EDIT: Hey! check out your third choice i added below not mentioned in the title

By far, one of the biggest debates that exist on the planet at the moment is whether evolution is real. Evolution can be defined as the metamorphosis of a biological being over a time range. Evolution leads to diversity of beings.

It is of course no surprise that there is debate over the reality of it. Whether it is fact or fiction. Whether humans were created by a supreme being or just evolved from a previous being that had existed before. A seeming battle of Elah between the camp of evolutionists and that of the creationists.

The origin of man looks like one of those questions that won’t stop being brought into discourse. The design of the human body looks like a perfect work of art and there has always been a fascination as to where it came from. A fascination of the genesis of it all. Where it all began from. How we all got here (Intro taken from another article, feel free to argue with the author of it as some have done down below)

As you probably know by now, there are main theories about how people came to exist. The two main theories (+ one branch) are called:

---

*Creationism- God created man in his own image to rule the creatures of this earth- a human's role is to overcome sins & satan before the end times to become more pure and have everlasting life in heaven. This is most popular in Christianity, many do believe and find faith in this as per say the 'historical evidence' & recent movies coming out: God is real, noah's ark, etc. Most people attempt to discredit this with science.

---

*Evolution - A theory that man evolved over millions of years from tiny life cells to monkeys and finally to man as we are today. It is true that people a long time ago begun describing their existence with faith but eventually people discovered science as humans became more intelligent, wanted what they believed was the truth, or searched for a way out of religions altogether. With science & fossils, people believe that natural selection has made us what we are today. People try to discredit this with 'Holes in science' or ask why monkeys still exist. I'd refer to Charles dawrin's Theory of Evolution.

---

FULL credit goes to Shy for bringing this to my attention, you guys can use this term, i hope this sets apart the somewhat heavy 'biblical' tone creationism may have had

" Intelligent Design "
"Intelligent Design - the belief that evolution DOES exist (certainly on a micro scale though macro is under debate) but there are things such as "irreducibly complex cells" that could not have possibly developed by themselves. This theory does not imply a Christian God, simply a designer of some sort (some scientists have claimed aliens). This is based PURELY ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not any sort of religious text. While a smaller chunk of scientists than the Evolutionist belief, there is still a significant amount of scientists who have this belief."

---

Topic stressing you out? Take a break and Talk about evolutions and MMOs Here

Spotlight quote

Dervish said
Come on. Everyone knows Prometheus created us out of clay when he accidentally breathed life into us, gosh.

---

What do YOU believe and why?

Evolution because I am yet to see sound evidence for creationism.

Not even a contest. Evolution wins on the basis that Creationism is not a science and is a belief-based system. That alone disqualifies it from even being comparable, in the same sense that if you got deathly ill you should visit a doctor who has a degree in medicine, not a priest who has a degree in theology.

Religion has its place in society and in personal lives. It can be very important to how a person views the world, it can empower and encourage, and it can be used to construct a sense of community.

However...

Science and general education is not one of those places, and its every attempt has done nothing but potentially damage the minds of young men and women across the globe. Period. If that makes me a militant atheist in that respect, fine, I am one, but don't expect this thread to last long when opinions on this topic tend to be extremely polarized, to a level that most other topics never reach.

EDIT

As well, the human body is far from a "perfect work of art". There are several flaws with it. The appendix, for example.

xAsunaWolfx said *snip*

Did you pick that Knights icon for the start of the thread title in order to represent the dead horse we'll all be beating on?

Brovo said
Not even a contest. Evolution wins on the basis that . That alone disqualifies it from even being comparable, in the same sense that if you got deathly ill you should visit a doctor who has a degree in medicine, not a priest who has a degree in theology.Religion has its place in society and in personal lives. It can be very important to how a person views the world, it can empower and encourage, and it can be used to construct a sense of community.However...Science and general education is one of those places, and its every attempt has done nothing but potentially damage the minds of young men and women across the globe. . If that makes me a militant atheist in that respect, fine, I am one, but don't expect this thread to last long when opinions on this topic tend to be extremely polarized, to a level that most other topics never reach.EDITAs well, the human body is far from a "perfect work of art". There are several flaws with it. The appendix, for example.

Damn, you're spot on. I agree with basically everything said here.

Kadaeux said
Did you pick that Knights icon for the start of the thread title in order to represent the dead horse we'll all be beating on?

