EVOLUTION is a figment of Chef Mike's imagination.

[AjaxSwann]

I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.

Where are they?

Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.

Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.
.

OK. Lemme get this straight. Since you can't find a Missing Link between Man and Ape, you trash the enitre concept of Evolution?

Evolution involves the gradual change of organisms over time, as they adapt to changes their environment, and pass on the adapted genes to their offspring, generation after generaton after generation.

You don't need an Ape Man to see that occurring.

And you don't need millions of years to notice a change in how animals or even humans change over time.

Creationism is based on faith in a higher power.
Evolution is based on science.

Your beliefs are your own affair. But belief in God(s) doesn't prove anything about the Universe was created, now where the Missing Link is.

A Missing Link isn't necessary to prove/disprove Evolution.

[SmashysmashY]

How do you explain endogenous retroviral gene insertion without common descent?

[dderek123]

I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.

Where are they?

Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.

Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.
.

OK. Lemme get this straight. Since you can't find a Missing Link between Man and Ape, you trash the enitre concept of Evolution?

Evolution involves the gradual change of organisms over time, as they adapt to changes their environment, and pass on the adapted genes to their offspring, generation after generaton after generation.

You don't need an Ape Man to see that occurring.

And you don't need millions of years to notice a change in how animals or even humans change over time.

Creationism is based on faith in a higher power.
Evolution is based on science.

Your beliefs are your own affair. But belief in God(s) doesn't prove anything about the Universe was created, now where the Missing Link is.

A Missing Link isn't necessary to prove/disprove Evolution.

I think there is some confusion in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Creationism is the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. The theory of Evolution has been observed in many life forms including humans. Creationism has never been observed, ever (and no, the intelligent design argument does not hold water).

Why can't both be accurate/correct? God or some omnipotent Creator could have created the earth, the moon, the stars, the galaxies and the universe a long time ago. And then Evolution kicked in and has taken us to where we are now. Evolution is a theory of if/how life forms change over time. Evolution does not address how life began. It only has to deal with how life changes over time due to mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. This is why I see as arguing over Creationism vs. Evolution is like arguing over apples vs. oranges.

Abiogenesis is the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. This is what should be compared with Creationism. Both address how life began long, long ago. On the Abiogenesis side some say the Big Bang was how life began. Creationists argue life was created by God. Yet neither has been observed nor can be proven. Some say evidence of the Big Bang can be seen by observing how the universe is expanding, but that is not a proof. Creationists argue that God must have created everything just because he did. So it boils down to a matter of faith. You can believe in Creationism or Abiogenesis but you can’t base it on a logical proof or material evidence (not yet).
So what do you chose? Both could be considered very sound theories. Remember that relatively short time ago scientific “experts” believed the earth was flat. And not so long ago experts “believed” that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around. I personally think ones personal choice for Creationism vs. Abiogenesis or Science vs. Religion is mostly guided by what they WANT to believe. If you find it more comforting to believe in Creationism then go right ahead who am I to say you are wrong? If you find it makes more sense to rest your beliefs on scientific theories then that’s just fine as well.
But, I believe it is important to continuously question your beliefs. To challenge your own and others ideas would be most healthy for everyone. Also, I believe it is most important that this practice ought to be carried out peacefully between people with open eyes and open minds.

Here’s some food for though on the subject. (I didn’t create these, and all of them are quite long)

http://glumbert.com/media/watchmaker
http://glumbert.com/media/priceofatheism
http://glumbert.com/media/dawkinsbishop
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22

[tsafficianado]

dderek boldly suggests as follows

But, I believe it is important to continuously question your beliefs. To challenge your own and others ideas would be most healthy for everyone. Also, I believe it is most important that this practice ought to be carried out peacefully between people with open eyes and open minds.

sorry derek, we don't allow none of that stuff around here. you start in with that 'open eyes and open minds' stuff on this thread and you will find yourself outside looking in.

[dderek123]

dderek boldly suggests as follows

But, I believe it is important to continuously question your beliefs. To challenge your own and others ideas would be most healthy for everyone. Also, I believe it is most important that this practice ought to be carried out peacefully between people with open eyes and open minds.

sorry derek, we don't allow none of that stuff around here. you start in with that 'open eyes and open minds' stuff on this thread and you will find yourself outside looking in.

Yeah I figured as much, messageboards don't usually have the most openminded debators. Just a bunch of Master Debators... lol. I've been a lurker on this board for a while and it's definitely not as bad as YouTube comments (that's not setting the bar very high at all though). I just wanted to try to clear up the Creationism vs. Evolution bit. It's a misunderstanding thats really common.
But seriously, I've argued with people until I was blue in the face over politics and science vs. religion. And usually at the beginning I'm very eager to engage in discussing, and by the end I'm fed up with talking. I think it's because when you discuss these things you're indirectly challenging someone's beliefs of how everything came to existence. When you challenge that people tend to immediately go on the defensive/offensive or just ignore you. It's kind of difficult to imagine, but challenging someone's beliefs on how everything works can really shake up their reality and twist the world upside down on them so to speak.

It's possible, but not very probable that someone will be "converted" on an internet messageboad or in a pub or in a living room.

[trish]

dderek’s proposal looks like a compromise, but neither side can agree to the dual proposal. First the compromise is inconsistent with genesis which clearly states god created (and later noah selected) all the animals of the world. It’s biological design and creationism that fundamentalists want to teach as science in our public schools. Second, biologists might allow that god created the galaxies, the solar system and earth, but astrophysicists can demonstrate that that’s contrary to the evidence.

[karenandfriends]

Just Google ken miller or watch some of his videos on youtube. Every field in science supports evolution. Vaccines are based on evolutionary science and would not work otherwise. Evolution in no way disproves god and Ken Miller is a devout Christian.

It’s the intellectual equivalent of saying the sun goes around the earth. Soon as you say it anybody with quarter of a brain just shuts up and walks away thinking, oohh boy this guys a retard, I think I need to put some distance between me and him.

I still think it’s cute that out of all the gods there is to choose from, the one your parents happened to believe in is the real one and all the people born in other countries with parents believing in other gods have it all wrong.

I’m not implying that Americans are stupid and that you’re a mental midget…oh no wait yes I am.

[chefmike]

LMAO...one day I really need to count all the threads by angry posters where I am somehow part of the topic/title...gotta be close to twenty by now...it ain't easy being me...

[hippifried]

There's no missing link. Nothing's missing at all. What a silly request.

[Thatiger23]

opcorn opcorn opcorn opcorn opcorn opcorn opcorn

Hey Quinn i was wondering did you make a lot of popcorn and if u did can u pass a bag?