Thread: You Might Be An Athiest If ...

Keeper Keeper Keeper
what can I say?
Another thread, where you just post a completely unprofessional link
that proves nothing
indeed, im not an atheist so it doesnt define me
but i doubt it defines any atheists here really
to be honest i find theism and atheism quite arrogant
I dont claim to know
and i doubt I ever will
and actually the rock point, is a good point
actually its a brilliant point
=D
I would really appreicate it if you posted your views
instead of some idiot who made a crappy list
I think we all would
Imran

Guys! Didn't you hear him? He said he has an answer, yeesh.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Guys! Didn't you hear him? He said he has an answer, yeesh.
[/b]

But, uh, Keeper can't answer for the rest of the month, and, uh, yeah, the next one either. You see... Hmmmm..... Let's see here. He, uh, has a lot of studying to do and can't answer questions, only read long lists and start new threads, plus repeatedly give explanations for why he can't give explanations. I mean, well, I can explain that he... he got caught on the computer past his bed time. He's grounded for a whole w.... month, two... three months.

why cant I?

when did I say I was studing?
What other threads?
what explinations?
Yes, I have a bed time, and?
[i]MONTHS? WT F? I was banned for a few DAYS![i]

Universal, dont you understand the meaing of patence?

and Mark, I dont get that at all

Oh man, with that much drama in one post, you're gonna crash the server trying to upload it all at once!

Originally Posted by Keeper

why cant I?

when did I say I was studing?
What other threads?
what explinations?
Yes, I have a bed time, and?
[i]MONTHS? WT F? I was banned for a few DAYS![i]

Universal, dont you understand the meaing of patence?

and Mark, I dont get that at all
[/b]

Waitwaitwait... Keeper was banned from DV? Hold on, surely I have misunderstood something here...? That can't be right, surely?

my mom banned me from my computer for about three days for missing my bed time

I feel stupid now.

Originally Posted by Keeper

my mom banned me from my computer for about three days for missing my bed time
[/b]

Yeah I posted about that, but It got deleted:


Why did your mom banned you? Did she not say a word about your bedtime, but then punished you? Or did she said something about bedtime, but you ignored that?

Doesn't the bible say: "Honor your father and your mother". It is one of the 10 commandments! :0 Disobeying your mom, that isn't quite the honor-ing, is it now?

Just wondering

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yeah I posted about that, but It got deleted:
Why did your mom banned you? Did she not say a word about your bedtime, but then punished you? Or did she said something about bedtime, but you ignored that?

Doesn't the bible say: "Honor your father and your mother". It is one of the 10 commandments! :0 Disobeying your mom, that isn't quite the honor-ing, is it now?

Just wondering
[/b]

my answer got deleted to

We all fall

Originally Posted by Keeper

why cant I?

when did I say I was studing?
What other threads?
what explinations?
Yes, I have a bed time, and?
[i]MONTHS? WT F? I was banned for a few DAYS![i]

Universal, dont you understand the meaing of patence?

and Mark, I dont get that at all
[/b]

I was making fun of whatever your excuse was for saying somewhere in that 22 pages of your half ass responses and practically no progress on your part that you could not answer our questions until late November or early December. What was that excuse again? And why did you have time to post excuses but not answers? And once again, how did Noah round up all of those species when we have only identified a small fraction of them in 2006? Spend your next sentence on answering that question, not an excuse for why you can't answer it until the dog comes back with your homework.

The most I have gotten out of you at this point is that all animals and plants lived on the same land mass just a few thousand years B.C. and many of them swam to other continents to be continent specific later, and that one donkey can evolve into all horses even though evolution is not real. Do you really want to just leave it at that?

First sentence: Look back to the Science and God thread

Next sentences:

Have you even read the Bible, or any of my responses?

No?

Let me explain it to you like this: the earth was very different in those days (some have even found evidence to believe that it was still one contenent) and there is a theory that the people of Noahs time where infact Atlantans (or some other such people) with advanced technology either just below, just above, or equile to us (I of course dont expect you to be open minded enough to even consider this, dispite certain evedences for it) so getting the animals, for either Noah going to them, or them to Noah, wouldn't be so very very hard

Also, It wasn't a "donkey" becoming a horse, is was a Precurser horse/donkey that became them.