Nope, actually i like horses. Totally my reasoning behind that & i couldn't find other types of "font animals"

. xD After thinking about it for awhile, most people have came to find that a mix of both creationism and evolution is another choice. There is no doubt that a mammal's brain is engineered in such a fashion to adapt to the outside environment to survive over years- we know this because over time, there were major climate changes, natural disasters that caused for a change. I suppose that a species unable to adapt had became extinct at that point, but some do blame the extintion of the species of dinosaurs on an event in the bible, i believe it was an earth-wide flood. Some has claimed 'biblical historical evidence' on some of this.

This article had interested me in the coexisting of both , here

these words in there stuck out the most to me
""Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a 'why' at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are," said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto."

as to why this thread doesn't need to last long, i was assigned a creationism vs evolution essay due in about 3 hours (procrastination at it's finest) , and in this thread, it has already given me things to address.

This is the type of topic that not everyone will agree on, as say abortion (prochoice vs prolife) or Gay rights. There's always a crowd that doens't agree with one another.

The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand, and if someone wants to label that with god evolution, or both, that's okay with me.

If you don't mind.

xAsunaWolfx said Nope, actually i like horses. Totally my reasoning behind that & i couldn't find other types of "font animals". xD

... Okay then. That's cute enough a reason, I think.

xAsunaWolfx said After thinking about it for awhile, most people have came to find that a mix of both creationism and evolution is another choice.

Typically people who haven't made a decision as to which theory is correct, or mistakenly believe that both can be correct when they are in diametric opposition to one another: Creationism cannot exist in a universe that has species evolving out of other species, as it basis its premise on the idea that a dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, etc.

xAsunaWolfx said There is no doubt that a mammal's brain is engineered in such a fashion to adapt to the outside environment to survive over years- we know this because over time, there were major climate changes, natural disasters that caused for a change. I suppose that a species unable to adapt had became extinct at that point, but some do blame the extintion of the species of dinosaurs on an event in the bible, i believe it was an earth-wide flood.

Noah's Ark has no scientific evidence as to ever having occurred. Chinese history especially tends to be very damning in this respect: They record no worldwide flood at any point, and their history is uninterrupted. Their entire civilization did not end and then come back, we know this as a fact. Same goes for the Egyptians, Native Americans, and so on.

Again, another one of creationism's failings. Mainly in that Creationism does the scientific method backwards: It has a claim it's trying to prove with evidence. The scientific method is gathering evidence, then making a theory based on what is currently available, updating and discarding theories as new information comes in that invalidates old methods of thinking.

xAsunaWolfx said Some has claimed 'biblical historical evidence' on some of this.

The Bible is not an accurate source of historical evidence, and there are too many examples to list in detail, so: Egypt did not note any kind of red sea parting, plagues, or first born mass child deaths, there is no sign Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed, many of Jesus' claims are dubious at the best of times, humanity's lineage has been traced to Africa (not the Mesopotamia as many claim), etc.

xAsunaWolfx said This article had interested me in the coexisting of both , these words in there stuck out the most to me""Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a 'why' at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are," said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto.

Well, there you go. Science answers the how, not the why. Why is in the realm of philosophy, spirituality. Personally, I think we exist to find a point to exist. Speaking from a purely biological level, we exist to procreate and continue the chain that started four billion years ago. Some of us succeed. Some of us don't. And that's life.

xAsunaWolfx said "as to why this thread doesn't need to last long, i was assigned a creationism vs evolution essay due in about 3 hours (procrastination at it's finest) , and in this thread, it has already given me things to address.This is the type of topic that not everyone will agree on, as say abortion (prochoice vs prolife) or Gay rights. There's always a crowd that doens't agree with one another.The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand, and if someone wants to label that with god evolution, or both, that's okay with me.

With abortion I can at least grant that there can be some argument made that an unborn child could be considered a partially developed person, and what rights that entails can be up for debate. That's a complicated, grey area place, actually.

Gay rights shouldn't be a debate in this day and age, but it is, and that's sad, but again, is primarily a debate on the differences of philosophy and human rights--intangible in its own right.

Evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory, with a supreme amount of evidence backing it. Creationism is a system of belief. The two are not equal, in any sense, on any level, in any manner, whatsoever, save for both being protected by free speech.

