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?

Ignorant.

The biggest grouse they postulate with the evolution theory is that if everything evolved into place, shouldn’t they have also evolved out of place? How can things so dramatically change over some billion years and then not change over the next few billion years? It is a bit difficult to argue with them in that regard.

It's not hard to argue with them at all, as evolution is essentially survival of the fittest. Those who are best adapted to surviving in their surroundings have the best chance of reproducing and passing down their genetic code, and in doing so their offspring is likely to have a good chance at survival also. We humans on the other hand, rather than adapting to our environment are able to adapt our environment. Even so,not in all parts. The biggest one there is still the carrier-disease cycle, which is essentially a part of evolution. If you would go hundred years back in time with as much as a cold, you could kill an entire village, because besides our immune system has changed over the years, as both diseases and immune systems have changed in order to exist and co-exist... Creepy as the latter may sound.

Also it's totally biased.

Whether Evolution is real or not is not a debate that will end anytime soon but one thing remains sure, the human body is a perfect machine. Probably the greatest machine to have ever been in existence, and whatever is responsible for it is on a level higher than our level of reasoning as human beings.

Read: because god. 'cause see, evolution doesn't speak of intelligent design, but evolutionary design. ie, there is no intelligence behind it's design, it's, again, a process of those able best to survive surviving and reproducing. By ending the article on this note, the author showcases a clear bias.

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?

Considering it gets the very definition of evolution incorrect, I'd say whether it is biased or not, it is entirely irrelevant.

Evolution does not involve metamorphosis. An example of metamorphosis can be found in butterflies. They start out as caterpillars first, go into a cocoon, and become butterflies. That's metamorphosis.

Evolution is the process by which several small changes over several generations of a species causes biodiversity. In a nutshell, anyway. Fish A becomes Fish B by retaining mutations C, D, E, F, and G, gaining each one over time. More successful variants survive, less successful ones die off.

Evolution also does not attempt to explain the origins of life. That's the theory of Abiogenesis. That's the basics of it anyway. I'm sure a biologist could give it better justice than I.

EDIT

An example of mutations at work can be found in dogs, all sorts of dogs, originally bred out of wolves by us humans. There's also sheep, where we've bred them to be so docile that they cannot find water without a Shepard guiding them there, even if they can smell it nearby. Then there's our own species, where we've gained about a foot in height on average from our medieval/dark ages ancestors.

...It seems like these threads only ever attract those that accept evolution as fact, in which the same infallible proof, facts and concepts are thrown about as suitable counters to the inherently flawed beliefs produced by creationists and devote theists. Sometimes, they turn into insufferable circle-jerks.

It's kind of hilarious, actually.

ASTA said
...It seems like these threads only ever attract those that accept evolution as fact, in which the same infallible proof, facts and concepts are thrown about as suitable counters to the inherently flawed beliefs produced by creationists and devote theists. Sometimes, they turn into insufferable circle-jerks.It's kind of hilarious, actually.

Holy shit you must have an IQ of 280!!!



With that said, I don't see why so many people are either, "DERP IT MUS B TIS WAY 100%" or "HERP IT IZ TIS WAY 100%, U WONG"...

Personally, I believe in both. God (or gods) took three of HIS/HER/THEIR days (which as an immortal omnipotent being, I'd believe it's be billions-Trillions of years to us = 1 day to god/gods) to make everything though evolution and all that shit that makes the world so good and science so interesting. So, there you have it...

"How was the universe made?" God/gods creating some big explosion or some shit to make the universe off of trillions of years of time.
"How was Humans made?" God/gods set shit in motion and had evolution do it's thing to create humanity... He/Her/They just watched and made sure shit stayed in line.
"What about dinosaurs?" I don't believe god/gods is perfect, just far more powerful than us. He/Her/They fucked up, didn't like his mistake, let out a sigh and decided to just fucking destroy shit and restart.
"You're Wro..." No, Shut the fuck up you fucking moron. This is MY personal belief, you have NO SAY in it since it!
"But..." But what? I included both evolution and creationism... I am saying that there is a god/gods that made everything (creationism) and that Evolution DOES take place (Evolutionism)... Only arguable differences I see here is that 1) took god/gods longer than 3 actual Days (or days that we as humans perceive) and 2) Evolution is started by god/gods, controlled by god/gods and ends with god/gods. 1 because hard core creationists love the idea that god/gods did shit in 3 literal Earth days and 2 because if and only if those evolutionists are atheists and don't believe in god/gods...
"God/gods doesn't exist you-" Okay, cool... glad to know you believe that... but I don't. So, fuck off. I believe what I want.
"God/gods DID make everything in three day-" Okay, cool... glad to know you believe that... but I don't. So, fuck off. I believe what I want.
"Hello would you like to learn more about our lord and savior Je-" No...