However, as you havn't read any of what I have posted before (if you had, you wouldn't have ask this) I dont expect you to read this either.

sorry, I am having a bad day

Originally Posted by Keeper

Let me explain it to you like this: the earth was very different in those days (some have even found evidence to believe that it was still one contenent)[/b]

The earth was not a single continent less than 6000 years ago. There has been more than a single landmass on earth singe pangaea broke up. You know people pointed out plate tectonics to you numerous times when you brought up various young earth arguments, you think you might have come across this if you'd read anyone's responses in depth.

and there is a theory that the people of Noahs time where infact Atlantans (or some other such people)[/b]

You know, you either mean Atlanta or Atlantis, and right now I can't figure out which one would be worse..

with advanced technology either just below, just above, or equile to us[/b]

You just keep digging yourself deeper dont you? First evolution was wrong because it contradicted your beliefs - along with it all of biology was discarded. Then geology was wrong - because it contradicted your arguments against evolution (as well as a nice chuck of other YEC beliefs). Then chemistry/physics was wrong - because radiometric dating contradicted your claims on geology and evolution. Now archaeology is wrong as well?

Why not just chuck out every scientific finding since 1700? It would probably be easier to slot creationism into a worldview that was completely ignorant of science.

(I of course dont expect you to be open minded enough to even consider this, dispite certain evedences for it)[/b]

I'm really looking forward to the proof of a bronze age civilisation having our level of technology. Maybe you can re-interpret the 'behemoth' in the bible to mean mechwarrior instead of dinosaur. Fire breathing mechwarriors make more sense than fire breathing dinosaurs after all.

Also, It wasn't a "donkey" becoming a horse, is was a Precurser horse/donkey that became them.[/b]

You keep claiming this, but you keep ignoring everyone's responses. It really just doesn't stack up against any sort of evidence.

Originally Posted by spoon

...You know people pointed out plate tectonics to you numerous times when you brought up various young earth arguments, you think you might have come across this if you&#39;d read anyone&#39;s responses <strike>in depth</strike> at all.
[/b]

Fixed.

Originally Posted by spoon

...Maybe you can re-interpret the &#39;behemoth&#39; in the bible to mean mechwarrior instead of dinosaur. Fire breathing mechwarriors make more sense than fire breathing dinosaurs after all.
[/b]

That&#39;s a great idea&#33; In fact, I think I&#39;ll reinterpret the entire Bible to be all about mechs, since that&#39;ll make it at least a hundred times better and approximately 4,000 times more X-treme. Then I&#39;ll shorten it (just cut out all that morality nonsense) and release it along with a movie and video game&#33; We&#39;ll tap a whole new demographic&#33;

Originally Posted by Keeper

the earth was very different in those days (some have even found evidence to believe that it was still one contenent)
[/b]

Oh my god&#33; Shocking news&#33; Oh wait, they have knows that for decades, maybe even longer. Just look at how the seismic plates move today, trace them back, and yes: The world was one continents MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

But of course, god speeded it up for like a few thousands of years, then suddenly made it go way slow. He kind of overlooked it would be fucking confusing, just like all the millions of fossils. :0

Oops, &#39;god&#39; did it again.

(he&#39;s not that innocent)

lol.

spoon, stop putting words in my mouth ( ... I just realized how funny that sounds)

the rest of you seem to enjoy hijacking topics, no?

Why dont you keep this all in the thread that I made for it? Sounds like a plane, right?

now, back to spoon

You seem to think that I think Science is wrong. When did I say that? It is very strange for you to say that when I am trying to proove that it conferms the Bible.

You say I dont read your posts? Try reading mine first

I would like to thank all the Athiests who did respond as to wheather the link conferms there opinions or not. The rest, why did you even post?

I appologize if this has been rude

Originally Posted by Keeper

First sentence: Look back to the Science and God thread

Next sentences:

Have you even read the Bible, or any of my responses?

No?

Let me explain it to you like this: the earth was very different in those days (some have even found evidence to believe that it was still one contenent) and there is a theory that the people of Noahs time where infact Atlantans (or some other such people) with advanced technology either just below, just above, or equile to us (I of course dont expect you to be open minded enough to even consider this, dispite certain evedences for it) so getting the animals, for either Noah going to them, or them to Noah, wouldn&#39;t be so very very hard

Also, It wasn&#39;t a "donkey" becoming a horse, is was a Precurser horse/donkey that became them.