That aside? Scientifically speaking? Evolution wins.

Now if someone wants to try and adjust their religious beliefs to include evolution--ex: The Bible is a giant list of metaphors and the six days is really a whole series of things that God did to start physics and biology and the like on their way, well, be my guest, I have no problems with that. That's a faith-based argument and arguing on the basis of faith is assaulting the impenetrable fortress of the heart. It's fruitless.

Argue on the basis of logic, reason, evidence... And well... That's an entirely different story.

Good luck with your essay though. I can't imagine this is exactly an easy topic to represent both sides fairly on.

Brovo said
Noah's Ark has no scientific evidence as to ever having occurred. Chinese history especially tends to be very damning in this respect: They record no worldwide flood at any point, and their history is uninterrupted. Their entire civilization did not end and then come back, we know this as a fact. Same goes for the Egyptians, Native Americans, and so on.

Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate, to be fair the OT doesn't claim Noah's flood was worldwide. At least the Jewish version doesn't as far as I know. I think it just claims it was regional. It's really with Christianity where shit begins to get wacky in that regard.

Jannah said
Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate, to be fair the OT doesn't claim Noah's flood was worldwide. At least the Jewish version doesn't as far as I know. I think it just claims it was regional. It's really with Christianity where shit begins to get wacky in that regard.

There's no record or geological evidence of a flood that claimed the entirety of the middle east either. Must have been a very small area that got flooded then... And that's not so mystical.

Fair enough though.

Come on.

Everyone knows Prometheus created us out of clay when he accidentally breathed life into us, gosh.

xAsunaWolfx said By far, one of the biggest debates that exist on the planet at the moment is whether evolution is real.

Actually, no, there really isn't a debate on the subject. It's a bunch of people who don't understand science claiming that evolution is a lie just because their religious text says something different. That's not a debate, that's willful ignorance. If a mechanic says your car's problem is a broken transmission but you say he's wrong because it's actually pixie dust in the exhaust pipe causing your problems, that's not a real debate, that's just gibbering nonsense. This is true of the supposed debate between evolution and creationism. Just as you should leave explanations of car problems to a mechanic, you should leave explanations of scientific questions to scientists.

Whether or not evolution is true is a scientific question, and 97% of scientists agree that evolution is a true and real thing. There have been quite literally zero scientifically peer-reviewed research articles in the past half a century that claim evolution is not real; or rather, there have been no such articles submitted to peer-review without getting exploded by the vast weight of evidence in support of evolution. Even if you were to give credence to the masses of people who have no business deciding what parts of science are true or false (just as scientists have no business telling you what is true or false in your matters of faith), 61% of non-scientists agree that evolution is a real thing (source same as last link) that has happened to humans and other animals. Many of them say it was guided by some deity figure, which is a faith-based stance, but this is still a strong majority that agree evolution is real. Also, that figure comes from polling done in the highly religious United States, which has one of the highest rates of denial of evolution in the world, easily the highest in what is considered the western world. It's not really a debate at this point, it's as much a fact of science as gravity, and you don't see many people claiming that gravity is a lie.

Evolution can be defined as the metamorphosis of a biological being over a time range. Evolution leads to diversity of beings.

Your phrasing here is weird. It sounds like you're saying evolution happens on an individual level, such that one living thing will change significantly over its life span. Evolution is the process by which species of organisms gradually change over a period of time through genetic mutations being passed down though many successive generations. It is indeed the scientific explanation for why we have such a great diversity of species on our planet, so you've got that second sentence right.

It is of course no surprise that there is debate over the reality of it. Whether it is fact or fiction. Whether humans were created by a supreme being or just evolved from a previous being that had existed before. A seeming battle of Elah between the camp of evolutionists and that of the creationists.

Well, it's kind of surprising to me, but then I'm one of the people who agrees with the overwhelming scientific proof.

Also, it's not as much of a battle as it may seem. Creationism is the idea that things were all created as they are now, so that's a direct contradiction to be sure, but the basic idea of there being some creator entity doesn't oppose evolution. There are plenty of religious people who believe in both evolution and some kind of creation by a supreme being. In fact, there exists in the theory of evolution no contradictions to the concept of a creator. Evolution is about how species change over time, but it has nothing at all to say about the origin of life, and it does not say "there is no god" anywhere in there. If we were to somehow discover today that there is in fact a supreme being and that it created life as simple single-celled organisms (or even the precursor stages to that) and then guided it all along according to its will and plans, that would jive perfectly with evolution as it stands today. It is the observation of how species change over time, not an explanation of exactly why it happens or where life came from.