And that is what I believe. I might sound aggressive but I want to make my point out, I'm not here to debate and argue about something that nobody can really prove without including religion or atheism, in which this isn't about that fucking shit.... It's about whether human kind was made in an instant (or that human kind were made, not grown) or if evolution took place.

To me both are wrong and both are right. so there. Now everyone knows more about me than 5 minutes ago (which is the whole purpose of this post). Have fun. :D

With that said, I'll now start reading what everyone else said and get to know what they believe in too. Because things should be interesting here. :)

EDIT:

Sorry if I sound like a jerk or an inconsiderate ass or anything...

I just don't really like posting in these threads since the majority of the time it leads to a major debate. I just want people to know what I believe in without actually having to fight about it. As I tried to say above, I'm not here to fight, just let others know what I believe in and get to know more on what others believe in. Basically me "Opening up" more to everyone and get to know others more.

I am actually currently writing a research paper on this very topic (which is why I'm keeping this short because it has to be done in 48 hours)

Just something I want to point out because there seem to be a few misconceptions.

The whole Creation vs. Evolution debate can be broken into 3 groups:

Creation Science (Commonly referred to as Creationism) - A sect that believes God created the world and that the earth is still very young (young earth scientists). Typically base these beliefs on the Bible. Against Evolution. It also isn't respected in the scientific community.

Darwinians - Follow the whole evolution, natural selection shebang. Basically we all came from simple cells and overtime evolved into what we are today. Basically what all of you seem to believe. A large chunk of the scientific community.

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.

The main debate (at least in more 'scholarly' areas) has been between Darwinism and ID, not Creationism (since most disregard it, as it is not considered science). THe problem is, most scientists who back ID get labelled as Creationists who are religious fanatics and they get tossed to the side fairly often. One of the authors of one of my source books (Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe - this book basically exploded the entire ID vs Darwinism debate) explains in it how going to seminars and such his students expect him to spout religious nonsense but are actually surprised when he comes at it from a fully scientific point of view. So basically my point is don't confused Intelligent Design and Creationism, they are very different things.

That wasn't in extreme detail or anything because I really do have to get to work on this essay (which I'll be happy to share with you all after if you want) so I can get it done with. The thesis is that Creation and Evolution are compatible (Creation, not creationism.)

Shy said 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.

I'm sure you have purely empirical evidence that a significant amount of scientists have that belief. And more specifically. RELEVANT scientists. Specifically scientists in the relevant fields. Since there are fields of science where said scientists need not be any more aware of evolutionary principles than anyone else.

No, in most cases Intelligent Design "scientists" actually ARE creationists trying to bury the obviousness of their biases. They often compact things into scientific psuedobabble, cherry-pick their results and so on. THAT is why Intelligent Design "Science" is becoming as ridiculed as explicit Creationists, because the majority population of the "Intelligent Design" movement ARE mostly creationists.

Shy said 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.

The main debate (at least in more 'scholarly' areas) has been between Darwinism and ID, not Creationism (since most disregard it, as it is not considered science). THe problem is, most scientists who back ID get labelled as Creationists who are religious fanatics and they get tossed to the side fairly often. One of the authors of one of my source books (Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe - this book basically exploded the entire ID vs Darwinism debate) explains in it how going to seminars and such his students expect him to spout religious nonsense but are actually surprised when he comes at it from a fully scientific point of view. So basically my point is don't confused Intelligent Design and Creationism, they are very different things.

That wasn't in extreme detail or anything because I really do have to get to work on this essay (which I'll be happy to share with you all after if you want) so I can get it done with. The thesis is that Creation and Evolution are compatible (Creation, not creationism.)

For the actual numbers, from the info I found yesterday, about 97% of scientists in general say evolution is a real thing and about 2% saying it's false. For those who agree that it's real, 87% (of all scientists, not 87% of the 97%) say it happened through natural processes, 8% think it was guided by some supreme being, and the other 2% are undecided or didn't answer. I probably wouldn't call 8% a significant amount, but significance is relative so whatever.

