Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/5/10 09:45 AM, TakedaIesyu wrote: Take this example...

Imagine a chef makes a potato salad.

Assumption #1.

In several billion years (pretend the salad never goes bad)

Assumption #2.

Does this give them the right to assume that there isn't a chef?

Based on your assumptions, no.
Of course, we can just make a whole bunch of assumptions and

Here's my counter-example:

Imagine a giant spaghetti monster circling the world.
When he swings his tentacles, flowers appear.
The people on the world notice there's lots of flowers.

Does this give them the right to assume there's not a giant spaghetti monster creating flowers everywhere? I see flowers, I know there's a spaghetti monster who can create them. Seems sorta obvious, doesn't it?

You start with the assumption and use backwards evidence to prove the assumption, making sure only evidence that fits the assumption is used as evidence, ignoring everything else.

Spherical argument. Good job dumbass.

At 4/5/10 01:06 AM, Memorize wrote: You do realize that we still have the Death Penalty today, right?

Not where I live, and I generally oppose it in any cotext.

Also, said crimes that were used to condemn people to death include things that are, in fact, not crimes by modern moral view. Just because the words meant a different thing back in the day doesn't change the fact that millions of people were killed with the bible used as justification.

As for the "not real christians" argument, do you recognise the authority of the pope? Either way, half of christianity will consider you a true christian which ever you answer.

At 4/5/10 09:47 AM, TakedaIesyu wrote: Just another question...

Why be atheist at all?

Moderation is better than extremism.

Stop being an idiot. Being an atheist is not an "extreme". That's possibly one of the most silly things ever said in this thread. I mean, really, so if I don't believe there is a intelligent supreme being in the sky I'm an extremist?

And if you don't believe in reincarnation you are a fanatic!

At 4/5/10 10:46 AM, Imperator wrote:

Did Charles Manson actually kill anyone? No? Well I guess it's not really his fault.

The difference being that he was found guilty of ordering and instructing it.

But you're not really "Imperatorian" then, are you? See? When people who work in my name do bad things, all I have to do is deny they're part of my posse and wash my hands of the responsibility!

You're right. You could use that. I just find it ironic that you only use that justification when it's you who's in trouble.

It's not actually the Church's fault their priests abused kids, they're not really priests!

Who said anything about the Church?
Who said anything about Priests?

It could very well be the Church's or Priest's fault because they're individuals and/or groups of individuals.

They are not a written document.

Mob bosses work under the same principle too. Their goons do all the dirty work, so the bosses can keep their hands nice and clean.

lol, you're truly hopeless.

Do I have to explain the simple difference being:

Mob Bosses: Directing underlings to do it, so they then do it.
Christianity/Bible (Judaism ect.): Tell people not to do it, they then go out and do it anyway.

If you can't see something that simple, then... well that's just another proof that you've always been retarded.

At 4/5/10 12:12 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

Not where I live, and I generally oppose it in any cotext.

So do I, but that wasn't the point.

Also, said crimes that were used to condemn people to death include things that are, in fact, not crimes by modern moral view. Just because the words meant a different thing back in the day doesn't change the fact that millions of people were killed with the bible used as justification.

Who exactly is saying that's not true?

As for the "not real christians" argument, do you recognise the authority of the pope?

No.

Either way, half of christianity will consider you a true christian which ever you answer.

So a majority automatically makes something true?

At 4/5/10 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: So a majority automatically makes something true?

It's completely irrelevant whether or not any given religion or denomination is true.

At 4/5/10 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: So a majority automatically makes something true?

No, which is exactly my point. What is a "true christian"? You could take any self-identified christian and they'd go against a few dozen rules in the bible -- and sure enough, the bible says no-one is perfect, and sins can be absolved, but who are you to say a christian that kills ins't a true christian?

At 4/5/10 02:35 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 4/5/10 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: So a majority automatically makes something true?

No, which is exactly my point. What is a "true christian"? You could take any self-identified christian and they'd go against a few dozen rules in the bible -- and sure enough, the bible says no-one is perfect, and sins can be absolved, but who are you to say a christian that kills ins't a true christian?

Gee, I don't know.

Those laws about sentencing people to death for killing others would be a pretty good indication.