However, as you havn&#39;t read any of what I have posted before (if you had, you wouldn&#39;t have ask this) I dont expect you to read this either.

sorry, I am having a bad day
[/b]

Congratulations&#33; You have gotten absolutely nowhere.

Let&#39;s do a recap... Evolution is false, but an animal can evolve into both horses and donkeys. Earth is 6,000 years old, except it is old enough for Pangea to have existed. The science of biology in 2006 has identified a small fraction of the species on Earth, but it "wouldn&#39;t be so very, very hard" for Noah and his family members to round them all up a few thousand years ago in Pangea times. You had already cleared this up when you were telling us you would clear it up later.

I have read your posts, and that is what you are saying. We are arguing with you here because we had such a hard time getting you to answer simple questions in the thread where this discussion started.

If you have changed your mind since you started that thread, you should say it. I don&#39;t think anybody will attack you for admitting it.

Originally Posted by Keeper

spoon, stop putting words in my mouth ( ... I just realized how funny that sounds)[/b]

What words did I put in your mouth? I directly responded to your post.

You seem to think that I think Science is wrong. When did I say that? It is very strange for you to say that when I am trying to proove that it conferms the Bible.[/b]

In order to prove the bible you have been constantly rejecting scientific fact, and well established scientific theories. This equates to thinking science is wrong.

This farce started with your rejection of the fact of evolution, not the theory - the fact. In order to justify this rejection you&#39;ve also rejected numerous other scientific facts: the earth is billions of years old, life on earth arose billions of years ago, atomic decay is constant and measurable, etc. The implication of all this being: biology is wrong, chemistry is wrong, physics is wrong, archaeology is wrong, geology is wrong - the bible is right.

The fact is, most of mainstream science will contradict various parts of the literal bible. Your solution to this, apparantly, is to reject the parts of science that contradict the bible. Then reject the parts of science that contradict your rejection. And so on. A more sensible solution (and one which would not require you to go up against entire scientific disciplines) would be to accept that the bible is not entirely literal.

Don&#39;t pretend that you aren&#39;t saying that science is wrong - it has to be for your biblical literalism to be true.

Originally Posted by Keeper

Let&#39;s do a recap... Evolution is false, but an animal can evolve into both horses and donkeys. Earth is 6,000 years old, except it is old enough for Pangea to have existed. The science of biology in 2006 has identified a small fraction of the species on Earth, but it "wouldn&#39;t be so very, very hard" for Noah and his family members to round them all up a few thousand years ago in Pangea times. [/b]

Nicely put.

Originally Posted by spoon

What words did I put in your mouth? I directly responded to your post.
[/b]

You said I think Science is wrong. I do not

In order to prove the bible you have been constantly rejecting scientific fact, and well established scientific theories. This equates to thinking science is wrong.
[/b]

No, it doesn&#39;t. It means that the theories that have been put forth based on scientific data are incorect and are actually refuted by the data gathered. Basicly, Science says that the scientists are wrong, and that Evolution is a fallacy.

This farce started with your rejection of the fact of evolution, not the theory - the fact.
[/b]

So you say evolution is a fact?

In order to justify this rejection you&#39;ve also rejected numerous other scientific facts:
[/b]

So now I see how you think. If the magority of scientists say it then it must be right. Even if the evedence says it is incorrect, you still think magority rules. Am I right?

the earth is billions of years old
[/b]

no

life on earth arose billions of years ago
[/b]

How?

atomic decay is constant and measurable, etc.
[/b]

Only for a period of time. there are innumerable problims with the dating methodes that scientist acnolage.

The implication of all this being: biology is wrong, chemistry is wrong, physics is wrong, archaeology is wrong, geology is wrong - the bible is right.
[/b]

Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Archaeology and Geology confurm the Bible, and reject evolution. That is what I have been saying since I got here, so please dont lie about what I have been saying if you cant catch me any other way. After all, you are either lying and hoping no-one will notic, or you havn&#39;t read what I have said. Please, give me the curtosy I am giving you.

The fact is, most of mainstream science will contradict various parts of the literal bible.
[/b]

Can you give me an example?

Your solution to this, apparantly, is to reject the parts of science that contradict the bible.
[/b]

Your solution: reject the parts of Science that contradict Evolution. Show me where the Bible is contradicted?