The origin of man looks like one of those questions that won’t stop being brought into discourse. The design of the human body looks like a perfect work of art and there has always been a fascination as to where it came from. A fascination of the genesis of it all. Where it all began from. How we all got here

Er, what? The human body looks like a perfect work of art? No. Work of art is highly subjective and debatable, but perfect? There are so many stupid problems and issues with the human body that no engineer in their right mind would allow to make it out of beta testing if they were designing the human body. I'll just go ahead and list some of them.

We have basically useless organs like the appendix that take up resources and become a major health hazard for many.

We have extraneous bones. Our tailbone serves no purpose, it's just a liability. Wisdom teeth exist.

There are other useless parts like male nipples that needn't exist.

We require air and food and water to live, but they all share the same intake hole. It's possible for food or water to go down the wrong hole and make us unable to breath, thus killing us. Super perfect design.

Our genitals are all sorts of stupid. Female genitals are only about an inch away from their solid waste disposal hole, and there are tons of bacteria and such that can cause all sorts of problem if they manage to get that far. Dangling male genitals are highly vulnerable and easy to damage to the point of uselessness.

And then we have just plain old stupid stuff that's left over from evolution being imperfect, which again are things that no intelligent designer would do, like the laryngeal nerve. Check out this video that shows a dissection of a giraffe that gives an example of just how stupid this nerve is, and also mentions how it's the same in humans. If you can't or don't want to watch the video, the short of it is that the laryngeal nerve goes from the brain to the larynx, which is a distance of a couple inches in a human body. However, this nerve does not go straight there, it instead goes all the way down the throat and then loops around one of the main arteries of the heart before coming back up and attaching to the larynx.

Art? Maybe. Perfect? Not even close.

This is most popular in Christianity, many do believe and find faith in this as per say the 'historical evidence' & recent movies coming out: God is real, noah's ark, etc.

Ah, the so-called historical evidence of creationism. Fun fact: not even the Bible claims to be an accurate recording of history. Another fun fact: Christian biblical literalism wasn't really a thing until around the 18th century, before which the majority of Christians accepted that it was highly metaphorical and not meant to be a literal account of events. The idea that the Bible is a historically accurate document is rather new and was a product of the scientific revolution, where people got obsessed with the idea of literal truths courtesy of science giving truths about tons of cool things and then people decided to apply that to their faith as well for some reason. Oh, fun fact three: "faith" means trust in something without or despite evidence. The whole idea of saying the Bible is proof of things actually goes against the whole concept of faith.

That alone is enough to discount the idea of the Bible being historically accurate, but then you can go further and show how actual historical documents of the time say nothing of or utterly contradict the momentous events in the Bible. The idea is just ludicrous.

People try to discredit this with 'Holes in science' or ask why monkeys still exist. I'd refer to Charles dawrin's Theory of Evolution.

Hah, asking why monkeys still exist, classic. I like to pose a question in response to that one: if God made Adam out of dirt, why is there still dirt? The response to that is usually a scathing "he only used some of the dirt" followed by a "duh" or an eye roll. Of course the retort to that is to explain that in the same way as only some dirt was used to make Adam, only some monkeys evolved into things that eventually became humans. Luckily this hasn't been necessary in years, because it seems people have realized that this is a really stupid attempt to attack evolution and exposes their fundamental misunderstandings about how it works.

Also, Darwin's stuff is pretty old. A lot of his thoughts on the subject have been found to be inaccurate, though the basic mechanics of evolution that he outlined have been supported again and again. I'd actually suggest this Wikipedia article that's appropriately titled Introduction to evolution for anyone who wants to read up on what evolution is and how it works without needing to wade through heavy scientific terms.

I suppose that a species unable to adapt had became extinct at that point, but some do blame the extintion of the species of dinosaurs on an event in the bible, i believe it was an earth-wide flood. Some has claimed 'biblical historical evidence' on some of this.