The problem with intelligent design is that while it's a plausible theory in its own right, it gets co-opted by creationist turds. Most of the people fighting for ID to be taught alongside evolution are actually creationists trying to crack open the door with what appears to be reasonable scientific things, but only in order to then be able to shove their religion wholesale into public schools. The actual idea in and of itself is not problematic, it's the people who try to use it as a tool for bad things that make it a problem. These kinds of things happening account for why ID is becoming so ridiculed and distrusted. It's similar to how feminism in and of itself is fine, but when shitlords get their hands on it and use it as a tool to push their own awful agendas, that's when it gets viewed in a greatly negative light. There's nothing really wrong with ID (aside from the parts that aren't scientific, like positing the existence of an intelligent designer, but that just means it shouldn't be taught in schools, not that it's inherently wrong or bad), it's just been used by the wrong people and now has a bad reputation.

S'cuse me? i'm not Jesus (lol) at debating, just rather inserting my opinion like drakel is. I guess it has to happen, since i started the debate.

@Drakel/ Brovo (somewhat of a reply to your historical evidence piece)
... by far your argument has been the one so far that morally, i really do feel closest to. Now before anyone raises guns (lol) religion has a huge label of faith, and it's pretty obvious that it does lack science. But i believe it lacks science for the creationist, because hey, in the history class i took, the first thing i was made to read about was evolution. It is almost as if scientist are automatically programmed to be for evolution. That's the way our schools/ society roll, highly likely to keep from offending someone from another religion, which could start a whole other mob. Sometimes i almost wonder if "creationism research" lacks information since evolution is mostly the central of research nowadays. That's I believe that's why it's just, you guys are bringing up data that 96%-97 are scientist for evolution, the rest must be a scatter of "intelligent design" and other forms of creationism, etc, etc, who has "faith" in religion,. Some of that 96% may even have been pressured into promoting another belief by their general sphere to keep from being targeted. Here, we can all hide behind some computer screen while their advice and name get out to all types of people. I'm pretty sure they experienced more pressure than me posting here for something that isn't 100% for evolution, trust me, it took me awhile to decide to post this.

So What is faith?
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Nothing obviously screams science here, but deep in my research ( Fyi, i was assigned to argue the side of creationism in my essay), Here is some historical article some of you were discussing about biblical evidence . With bringing up these findings which may actually be a....another view seen with these Prophecys that have been fulfilled , testimonies .and accurate descriptions of ancient empires, either someone had to collaborate really well with the 40 authors who wrote this over a period of 1,500 years (article says "The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them.") or something else is going on. Because of this, i honestly do not blame creationist for believing what they believe in.

I guess it all boils down to what appeals to you more strongly & What your parents may have told you:

Science or Faith?

Both have facts. Science is appealing because......debatable facts, Faith is appealing because it seems to take away the fear of death. You could dissect it all the way how people see religious text = guide to life, but i ain't here to start convertin', nuh huh, just pushing an article to the surface i've found with a little of my opinion.

This is why i like the co-existence of both, and i mainly relate evolution to every other species but humans, who like i said earlier, but however, their body did have to adapt to worldly changes, some may ask if a supreme being caused this.

---

Also, shy, i hope you do not mind the changes i made to the intro. PM if you'd like it taken down.

xAsunaWolfx said Science or Faith?

Both have facts.

No. Stop right there.

Faith does not have facts.

ASTA said
...It seems like these threads only ever attract those that accept evolution as fact, in which the same infallible proof, facts and concepts are thrown about as suitable counters to the inherently flawed beliefs produced by creationists and devote theists. Sometimes, they turn into insufferable circle-jerks.It's kind of hilarious, actually.

Probably because Creationism has about as much evidence backing it as the tooth fairy does. It's so one sided that people could die laughing at the pure comedy of it if it wasn't so depressingly prevalent.

So yeah. It's a circlejerk. Everybody gets to enjoy at least one.

@Drakel: I'm not quoting your post, but just a few things you should know.

