creator god and accept evolution, because belief and science do not cross, nor should they. In fact, the basic tenets of Christianity are "belief in God" and "belief in Jesus as his Son." That has nothing to do with the age of the world, or the origin of SPECIES. (Notice Darwin did not say the origin of LIFE.)

I have no desire to chide people or tell them how to believe in their god, but Creationism has no place in the evolution debate, because it's just not science. It's not a twisted conspiracy theory, either. I just feel it's a waste of time and effort.

on the subject of DNA and evolution, scientists argue that the first living organism in existence was created because the right combination of chemicals were there and formed a DNA strand which became the first form of life. some scientists will tell you that the odds of this happening are basically impossible. its like if I were to gather all of the materials needed for building a house like wood, nails, drywall, insulation, paint and anything else needed to make a house, and then drop it from a plane up in the sky and watch as it all comes together and forms a perfectly brand new house. now the odds of that happening are the odds of the right chemicals coming together and forming life. also there is tons of facts that we still do not know about evolution like how come there is no fossil proof of this happening (and im not talking about fossils of early man resembling an ape, im talking about fish evolving into amphibians). also..... GOD LOVES YA SON!!!!!!!!!

Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it didn't.

The way I see it, it's like drawing a piece of paper randomly from a box of a quadrillion pieces of paper. There's an insanely small chance of you drawing one in particular, but it's still entirely possible to get that one.

so scientists are basing their theory on an insanely small chance of a single event happening? I think people should start asking themselves what facts we don't know about evolution because there is a lot, way more than what we actually do know about it.

Welcome to probability, where even something so minute you can't believe it happens...can.

Yep. That's why it's a theory. I don't know that what we know as evolution is 100% fact and have never claimed to. It just seems to me like being satisfied with not knowing until they have discovered and compiled all the evidence is better than immediately submitting to indoctrinated tradition.

The problems here is: Wood, nails and all stuff you build a house with don't behave in the same way that molecules, nucleic acids and proteins do.

Just watch this, Sagan explains everything:





There's one example of an early transitional "fish".
"The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html

Maybe you should actually research this before you start making wild claims.


I think those same people should ask themselves what facts we don't know about gravity because there is a lot, because there is a lot, way more than what we actually do know about it.

Evolution is a theory, the same way Gravity is a theory.
Just because there are still things we don't know about them, doesn't mean you can just throw out all recorded evidence for them.

I'm sure you still "believe" in Gravity right? Why? It's just a theory.

pppffffftttt why did I even bother with this lol. not to be sack religious or anything but I dont give a shit if evolution is real or not, I just wanted to argue something. and no i did not do any research, i just winged it.

you win this round ms cupcakes!!!!!!


Im not cut out for online debates or whatever you would call this.

Is that image of a bag watermarked?

Upon further inspection it seems to indeed be a gigantic "copyright" C. I didn't even notice it before.

We're done here.

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now.

I really have to get around to reading this. Watched part of the documentary series, and it blew my mind how incredibly true each word he said sounded to me. Funny thing is, his views on mythology and it's importance in our everyday life very much resemble my own even before I knew about the man.

My only problem is that I can't stand reading non-fiction. It keeps my attention for about ten pages, and then I'm bored out of my scull even if the subject is ever so interesting.

I thought so too, but I have no problems reading this or Iron John.

I'll have to give it a try then.

Just to put things in perspective, all fossils are transitional fossils. Evolution is not something that happens in stages, organisms are constantly changing and adapting... including us.

When people try to shoot holes in human evolution by saying we haven't found the missing link, I say, yes we have, about a hundred or so "missing links."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu ... on_fossils

(yes, I know it's wikipedia, but the list ain't wrong)