Most of the religious folks who look to the Bible for historical accounts of things that happened tend to also believe that dinosaurs didn't exist because they aren't mentioned in the book. They also tend to think that Earth is super young, like 6,000 years or so if I recall correctly, so they also tend to say evolution is wrong because it says things happened over the span of millions of years, and that just doesn't mesh with their estimate of how long the planet has existed. As I recall, they got the age of Earth by looking at those lists of "this guy begat that guy" in Genesis and added their estimated ages together all the way back to Adam to figure out when exactly things were supposed to have been created. This so-called historical evidence stuff is pretty amusing, honestly.

as to why this thread doesn't need to last long, i was assigned a creationism vs evolution essay due in about 3 hours (procrastination at it's finest) , and in this thread, it has already given me things to address.

Oh, don't worry, I'm sure this thread will have a lot of activity even after you no longer have any need for it. It's a hot topic that will draw attention from all sorts of people.

Brovo and Jorick already did an amazing job arguing my point here.
But I'll give in my two cents anyways.

First I feel this need's to be divided into several topics in order to cover...

Why Religion doesn't work

To start with, the very model of it is broken.

-Exhibit A) It makes a claim (God exists) and then seeks evidence to prove it.
That is a flawed way to prove anything because all your study and research will have bias to it.

-Exhibit B) It relies on faith.
Faith meaning willingness to believe in it without proof or evidence. So it already outright claims it can't prove itself, therefore should be held to the mantle that science is.

-Exhibit C) Circular arguments.
Mainly the "God is real because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because God says so" situation. You can't prove something with another thing that still needs proving itself. Especially if the thing it is proved by it in fact needs to prove itself first.

If hypothetically we were to ignore that though, there's no way to make sense of Religion itself either.
Note: For this example, we will take the Bible literally. For the "It's meant to be metaphors" argument, that will wait until later.

Now, if you want the long version of this just go to DarkMatter2525's Channel and watch any of his videos. Each one highlight's a contradiction in the Bible where the only thing you need to disprove the Bible is in fact the Bible. But for those of you not in the mood to go through one, several or many videos I'll make a summarizing list below.

-Exhibit A) Numerical Contradictions.
Depending on the Bible you can even find issues of them getting the number's wrong of stuff like "How many horsemen raided X town". You could try to claim it's a typo... But if this was Gods words, would a typo even be there like that?

-Exhibit B) God is almighty/all powerful and all knowing, holy, just, innocent & loving.
Now if God is all powerful, why does he allow so many evil and cruel things to happen? He either lacks the power to stop them, or does and allows them. So he already can't be both all powerful and all loving. Unless if you argue something such as he gives us free will. But look at cases like this more closely, Rape, Murder, Theft. Yes human's are granted the free will to sin and commit these acts, but isn't the free will of the victims taken away? They're ability to choose to live, keep their belongings or not have sex is taken away from them. All that happens here is free will is taken away from the victim rather than the attacker. So it would be more accurate to say "God loves murderer's, rapists and thieves more than their victims", which would contradict with being holy, innocent, just etc.

If you want another example. One humorous example that DarkMatter used was asking God "What's it like to snort cocaine off a hookers ass?". Well if he knew the answer to that question then he's not innocent, but if he doesn't know the answer to that question then he's not all knowing.

-Exhibit C) Sin's are changing.
There are quotes/passage's saying eating shellfish, having short hair etc. are sins.
But then other area's where it's totally fine, or may be a sin to have long hair even.

For more extreme examples... Let's go back to Murder and Rape.
The Bible supports this, I've had people try to argue this on this site before... But when they're defense becomes like "Well... The Bible only supports Rape _____ times!" well... you've already lost. :P
Now anyone could bring up quote's where these are sin's, but there are also several times where God allows, if not outright tells his followers they are allowed to murder and rape.

-Exhibit D) Cherry Picking
We see this all time. I mean with basically every last religious person on this planet we see it. If that wasn't the case, then the majority of the human populating would be getting killed for working on a certain day, wearing certain clothes, eating certain foods. Or doing stuff such as killing their child for disobeying, enslaving people, not letting women speak in Church or hold any kind of authority.

-Exhibit E) Is it even your God?
Even if by some magical chance you've found a way to argue away all of these other points, basically every other Religion is in the same boat, hundreds of thousands if you include denominations. You still need a way to prove that specific Religion over any other... and this is even before we bring science into the mix.