#1: If you post your beliefs on the Internet, they're going to be criticized. It doesn't matter how famous, intelligent, wise, or kind you are, it will be. The moment you engage in a discussion, or speak your mind, others will have an opinion on it. That's just how life works, and so long as free speech is a thing, telling people not to criticize or analyze your beliefs is a bit... Erm... Arrogant and pointless.

#2: Telling people to "fuck off" and what not in advance of any response by anyone is probably unwise.

#3: I'm not really going to question your beliefs, I'll respect your request, but in the future, please don't be a Neanderthal about how you make such a request. Thank you.

Shy said I am actually currently writing a research paper on this very topic (which is why I'm keeping this short because it has to be done in 48 hours)

Good luck with it.

Shy said Just something I want to point out because there seem to be a few misconceptions.The whole Creation vs. Evolution debate can be broken into 3 groups:Creation Science (Commonly referred to as Creationism) - A sect that believes God created the world and that the earth is still very young (young earth scientists). Typically base these beliefs on the Bible. Against Evolution. It also isn't respected in the scientific community.Darwinians - Follow the whole evolution, natural selection shebang. Basically we all came from simple cells and overtime evolved into what we are today. Basically what all of you seem to believe. A large chunk of the scientific community.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.

#1: As Jorick said: No. 8% is not significant in the scientific community. As well, to reiterate a previous point...

#2: The job of science is not to answer why, it's purely to answer how. If you believe God started it all, good on you, I suppose. If you don't, that's also fine, I suppose. Again: One cannot assault the fortress of faith with logic. If you stretch it far enough you can put a creator in any mystery there is, but as an atheist, I cannot accept that idea, that all mysteries or things we don't understand are the result of some omnipotent being. History has shown time and time again that when we discovered what the actual, natural cause was, that when an omnipotent being was no longer necessary, that new mysteries were found where the omnipotent being was placed instead. It's like when light is shined on a mystery, God disappears and goes to some new shadowy area.

Again, this isn't to offend, this is to state simply that something which science has yet to understand is not automatically God-required. We don't understand certain complex cells. That's fine. One day we will, one way or another, using the scientific method and gathering evidence and inventing the tools necessary to find the answers.

#3: There is still no empirical evidence that any creator did it, be that ET's or a deity.

Google said Empirical (Google): based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

There is no verifiable observation or experience of a deity or ET or otherwise creating things. No evidence that they left behind that suggested they created things. Nothing.

Now that doesn't mean they didn't, but one cannot draw the conclusion that because we cannot disprove something, means that it's real. We can't figure out X yet, that doesn't mean that Y, something which has equally lacking evidence, caused X to occur and then disappeared. That's not how science works and that's why Intelligent Design was thrown out by the US Supreme Court for not being a scientific theory.

Again, if you, personally, want to believe that a deity or creator or ET or otherwise made the universe the way it is, complete with evolution and the like, I'm just fine with that. Go ahead, that's your personal belief... However, ID is not a scientific theory, it's not accepted by 90%+ of the scientific community, it wasn't created using the scientific method, and the US judicial system in its highest offices does not hold it as being credible to be taught in a classroom as a science.

Ergo, it's probably not a scientific theory. At least, not until it gets something more concrete than "X is impossible without Y, which has no evidence."

Shy said The main debate (at least in more 'scholarly' areas) has been between Darwinism and ID, not Creationism (since most disregard it, as it is not considered science). THe problem is, most scientists who back ID get labelled as Creationists who are religious fanatics and they get tossed to the side fairly often.

Considering one of the lead proponents of ID is the Discovery Institute: Known for being painfully biased towards God and for being a conservative think tank, one should not be surprised that the majority who view it would see it as simply being another version of Creationism.

Considering based on how it is written, it really does come off as Creationism with edits replacing "God" with "unknowable creator" or the like.

Shy said One of the authors of one of my source books (Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe - this book basically exploded the entire ID vs Darwinism debate) explains in it how going to seminars and such his students expect him to spout religious nonsense but are actually surprised when he comes at it from a fully scientific point of view. So basically my point is don't confused Intelligent Design and Creationism, they are very different things.

Certainly, one has a more open minded view about who the creator is or might be, but it still requires some form of creator. That's a problem in the scientific world in which we can't prove that there ever was a creator, of any origin. If anything, the "guided", intelligent designs of creatures on Earth has gone terrible. One could be mistaken if they couldn't see how the designs are intelligent in any manner.