*Waits for Imperator to say something senseless about self-defense*

At 4/5/10 01:13 AM, Memorize wrote: This isn't a debate.

No?

It's a bunch of assholes from two parties attempting to stroke their e-penis' to maximum levels.

Oh, so THAT'S why you keep hanging around!

Person Creates Thread > Person says God exists > Person says God doesn't exist > Person who says God doesn't exist uses shitty examples of non-proofs to claim God doesn't exist > Person who says God exists does a shitty job arguing > I come in and apply that same bullshit non-proof logic to the anti-theists arguments > Anti-theist comes up with a typical jackass response of "Well, uh, that doesn't apply, der, lolwtf?!"

Sure, whatever you say Mem. Never mind that that's actually not what happens and that mostly it's just you using ad hominem, No True Scotsman, and other fallacies and then claiming "superiority" like just about everybody arguing the purely theist point of view.

"Judaism/Christianity is the cause of people doing bad things. It doesn't matter if those religions condemn the actions of those individuals, it's still that religion's fault!"

They only condemn them when it's inconvenient to them. Or only in certain branches. Because we KNOW there are those who are priests or in a position of "power" within certain sects of Christianity that DO preach to their followers that it's ok to break certain commandments like "thou shalt not kill" so long as it's against those they find undesirable. Which then gets us into "who interprets or is the ultimate authority on the religion?" Especially because we have no divine power manifesting itself and saying "ok, THIS is how it's going to be". All we have are a bunch of men who run around saying "I am the interpreter of the will of God. When I say something is the way it is, it's the same as God saying it" and people BELIEVE in that. So I think the key point is in a situation like that, where does blame stop? I mean, when the Pope says "condoms are evil, they block reproduction, don't use condoms" and yet he says this to African Nations where aids is rampant. So do I simply blame the Catholic followers for listening? Do I extend blame to The Pope for saying it? Or do I blame the whole Catholic religion and political structure for being unwilling to bend and put it's followers before it's dogma? In this case, I feel confident I can blame all three parties. The followers because you can always choose not to believe in something that harms you, The Pope because he has the authority to make the exception but doesn't, and the belief structure because it preaches something that is detrimental to it's followers.

But hey, yet another example I don't expect to be addressed, it's here for anyone else that would like to jump on it though.

At 4/5/10 03:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Sure, whatever you say Mem. Never mind that that's actually not what happens and that mostly it's just you using ad hominem, No True Scotsman, and other fallacies and then claiming "superiority" like just about everybody arguing the purely theist point of view.

Then I ask you, as well.

If you outright condemn certain actions any individual will take, but someone goes out to do it anyway under your name...

Are you going to be held responsible?

They only condemn them when it's inconvenient to them. Or only in certain branches. Because we KNOW there are those who are priests or in a position of "power" within certain sects of Christianity that DO preach to their followers that it's ok to break certain commandments like "thou shalt not kill" so long as it's against those they find undesirable. Which then gets us into "who interprets or is the ultimate authority on the religion?" Especially because we have no divine power manifesting itself and saying "ok, THIS is how it's going to be". All we have are a bunch of men who run around saying "I am the interpreter of the will of God. When I say something is the way it is, it's the same as God saying it" and people BELIEVE in that. So I think the key point is in a situation like that, where does blame stop? I mean, when the Pope says "condoms are evil, they block reproduction, don't use condoms" and yet he says this to African Nations where aids is rampant. So do I simply blame the Catholic followers for listening? Do I extend blame to The Pope for saying it? Or do I blame the whole Catholic religion and political structure for being unwilling to bend and put it's followers before it's dogma? In this case, I feel confident I can blame all three parties.

So let me get this straight...

First you complain about people deciding not to follow their commands, then you complain about the religion itself not being flexible?

Really?

I love it how you all want it both ways.

You do also realize that there's a command in the Bible to adhere to your nation's laws, right? Or did you miss the whole section of "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's?"

At 4/5/10 03:41 PM, Memorize wrote: If you outright condemn certain actions any individual will take, but someone goes out to do it anyway under your name...

Are you going to be held responsible?