Then reject the parts of science that contradict your rejection. And so on. A more sensible solution (and one which would not require you to go up against entire scientific disciplines) would be to accept that the bible is not entirely literal.

Don&#39;t pretend that you aren&#39;t saying that science is wrong - it has to be for your biblical literalism to be true.
[/b]

Why do [i]you[/]i reject science?

I have a little task for you, if you are interested. Before you ask, it is one I have done myself.

Look up evedence for your beleifs, and then look up evedence against them.

tell me what you find.

Originally Posted by Keeper

Spoon:
In order to prove the bible you have been constantly rejecting scientific fact, and well established scientific theories. This equates to thinking science is wrong.

Keeper:
No, it doesn&#39;t. It means that the theories that have been put forth based on scientific data are incorect and are actually refuted by the data gathered. [/b]

For something to be science it has to work within the bounds of the scientific method. This method provides the only systematic method of discovery which is purposefully designed to avoid the various bias that we are prone to. It is not perfect, but it makes it incredibly hard for observer or confirmation bias to creep in - especially over the long run. This is partly because of the specific parts of the methodology (observation, prediction, control, falsifiability, etc) but also because, in science, nothing is sacred - everything is constantly put to the test.

For a great example of confirmation and observer bias, just look at your recent threads around here: Isn&#39;t it funny how scientists are so wrong about everything that possibly contradicts the bible, but they managed to get everything else right?

For what you say to be true, that the theories directly contradict the data, there would have to be either a massive scientist conspiracy, or scientists must not have been following the scientific method (or even something that resembled it). Fortunately, as a part of the method, scientists have to document everything - repeatablilty is a huge requirement. So that leaves the massive scientist conspiracy.

Keep in mind that this cannot possibly be as simple as &#39;evolutionists&#39; ignoring evidence against evolution, or geologists ignoring evidence against a young earth. Due to the interdependent nature of most of modern science, this conspiracy would have to include every single scientific discipline. Geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, biologists, chemists, physicists - they would all have to be deliberately fudging their findings to a massive degree.

I think we can both agree that this is ridiculous. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, that is the only option available who seriously thinks that a considerable chunk of science has been falsified over the last century.

So you say evolution is a fact?[/b]

Yes. The fact of evolution is that lifeforms have changed and diversified over lifes history. In another thread you&#39;ve made the distinction between &#39;evolution&#39; and &#39;de-evolution&#39;. In this sense you are talking about the theory of evolution - something that attempts to explain the fact. As lots of people have pointed out to you, your notion that only &#39;de-evolution&#39; happens is both directly contradicted by the evidence and a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution encompasses many mechanisms for genetic change - loss of information being only one of them.

You know what? I&#39;ve said this all before. If you seriously want to argue that rejecting the dominant paradigm in biology is not saying that science is wrong, then go ahead. I can&#39;t be bothered attempting to explain, again and again, these things to someone who responds like:

Spoon:
the earth is billions of years old

Keeper:
no[/b]

You can deny it all you want, this is a scientific fact. If you are denying this, you are denying science. Evidence for this comes from fields ranging from chemistry to biology to physics. Up to this point I&#39;ve been taking you seriously enough to warrant an actual attempt at explanation. Since you don&#39;t seem to actually read anyone&#39;s posts, bring up the same tired old arguments again and again, and feel that writing any sort of in depth refutation is beneath you, it&#39;s kind of pointless. But hey, I don&#39;t know why I actually expected new arguments from a creationist, they have been recycling the same old, same old for some time.

Originally Posted by spoon

For something to be science it has to work within the bounds of the scientific method. This method provides the only systematic method of discovery which is purposefully designed to avoid the various bias that we are prone to. It is not perfect, but it makes it incredibly hard for observer or confirmation bias to creep in - especially over the long run. This is partly because of the specific parts of the methodology (observation, prediction, control, falsifiability, etc) but also because, in science, nothing is sacred - everything is constantly put to the test.
[/b]

So, the statment: "Even if the evidence points to a Creator, we will not exept that evidence" is unbiased?

For a great example of confirmation and observer bias, just look at your recent threads around here: Isn&#39;t it funny how scientists are so wrong about everything that possibly contradicts the bible, but they managed to get everything else right?
[/b]

Not nearly as funny as when you only take the words of one set of scientists who make assumptions on the data wich contradict what it has said, and disregurd those who say the Bible is right, and point out the problims with the others theorys.