Shy said That wasn't in extreme detail or anything because I really do have to get to work on this essay (which I'll be happy to share with you all after if you want) so I can get it done with. The thesis is that Creation and Evolution are compatible (Creation, not creationism.)

Creation itself? As a belief? Certainly. If you believe the universe was created by a deity, who set everything we presently know as fact into motion, then yeah, it's perfectly compatible, and I won't try to argue it because that would be a pointless thing to do. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. That's fine, and I hope your essay goes well, Shy.

xAsunaWolfx said S'cuse me? i'm not Jesus (lol) at debating, just rather inserting my opinion like drakel is.

I hope not, Drakel told everyone to fuck off. That's not really Fonz-cool. :<

xAsunaWolfx said I guess it has to happen, since i started the debate.

That would be appreciative.

xAsunaWolfx said @Drakel/ Brovo (somewhat of a reply to your historical evidence piece)... by far your argument has been the one so far that morally, i really do feel closest to.

Morally? There were immoral arguments here? O.o Hm. You probably intended something else.

xAsunaWolfx said Now before anyone raises guns (lol) religion has a huge label of faith, and it's pretty obvious that it does lack science.

Because it's not science. It tries to answer why, science tries to answer how.

xAsunaWolfx said But i believe it lacks science for the creationist, because hey, in the history class i took, the first thing i was made to read about was evolution.

That's how things are. Schools are for learning what is presently the most up to date, most likely version of how things are. Religion belongs in a church, education belongs in a school. It's a pretty fair compromise all things considered.

xAsunaWolfx said It is almost as if scientist are automatically programmed to be for evolution.

A scientist is someone who follows the scientific method and attempts to discern fact from fiction through gathering evidence (defined as being: observable, repeatable, physical, etc) which is then used to formulate a theory that is then peer-reviewed and either verified or dismissed. Further evidence is then gathered, compared to the theory, and if the evidence puts a hole in the theory, further investigation is levied to understand why, and either adjust the current theory, or create a new theory that can encompass the new evidence.

The reason why Evolution auto-wins 90%+ of scientists is because it passes all the previous qualifications with flying colours and has for decades. All the evidence found thus far merely suggests it to be true, compounding it further and further into near-inscrutable fact. It's one of the most air-tight, researched theories on the planet. The only one I can even think of off the top of my head which holds more air-tightness in terms of how well researched it is, would be the theory of gravity.

xAsunaWolfx said That's the way our schools/ society roll, highly likely to keep from offending someone from another religion, which could start a whole other mob.

Also because we live in a secularist nation. (The US or Canada--both are secularist.) This means that religion is kept separate and distinct from government. Public education is run by the government. If you wish to attend a private school or religious school, you have that option, too. There are plenty of catholic schools around here, that I know.

xAsunaWolfx said Sometimes i almost wonder if "creationism research" lacks information since evolution is mostly the central of research nowadays.

Creationism research lacks information because it does the scientific theory in reverse. It's a theory that searches for evidence. That's incorrect. Evidence creates a theory.

xAsunaWolfx said That's I believe that's why it's just, you guys are bringing up data that 96%-97 are scientist for evolution, the rest must be a scatter of "intelligent design" and other forms of creationism, etc, etc, who has "faith" in religion,.

Because that's where the data points, and scientifically, one follows the data.

xAsunaWolfx said Some of that 96% may even have been pressured into promoting another belief by their general sphere to keep from being targeted.

What? No. The scientific community loves challenges. It was born to solve the ultimate challenge: Discover all the things! Harness all the knowledge! Why do you think scientists go to answer creationists and intelligent design theorists all the time? Whether that be on YouTube or in a public debate, even figures like Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins take time out of their schedules of science and education to go to these debates. They repeatedly allow themselves to be constantly questioned. Why? Because questions are the food of science and intelligent discourse. Questions make the wheels turn. Questions force people to come up with answers. In the case of scientists, this means that if they hit a question they cannot answer, they must hunt out evidence to discover the truth and formulate a theory.

-That- is science. :-3

xAsunaWolfx said Here, we can all hide behind some computer screen while their advice and name get out to all types of people. I'm pretty sure they experienced more pressure than me posting here for something that isn't 100% for evolution, trust me, it took me awhile to decide to post this.