Mez, you need to drop this shit about "the Bible condemns this". It simply doesn't. YOUR interpenetration, which includes a few select verses, condemns it. The Bible as a whole is vague and can say most things. For example, in one place it says "thou shall not kill" and in another it says that gay people should be put to death. You can both make cases for that gay people should be put to death, and that you should not kill anybody.

First you complain about people deciding not to follow their commands, then you complain about the religion itself not being flexible?

there are different kinds of flexible. There is the flexible that adapts itself to modern society, and there is the flexible that allows you to use the religion to justify anything.

Really?

Ya really

I love it how you all want it both ways.

I love it how you purposefully read everything wrong to make countering it easier. It's pretty much all you do Mez.

You do also realize that there's a command in the Bible to adhere to your nation's laws, right? Or did you miss the whole section of "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's?"

Wasn't it YOU who insisted that it was only about money?

At 4/5/10 04:09 PM, Drakim wrote:

Mez, you need to drop this shit about "the Bible condemns this". It simply doesn't. YOUR interpenetration, which includes a few select verses, condemns it. The Bible as a whole is vague and can say most things. For example, in one place it says "thou shall not kill" and in another it says that gay people should be put to death. You can both make cases for that gay people should be put to death, and that you should not kill anybody.

Once again: The word Homosexual didn't exist until well over 1000 years later.

There are also multiple places where the word takes the place of Greek/Hebrew words that don't even have anything to do with it.

So that would be an error of translation.

For instance, there's a section in the New Testament that condemns child sex slavery, yet in a few translations, the word there is "homosexual."

When it says "abomination" in the old Testament, there are a few things to consider.

1) It was written to specific tribe in the Jewish nation.
2) It was listed among things of what not to do in the Temple.
3) Because of the differences between languages, we still can not tell if it means homosexuality in general, or homosexuality in a woman's bed.

And about it being too vague...

I would assume:

-Do not kill.
-Turn the other cheek.
-Adhere to your own nation's rules.

...Would be very simple to understand.

there are different kinds of flexible. There is the flexible that adapts itself to modern society, and there is the flexible that allows you to use the religion to justify anything.

Right, because that's exactly what he meant...

I love it how you purposefully read everything wrong to make countering it easier. It's pretty much all you do Mez.

All I do is ask a simple question which none of you even answer.

If you condemn the certain actions an individual can take, but someone does it anyway under your name... are you going to be held responsible?

What's the response I get? "Scotsman fallacy"

Yet you all know that the answer to the question in any of our modern day legal systems would obviously be a resounding "NO!"

So what do you people respond with after that? "It's too vague!"

But wait a minute, just a few posts ago you all were bitching about the Bible being too literal.

What. The. Fuck?

Wasn't it YOU who insisted that it was only about money?

Did you not read the word: "Section"?

ie. More than what was written other than that direct quote.

So, you go to a lengthy semantic argument to say that the bible DOESN'T condemn homosexuality, yet can't the same logic be applied to "thou shall not kill"? There's a lot of wars in the bible, as well as stoning people to death etc. There are very obviously loopholes to that comandment. Yet you claim any murder committed by a christian is just the responsibility of said individual, not the faith.

At 4/5/10 04:36 PM, Memorize wrote: Once again: The word Homosexual didn't exist until well over 1000 years later.

I'm pretty sure "man lies with another man" qualifies as a homosexual. And even if not, that's how Christians have been reading it for the last few thousand years.

When it says "abomination" in the old Testament, there are a few things to consider.

1) It was written to specific tribe in the Jewish nation.
2) It was listed among things of what not to do in the Temple.
3) Because of the differences between languages, we still can not tell if it means homosexuality in general, or homosexuality in a woman's bed.

And about it being too vague...

I would assume:

-Do not kill.
-Turn the other cheek.
-Adhere to your own nation's rules.

...Would be very simple to understand.

Yes, your interpretation of it it. But you know what? There exists Christians who says that it's "do not murder". It's okay to kill if you are in the military or executing a criminal. There exists Christians who thinks the "turn the other cheek" is a way to insult the one who slapped you because of some ancient customs (I bet you know about this, but if not, I can find it), and there tons of Christians would say that you aren't to adhere to your own nations rules if they contradict their interpretation of the Bible.