You have yet to tell me where Science contradics the Bible

For what you say to be true, that the theories directly contradict the data, there would have to be either a massive scientist conspiracy, or scientists must not have been following the scientific method (or even something that resembled it). Fortunately, as a part of the method, scientists have to document everything - repeatablilty is a huge requirement. So that leaves the massive scientist conspiracy.
[/b]

And qualified people are looking at this, looking at evolution and saying "Hay, that doesn&#39;t add up" and when they say this, people tell them they are nuts

Keep in mind that this cannot possibly be as simple as &#39;evolutionists&#39; ignoring evidence against evolution, or geologists ignoring evidence against a young earth. Due to the interdependent nature of most of modern science, this conspiracy would have to include every single scientific discipline. Geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, biologists, chemists, physicists - they would all have to be deliberately fudging their findings to a massive degree.
[/b]

You would be amazed. If there is no Evolution, then there has to be God (or gods). If that is true, then there are absolute morals, fate, need to respect life, etc. As soon as morals are not something divine, then you can
say "We can do whatever we want. After all, there is no reason not to. Mr Presedent, let us all be able to have sex with whoever we want at any age, and let us be able to drink when we are young&#33; Lets kill those who subtract from humanities glory, and let us castrate all those we dont kill. If we dont, the human race will never evolve further"

I think we can both agree that this is ridiculous. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, that is the only option available who seriously thinks that a considerable chunk of science has been falsified over the last century.
[/b]

Yes and no

Yes. The fact of evolution is that lifeforms have changed and diversified over lifes history. In another thread you&#39;ve made the distinction between &#39;evolution&#39; and &#39;de-evolution&#39;. In this sense you are talking about the theory of evolution - something that attempts to explain the fact. As lots of people have pointed out to you, your notion that only &#39;de-evolution&#39; happens is both directly contradicted by the evidence and a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution encompasses many mechanisms for genetic change - loss of information being only one of them.
[/b]

Can you do two thinks for me? One, state were something as gained a new trait and it has been benificuil for the orginisim. And the other, talk me through evolution, right form the word go. We will assume that we have the most basic living cell possable, with only the 100+ genes needed for survival on the most basic point. We will also leave out the whole "wich came first, the DNA or the rRNA, mRNA and tRNA or the polypeptydes?" to make it shorter.

You know what? I&#39;ve said this all before. If you seriously want to argue that rejecting the dominant paradigm in biology is not saying that science is wrong, then go ahead.
[/b]

If you change some of those words, that sounds like what the thiests said to Darwin, doesn&#39;t it? If you cant see the difference between a theory being wrong, and a science being wrong, I think we should stop talking. By your logic, for every wrong theory, science is less and less creadible.

That is not so

I can&#39;t be bothered attempting to explain, again and again, these things to someone who responds like:

You can deny it all you want, this is a scientific fact. If you are denying this, you are denying science. Evidence for this comes from fields ranging from chemistry to biology to physics. Up to this point I&#39;ve been taking you seriously enough to warrant an actual attempt at explanation. Since you don&#39;t seem to actually read anyone&#39;s posts, bring up the same tired old arguments again and again, and feel that writing any sort of in depth refutation is beneath you, it&#39;s kind of pointless. But hey, I don&#39;t know why I actually expected new arguments from a creationist, they have been recycling the
[/b]

ah. The strawman

same old, same old for some time.
[/b]

you didn&#39;t say if you were going to take up my chalenge?

Wow, LOTS of logical fallacies and general misinformation there.
Might as well get started cleaning it all up...

So, the statment: "Even if the evidence points to a Creator, we will not exept that evidence" is unbiased?[/b]

Keeper, honest question here. Do you even know what the scientific method IS?
Here, a brief overview:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Thus, since we have NO evidence for a creator, we don&#39;t go hypothesizing of a creator&#39;s existence. If we were ever faced with evidence for a gawd, we&#39;d have to formulate a hypothesis to explain the existence of said being. But we haven&#39;t got any evidence, so we don&#39;t.

and disregurd those who say the Bible is right, and point out the problims with the others theorys.
You have yet to tell me where Science contradics the Bible[/b]

Damn, kid, LEARN TO SPELL.
In other news, we HAVE told you where science contradicts the bible. Repeatedly. We&#39;ve told you again and again that the world is NOT 6,000 years old, that there NEVER was a global flood, that we are NOT descended from two people living in a garden, that people thousands of years ago did NOT live hundreds of years, etcetera.