I held no problems posting anything.

xAsunaWolfx said So What is faith?1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

A certain amount of faith is required for day to day life. You have to have faith that your next door neighbour isn't going to straight up murder you, after all.

xAsunaWolfx said Nothing obviously screams science here, but deep in my research ( Fyi, i was to argue the side of creationism in my essay),

No offense but I figured that was the case.

Also, about your link: This is a biased source with questionable authority. It makes no effort to verify its sources, or show where claims were made. Even then, it makes the wild claim that because people were wrong about X, that means the Bible must be true!

Well, no, that doesn't mean the Bible is true. The Bible makes a whole lot of guesses about things that did and did not happen. The less fantastical it is, the more likely it occurred. For example: No Sodom and Gomorrah, none of the events involving Egypt recorded in history, no flood, none of Jesus' miracles, and so on. Jesus himself may have existed, but his miracles most likely did not occur.

That's pretty normal of ancient documents, too. The more fantastical the claim, the less likely it actually occurred.

xAsunaWolfx said . With bringing up these findings which may actually be a....another view seen with these Prophecys that have been fulfilled , testimonies .and accurate descriptions of ancient empires, either someone had to collaborate really well with the 40 authors who wrote this over a period of 1,500 years (article says "The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them.")

I think this is moving out of the realm of creationism and moving into the realm of biblical studies, which I'm not as well versed in. I'd have to actually look up sources and start researching such things myself. By the time I did that, this thread would be long dead.

Though, honestly, I'm not sure what you're talking about now. My apologies.

As for variation in the text? There's tons of it. Look at all the different versions of the bible. There's at least over twenty different versions still being printed today that vary in wording, some of them critically different from others, which causes hundreds of schisms within the religion itself. The claim that there is "little or no variation between them" is farcical at best. Downright deranged nonsense at worst.

xAsunaWolfx said or something else is going on. Because of this, i honestly do not blame creationist for believing what they believe in.

I don't blame them for believing what they believe. I question it. I question the validity of their beliefs. They don't use the scientific method but want to be treated as a science. It's that simple, regardless of how they feel.

xAsunaWolfx said I guess it all boils down to what appeals to you more strongly & What your parents may have told you:Science or Faith?Both have facts.

Faith does not have fact, that defeats the purpose of faith. Faith is literally believing something without fact, it's the trust you place in a friend not to betray you. It's the reason why you work at a job: Because you expect your employer to pay you. It's the reason why you choose to believe what it is you believe: Because you have faith that it's true. I have a certain amount of faith that there is no god or deity or supernatural entity, no doubt about it in my mind. There's no evidence for it, ergo, I don't believe it. Due to the nature of the supernatural though, I can't disprove that it may be real, and thus, I have faith to fill in where doubt would manifest itself in everyday life.

Just as you have faith in God, as I'm fairly sure you're a Christian, and that's fine. Shy's a Christian, we get along pretty well most of the time. I figure at least half of my friends are religious in some way, and we get along.

Science is as close to pursuing fact without faith as is possible. Faith is not used in conclusions: Probability is. The more evidence there is for something, the more probable it is to be true. And we're not talking anecdotal evidence, we're talking hard, empirical evidence gathered under the scrutiny of peer-reviewed research papers and months, years, or even decades of research. Faith does not come into the equation.

It's the difference between English Literature and Mathematics. You can take one story and read it a thousand different ways, but 2+2 is always 4. They're not comparable because they don't service the same function. English Literature helps you find who you are and what you want, and helps you see the world in all its beauty, and all its flaws. Mathematics teaches you logic and reasoning skills, hard facts. It teaches you measurements, scales, weights, and more, which you can use to build things and understand the physical world around you.

The metaphor by the way is that faith is English Literature and science is Mathematics. One helps you to become who and what you are. The other teaches you how the physical world works. They're not even remotely similar.

xAsunaWolfx said Science is appealing because......debatable facts, Faith is appealing because it seems to take away the fear of death.

Science is appealing because it searches for truth using the best methods we have available to discern fact from fiction. Faith is appealing because it helps you live with the fact that you will never have universal truths in the most important aspects of your life. For some, yes, that includes death.