Basically, you need to stop saying "The Bible says" and start saying "I think the Bible says" because that's all you have. Tons of Christians in the past, present and future disagree with how you read the Bible and what emphasis you place on what verses.

I love it how you purposefully read everything wrong to make countering it easier. It's pretty much all you do Mez.

All I do is ask a simple question which none of you even answer.

If you condemn the certain actions an individual can take, but someone does it anyway under your name... are you going to be held responsible?

Nope, but that is not the case here. YOUR interpretation of the Bible condemns the action, not the Bible. The people who do this shit actually believe they have the Bible on their side.

What's the response I get? "Scotsman fallacy"

Yes, because your only explanation to people who disagree with your claims to what the Bible says are simply not "real Christians". It's a simple fallacy.

But wait a minute, just a few posts ago you all were bitching about the Bible being too literal.

I did? When?

Wasn't it YOU who insisted that it was only about money?

Did you not read the word: "Section"?

ie. More than what was written other than that direct quote.

Then bring them on. Don't use that particular direct quote if it doesn't fit your argument. Bring the quotes you are actually talking about instead of being such a dishonest snake.

At 4/5/10 04:52 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: So, you go to a lengthy semantic argument to say that the bible DOESN'T condemn homosexuality, yet can't the same logic be applied to "thou shall not kill"? There's a lot of wars in the bible, as well as stoning people to death etc. There are very obviously loopholes to that comandment. Yet you claim any murder committed by a christian is just the responsibility of said individual, not the faith.

Haven't you heard? Religion is immune to blame. Even when the religion tells you to murder X, and you murder X, YOU are to blame, not the religion. It's apparently how the world works.

At 4/5/10 04:59 PM, Drakim wrote:

I'm pretty sure "man lies with another man" qualifies as a homosexual. And even if not, that's how Christians have been reading it for the last few thousand years.

I didn't say that they didn't have homosexuality back then. All I said was that our current word isn't accurate and has been applied incorrectly.

Yes, your interpretation of it it. But you know what? There exists Christians who says that it's "do not murder". It's okay to kill if you are in the military or executing a criminal.

Because common sense is dead.

Obviously when it demands husbands love their wives, that it doesn't apply to their spouse because it didn't directly say so...

Lol.

There exists Christians who thinks the "turn the other cheek" is a way to insult the one who slapped you because of some ancient customs (I bet you know about this, but if not, I can find it), and there tons of Christians would say that you aren't to adhere to your own nations rules if they contradict their interpretation of the Bible.

As long as it doesn't interfere with their personal lives.

If the Government comes along and confiscates their religious books while throwing them in prison for daring to attend a religious service, obviously people can fight against that.

But blowing up homes because the country doesn't use the Death Penalty? Please...

Basically, you need to stop saying "The Bible says" and start saying "I think the Bible says" because that's all you have. Tons of Christians in the past, present and future disagree with how you read the Bible and what emphasis you place on what verses.

I love how you all decide to become "subjective" only when it suits you.

Even though it's an absolute FACT that the words "Hell" and "Homosexual" were incorrectly inserted in several areas of the religious texts (whose original languages either 1) Didn't use these words and 2) didn't even use an equivalent to these words), just because someone comes along and says "It says Hell here and Homosexual here in English!" it's gotta be true, is just plain stupid.

And you're just as stupid as they are. Why? Because you're claim is that just because they claim something, that it automatically makes it subjective.

That's bullshit.

Just because I say we can't breathe oxygen doesn't mean jack shit.

Nope, but that is not the case here. YOUR interpretation of the Bible condemns the action, not the Bible. The people who do this shit actually believe they have the Bible on their side.

Believe they have Bible on their side =/= The Bible is on their side.

And you people accuse me of fallacies?

Yes, because your only explanation to people who disagree with your claims to what the Bible says are simply not "real Christians". It's a simple fallacy.

Would you consider a Buddhist monk wanking off to porn to be a real, genuine Buddhist monk?

I did? When?

Because when I said "you all" it specifically meant "you", right?

Then bring them on. Don't use that particular direct quote if it doesn't fit your argument. Bring the quotes you are actually talking about instead of being such a dishonest snake.