And yeah, we disregard those who claim the bible is literally true. Two reasons:
One; it&#39;s a ridiculous supposition--that a book written thousands of years ago by, more or less, ignorant farmers, is LITERALLY true, when it makes claims so bogus and out there that NOBODY sane would believe they LITERALLY happened, is simply ludicrous.
Two; the evidence doesn&#39;t support them. Period. I follow the evidence, Keeper.

And qualified people are looking at this, looking at evolution and saying "Hay, that doesn&#39;t add up" and when they say this, people tell them they are nuts[/b]

Uh, yeah. Because they ARE nuts, and they don&#39;t have a shred of evidence to support them. At all. You still haven&#39;t pointed out any solid evidence against evolution. Neither have they.
Another note--check out the "qualifications" of those you&#39;re referencing. Because while you&#39;ve pointed to a few people with college degrees in the past, you have yet to point to a credible physics, biology or geology major.

If there is no Evolution, then there has to be God (or gods).[/b]

Uh, no. Logical fallacy--Non sequitur. Don&#39;t jump to conclusions.

As soon as morals are not something divine, then you can
say "We can do whatever we want. After all, there is no reason not to. Mr Presedent, let us all be able to have sex with whoever we want at any age, and let us be able to drink when we are young&#33; Lets kill those who subtract from humanities glory, and let us castrate all those we dont kill. If we dont, the human race will never evolve further"[/b]

SO many things wrong with that.

ONE--

Morals are not divine, and there is nothing implying that they are

Why? Simple. If morals were divine, then they would be consistent and unvarying regardless of time period or location. This is not true. China has always placed a higher value on honor than on human life, and a greater focus on the family. The Middle East also has distinctly different social moral codes--females are extremely restricted in freedom of speech and in the way they dress and act, theft is a MUCH more serious crime there, and so on. Morals vary widely between areas and time periods, hence we can assume that they are NOT all based on some universal common point.

TWO--

As I&#39;ve pointed out before, several animals behave according to social moral values. Dolphins, chimps, bonobos, ants, honeybees and most monkeys all behave according to morals defined by their immediate social networks. It&#39;s been well-documented how social values and morals can evolve.

THREE--

Are you saying that if you didn&#39;t believe in your gawd you&#39;d be a lying, stealing, murdering heathen? I&#39;d certainly hope not. Personally, I&#39;m what I&#39;d consider a morally upstanding individual. I don&#39;t steal, cheat or anything similar. Murder has certainly never crossed my mind. However, you seem to be suggesting that if I don&#39;t believe in gawd, I cannot simultaneously be a good person. Quite plainly, that is ridiculous.

FOUR--

You obviously don&#39;t know a THING about evolution via natural selection. Despite how often creationists LOVE to point to "survival of the fittest" and say that means we should beat up all our neighbors, that really is a ridiculous statement in light of the true meaning of the theory of natural selection. "Survival of the fittest", as it turns out, wasn&#39;t even a term coined by biologists. It was coined by a businessman trying to validate the idea of "social darwinism", more or less trying to justify the creation of monopolies--something, which, as it turns out, is actually against Darwin&#39;s laws of natural selection, but anyways...


Group-determined values are highly beneficial to a species&#39; survival. That&#39;s why it&#39;s such a common adaptation. Further, the gist of those social values are also heavily influenced by natural selection.

Murder, for example, isn&#39;t in any way a beneficial course of action. It does nothing to enhance the survival of the species.

Cooperation, instead, is what tends to be the winning trait. Hence, our moral standards imply that we should help those in need. THAT benefits our species as a whole, and hence is an evolutionarily viable trait.

One, state were something as gained a new trait and it has been benificuil for the orginisim.[/b]

Keeper, you&#39;re a NIMROD. We&#39;ve already posted this. Repeatedly. I think the best example so far has been the nylon-eating bug that evolved over in Japan. Also consider that we&#39;ve observed single-celled organisms become multi-cellular. No, I won&#39;t elaborate on it because it&#39;s your own damn fault for not reading up on it the first time it was posted. Google it if you want answers.

the other, talk me through evolution, right form the word go[/b]

Not asking a lot, are we?