Albeit, I don't need faith to take away the fear of death. I don't fear death because I know that when it comes, it will not matter how I feel, I will be dead. Simply: I live life the way I wish without fear of death because when I die, I will be dead, and won't feel a thing, but while I'm alive, if I waste time fearing death, I will be on my death bed regretting that I never lived, instead of reminiscing on all the things I did and said.

xAsunaWolfx said You could dissect it all the way how people see religious text = guide to life, but i ain't here to start convertin', nuh huh, just pushing an article to the surface i've found with a little of my opinion.

Well, congrats. I think. I don't think anyone was here with the purpose to convert.

xAsunaWolfx said This is why i like the co-existence of both, and i mainly relate evolution to every other species but humans, who like i said earlier, but however, their body have to adapt to worldly changes, some may ask if a supreme being caused this.Also, shy, i hope you do not mind the changes i made to the intro. PM if you'd like it taken down.

Simple answer.

A. God made the universe the way it is but set everything we know, including evolution, into motion. This is fine. There's no scientific evidence for it, but there's none against it, so, well... If you want put your faith in this, seriously, that's fine.

B. There is no God, the universe just works the way it does because of a set of principles and laws and events that took place. <- This is also fine.

C. 150 years of science is wrong. Creationism!1! <- Probably wrong.

There. All done. Phew. Now to get some bagels.

Brovo said I'm not quoting your post, but just a few things you should know. If you post your beliefs on the Internet, they're going to be criticized. It doesn't matter how famous, intelligent, wise, or kind you are, it will be. The moment you engage in a discussion, or speak your mind, others will have an opinion on it. That's just how life works, and so long as free speech is a thing, telling people not to criticize or analyze your beliefs is a bit... Erm... Arrogant and pointless.

Telling people to "fuck off" and what not in advance of any response by anyone is probably unwise.

I'm not really going to question your beliefs, I'll respect your request, but in the future, please don't be a Neanderthal about how you make such a request. Thank you.Good luck with it.

1) I know this though it's well known that I'm a very closed off person, never speaking my mind and hell even people who I knew there names for over a few years now STILL don't know mine. I do understand that this is the internet and that such but I think you might have forgotten that this is also a community, not a site filled with ass holes like FB or YT or Twitter or Reddit but an honest community where the majority are in fact respectable individuals, so I decided to play it safe and ask (mostly to members such as you, Jorick, and HeySuess) since, as I said I'm not here to debate or argue, just say my peace and learn more about the views of creationism and evolution (though it seems like in this thread, all I'll get in just one side lol :p ) and other people's views on them. But you're right in that even if I ask you can still rebuttal and criticize me, no denying that lol. I just don't want to walk in and say my peace then get hammered down completely in my first showing I can handle criticism, just don't want all my limbs broken in the first day

2) That was actually meant to be a joke in a sense but I can see my mistake in it. Shouldn't continued more since those were half statements what were stopped. I'll admit though I could have done better.

3) I'm not a nice person even though I try to be such... and as I said I'm trying to force myself out of my comfort zone and be more open where I was once really fucking closed. So I suspected I'd be a neanderthal with making a request like that. It'll take some time but I'll get there eventually lol

Jorick said
For the actual numbers, from the info I found yesterday, about 97% of scientists in general say evolution is a real thing and about 2% saying it's false. For those who agree that it's real, 87% (of all scientists, not 87% of the 97%) say it happened through natural processes, 8% think it was guided by some supreme being, and the other 2% are undecided or didn't answer. I probably wouldn't call 8% a significant amount, but significance is relative so whatever.The problem with intelligent design is that while it's a plausible theory in its own right, it gets co-opted by creationist turds. Most of the people fighting for ID to be taught alongside evolution are actually creationists trying to crack open the door with what appears to be reasonable scientific things, but only in order to then be able to shove their religion wholesale into public schools. The actual idea in and of itself is not problematic, it's the people who try to use it as a tool for bad things that make it a problem. These kinds of things happening account for why ID is becoming so ridiculed and distrusted. It's similar to how feminism in and of itself is fine, but when shitlords get their hands on it and use it as a tool to push their own awful agendas, that's when it gets viewed in a greatly negative light. There's nothing really wrong with ID (aside from the parts that aren't scientific, like positing the existence of an intelligent designer, but that just means it shouldn't be taught in schools, not that it's inherently wrong or bad), it's just been used by the wrong people and now has a bad reputation.

Just to clear up I don't believe in Intelligent Design, I follow Darwinian ideas (my essay is about God still being considered Creator through the Darwinian spectrum).