Why Science does work

-Exhibit A) We have proof and evidence.
What Science says is not based on what one person wrote in a book many years ago and did not let anyone question it. It is based on thousands of years of observation, studying, experimenting etc. If Science ever needs to prove itself it has mountains of evidence to back it up with.

-Exhibit B) Science is Humble.
While Religion claims to know everything, Science admits it does not. And rather than hide that it doesn't it is open with it and tries to find it out.

-Exhibit C) Science can admit they are wrong.
If proof ever shows Science to be wrong, they accept and absorb that new info to better advance society. They don't ignore it and cling to their original beliefs.

This is honestly a rather straight forward/short section... It proves it self, it changes to new info. There's no much else to say.

Why Science and Religion do not mix

Exhibit A) 6000 Years VS Trillions of Years ago

Exhibit B) Flat Earth VS Round Earth

Exhibit C) Earth is the Center VS Sun is the center

Exhibit D) We all started off as we were VS Evolution

I'm sure you can add in many others.
The general point is basically:

TLDR: Religion on it's own disprove itself. Science on it's own proves itself. Put the two face to face, and they disagree on almost every turn.
And when such a disagreement happens, with one side having no proof or evidence (in fact it tells you to listen despite the fact they have none), while the other has almost all of human knowledge and evidenced to support it which one are you going to side with?

xAsunaWolfx said
By far, one of the biggest debates that exist on the planet at the moment is whether evolution is real.

There is no debate, the fact that evolution happens is proven, we know that humans have changed form over the years as have other animals based on their environment, we know this through DNA testing and fossils. We can even see natural selection happening and have learned to control it ourselves (see dogs/cats).

The only people who think there is an actual "debate" are creationists, because they like to pretend their mythology is something science takes seriously. It isnt.

I side with evolution, if this is a debate at all. Evolution is not simply a theory, it is actually observable in creatures with a short enough life-span, so there is not any reason to deny it other than wilful ignorance. Meanwhile, there are plenty reasons not to believe in creationism; in-breeding is a pretty big one. People are entitled to having these views, however that does not make them right or even valid arguments.

Hm, I will read deeper into te more recent posts in the morning and post in response if need be as there look to be some GREAT feedback that deserves to be read but that introduction of before I divided the intro into creationism and evolution was taken by an actual pro evolution article, which may look rather.... Well, conflicting . Just letting y'all know ^^, as it is still perfectly fine for evolutionist to debate against other evolutionist , haha.

xAsunaWolfx said
Hm, I will read deeper into te more recent posts in the morning and post in response if need be as there look to be some GREAT feedback that deserves to be read but that introduction of before I divided the intro into creationism and evolution was taken by an actual pro evolution article, which may look rather.... Well, conflicting . Just letting y'all know ^^, as it is still perfectly fine for evolutionist to debate against other evolutionist , haha.

No offense but I don't understand what it is you intended to say, could you clarify what looks conflicting? Which article?

I'm for evolution because of the reasons stated above and because the bible is notoriously historically inaccurate and because it's been translated by so many people throughout time, most of it has been mistranslated. There's also the fact that the first bible made by the first councils of bishops left out a lot of gospels which they viewed heretical.

I'm just not going to take a book with so many flaws in it as factual.

I typed that message when i was half asleep. still on the go (and half asleep sadly), but to be quick, here is the article i was speaking of. Later on i'll sit down and read the longer portions of which others have stated since, life ;-;.Now that i study it more in depth, it seems....more unbiased than most articles but i guess still could be considered "pro-evolution". I'm curious. how would you interpret this?
Is evolution real?

xAsunaWolfx said
I typed that message when i was half asleep. still on the go (and half asleep sadly), but to be quick, here is the article i was speaking of. Later on i'll sit down and read the longer portions of which others have stated since, life ;-;.Now that i study it more in depth, it seems....more unbiased than most articles but i guess still could be considered "pro-evolution". I'm curious. how would you interpret this?

For most of that article I was going to say "Seems like someone whose very ignorant as to how Evolution works trying to take a neutral/non-judging stance of the topic".
But then with the last paragraph saying "The human body is the perfect machine" (*Barf*) makes me think this was a creationists who either is just very ignorant and trying to be neutral, or is a creationist trying to be passive aggressive in attacking evolution.