Well, here it is.

We&#39;re not entirely sure how life first formed. There&#39;s several theories, all of which have been validated and shown to be possible in lab experiments, but since there is not a great amount of evidence left from the time period of life&#39;s origin (seeing as how the Earth&#39;s crust has been recycled roughly a dozen times since then, among other things), we mostly are going from guesswork.

Now, don&#39;t go throwing the "gawddidit" card in here, because I don&#39;t want to hear it. Argument from ignorance, if you hadn&#39;t forgotten--just because we don&#39;t know exactly how it happened isn&#39;t proof that gawddidit.

Back to the question at hand, the currently most accepted and most plausible theories are that biological macromolecules formed in the "primordial soup" you always hear about, forming the first simple cells, possibly using porous clay surfaces instead of cell walls initially.

Another theory is that the first biological molecules arrived here from space--not as ridiculous as it first sounds, I assure you. We&#39;ve actually WATCHED as biological molecules have formed FREELY in space. This isn&#39;t in some experiment, this is out there in the wild, happening spontaneously, m&#39;kay?

Now that we&#39;re past abiogenesis, we actually get into evolution.

This is where we cross the line from theorizing to simple fact. We don&#39;t fully understand the mechanisms of evolution, but evolution&#39;s occurance is undeniable.

Simple single-celled organisms grew more and more complex, developing organelles and transitioning from prokaryotic to eukaryotic life, and "learned" to cooperate in multi-cellular organisms.

From there on out, the organisms most reactive to change survived more than their less-reactive kin, and grew more populous, with successful traits being passed on more frequently than unsuccessful ones.

That&#39;s the basics. For more info, read Darwin&#39;s Origin of Species. Once you&#39;re done with that, you can start on the more in-depth stuff.

If you change some of those words, that sounds like what the thiests said to Darwin, doesn&#39;t it?[/b]

Yup. But hey, Darwin had the fossils. Darwin wins.
You still haven&#39;t shown any evidence against evolution, so why should we reject the entire theory on a whim of yours? That&#39;s simply STUPID. "Oh hey, Keeper doesn&#39;t like this part of science, so we&#39;ve gotta throw it out and start from scratch again". DUH, it doesn&#39;t work that way. when you&#39;ve got evidence to support you, come back and find us. When Darwin first proposed natural selection, he had a MASSIVE amount of evidence behind him, including his journals from his massive research trip through the Galapagos Islands.

ah. The strawman[/b]

How is that a straw man? He RIGHTFULLY noted that evolution is incredibly well-founded, with evidence coming from all branches of science, and by denying it, you would be denying all of those branches of science. It&#39;s the truth, not a straw man, nimwit.

you didn&#39;t say if you were going to take up my chalenge?[/b]

News for you, Keeper. I already did that. LONG before you posed the challenge. Before you were even a member of this forum. You know what it led me to? Dumping Christianity. YOU are the one who has not taken a CRITICAL look at your beliefs and compared them with the evidence.

EDIT: Whoa, that was weird. When I posted all that the forum did something weird to the formatting and added a ton of line breaks I didn&#39;t have, and in general just jumbled up the whole post. I went back and straightened that out, but actual post content hasn&#39;t been edited.

I have an idea
lets settle this
thread,
Christanity vs Anything bloody else
poll
two posts
first one from Tsen arguing why the Bible is incorrenct
Keeper posts replying directly to each of Tsen&#39;s points inan ordered manner

then, Keeper lists his points supporting the bible as scinteifly correct (his faith isnot a valid arrgument)
Tsen responds in an ordered fashion to his points

both people can take there time

lets remeber this isnt athiem vs theism as we have a number of agnostics, just the Bible vs it bein bollacks
lol
Do you do agree?
and any suitable question could be asked, for instance
Option A) believe the Bible to be factually correct and did so before this thread
Option B) blieve the Bible to be scintific fact and didnt before this thread
Option C) believe the Bible to be factually incorrect, did so before this thread
Option D) bleieve the Bible to be actually incorrect, opposite before this thread

any modifiations?

do the two people suggested wish to participate?

Imran

okay, but are others alowed to post there own stuff with ours?

it will have to what about five days, though