I think 8% (give or take a per cent) could be considered a "significant amount". Most modern day theories came from singular people and didn't gain popularity for multiple years. While I do disagree with them I think that should at least been given hearing. I do agree however, that there are people (the vocal majority) that use it as some Neo-Creationism idea as well, but as Jorick said, the theory on its own is plausible. A quote I'd like to pull out of one of my sources is from 2005 when President Bush commented on ID.

"Lost in the shuffle was one crucial fact. The Discovery Institute, the central coordinating and funding agency for research on Intelligent Design, had urged schools not to require the insertion of ID into public school curriculum because the theory is in its adolescence and any 'teaching ID requirement; inevitably turns the question of design in nature into a political football."

Brovo said Considering one of the lead proponents of ID is the Discovery Institute: Known for being painfully biased towards God and for being a conservative think tank, one should not be surprised that the majority who view it would see it as simply being another version of Creationism.

While I do agree there is no surprise for it being tossed in the same boat as creationism, the fact that they weren't trying to push it into to school the same way Young Earth Creationists are (I'm talking about you Ken Ham) should be noted. Many other creationists tried to push it on the school system, however, the leading institute did not (this may have changed, but as it isn't relevant to my essay I have no notes on it currently).

Jorick said I probably wouldn't call 8% a significant amount, but significance is relative so whatever.The problem with intelligent design is that while it's a plausible theory in its own right, it gets co-opted by creationist turds. Most of the people fighting for ID to be taught alongside evolution are actually creationists trying to crack open the door with what appears to be reasonable scientific things, but only in order to then be able to shove their religion wholesale into public schools. The actual idea in and of itself is not problematic, it's the people who try to use it as a tool for bad things that make it a problem.

8% I wouldn't shrug off as being that small.
It's not huge, but it's still big enough to cause a good amount of resistance and halt scientific progress.

As for religion in schools, I don't see the possible good in it if it's "Teach ______ Religion". Since then it's really just one Religion trying to force themselves on others.
I think it'd be more appropiate to have a generalized religion course, teaching about multiple religion's from a neutral, observing standpoint. Something which I believe England already does.

xAsunaWolfx said I guess it all boils down to what appeals to you more strongly & What your parents may have told you:Science or Faith? Both have facts. Science is appealing because......debatable facts, Faith is appealing because it seems to take away the fear of death.

No they both don't.

Science has facts, faith's very model is belief without facts. If it had fact's it would no longer be faith.
Just because something comforts you from an unfortunate fact of life doesn't suddenly mean it provides facts in itself.
It doesn't do so anymore than say an Imaginary Friend has facts because it helps you get over getting bullied in school for example.

Lastly for how parents raise you... That's not a 100% confirmed way for your own beliefs.
For example my parents are Christian and raised me Christian, but I became atheist through my own observing and questioning of it.

This doesn't really add anything to the discussion, but I live with creationist Christian fundie roommates while being atheist myself. Anyway, one day I walked upstairs and on the kitchen counter was some creationism magazine. It was the front cover headline that really got me though; "How many different kinds of badgers were on the ark?" A person really has to be a special kind of stupid to take something like that seriously.

Just gonna leave this here....

Chinese history cannot be damning towards the Creation hypothesis. The Chinese don't exactly like to share their mythology/religions and the entirety of their culture with the rest of the world.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Chinese history cannot be damning towards the Creation hypothesis. The Chinese don't exactly like to share their mythology/religions and the entirety of their culture with the rest of the world.

This argument is so weak Steve Urkel could arm-wrestle it into submission.

Kadaeux said
This argument is so weak Steve Urkel could arm-wrestle it into submission.

That's not fair. Steve Urkel has power gloves.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Chinese history cannot be damning towards the Creation hypothesis. The Chinese don't exactly like to share their mythology/religions and the entirety of their culture with the rest of the world.

China in history was actually a big lead in science. Largely with the how well the kept records of discoveries and observations. Places like China and Arabia although not scientific power houses today were the ones to set the ground work for places like Europe to pick up from later.

Magic Magnum said
China in history was actually a big lead in science. Largely with the how well the kept records of discoveries and observations. Places like China and Arabia although not scientific power houses today were the ones to set the ground work for places like Europe to pick up from later.

That's not what I said. I said they don't like to share some of their cultural traditions with the outside world.