Why?

Because you're too much of a pansy to use Google or pick up a book?

Or is it just because you never liked the idea of Context so never bothered to have your lazy ass read passed a few words?

At 4/5/10 05:02 PM, Drakim wrote:

Haven't you heard? Religion is immune to blame. Even when the religion tells you to murder X, and you murder X, YOU are to blame, not the religion. It's apparently how the world works.

Coming the guy who claims it's subjective...

LOL!

Your credibility is lost.

Here is the problem all of you are having right now:

You are using the single term "Christianity" to refer both to Christian doctrine and the Christian religious organization, and conflating the two.

Christian doctrine is, on its own, relatively ineffectual and does contain a lot of good stuff. The Christian religious organization, on the other hand, is very active, and uses Christian doctrine as a tool to leverage influence over people.

Drakim, when you say "Christianity is responsible for X," you're referring to the organization. Mez, when you say "Christianity forbids the things you're talking about," you're referring to doctrine. This entire argument is based around neither of you admitting that you're talking about different things.

You can keep arguing if you want, but stop equivocating. It keeps the discussion from actually leading anywhere, since you're actually having two separate discussions that have little to do with one another.

At 4/5/10 02:01 PM, Memorize wrote: You're right. You could use that. I just find it ironic that you only use that justification when it's you who's in trouble.

Yeah, that's the reversal. I'm using your argument to show you the ridiculousness of your argument.

It could very well be the Church's or Priest's fault because they're individuals and/or groups of individuals.

Wait. So I cannot hold Christianity responsible for the acts of Christians, but I can hold a Church responsible because they're a "group of individuals".

What the fuck is a religion if not a "group of individuals"?

They are not a written document.

You're separating the dogma from the practice. Clever.
But since the practices of the individuals comes from their belief in the dogma, why is it so irresponsible of me to place some blame on the dogma?

Christianity/Bible (Judaism ect.): Tell people not to do it, they then go out and do it anyway.

The Christians who carry out the acts use the Bible to justify themselves. According to the perpetrators of the actions, the Bible (Or God himself) DOES tell them to go out and do those things.

What you're arguing is that we can't hold the book responsible because of faulty interpretations. Yes?

If so, are you gonna give us the "correct" interpretation of the bible?

And if so, how do we know your interpretation is the "correct" one, and the one these guys are using to justify murder is the "incorrect" one?

You seem to be arguing the reverse of the argument under discussion:
Christians use the bible to justify actions resulting in death. Ie, they're interpreting the "true" Bible, and everyone else just didn't get it.

All you're arguing is that they misinterpreted the bible, so the Bible can't be blamed. How does that make your stance any different than theirs?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not placing 100% accountability on the book. The lion's share must go with the individual making a conscious choice to act a certain way. And considering the vast majority of Christians don't go completely nuts and turn into mass murderers, it's a fair bet the doctrine alone doesn't turn the wheels.

However, the book's purpose is to instruct. It's an instruction manual on what to do, and what not to do. So I absolutely DO put a portion of the blame on the faulty language of the instruction manual for not being clear and distinct, ESPECIALLY when the people are using the instruction manual as a means of legitimating their actions.

It says don't kill. It also says "anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death." (Leviticus 24:16).

Now if someone went out and killed everyone who said "God damnit", citing this passage as the REASON THEY DID IT, you're telling me you wouldn't hold the book responsible in any way, shape, or form?

You're out of your fucking mind if you think that the book cannot be used to justify murder, and cannot be held accountable for people's interpretations of its passages.

So if I bought a swing set and the instructions were bad, it's MY fault for not putting the swings together correctly, and not the book's for giving bad instructions?

You're out of your fucking mind Memorize......

well that's just another proof that you've always been retarded.

You're projecting so hard I could use your forehead to display power point presentations.

At 4/5/10 03:41 PM, Memorize wrote: Are you going to be held responsible?

No, because I condemn it. But there are people in authority that claim to be cloaked in the religion that have in the past, and continue to today order people to do things that countermand the commandments you're referring to in "the name of God". There is also as I stated the Catholic example of a "Just War" that will actually countermand "thou shalt not kill" and any other commandment that might be broken by waging said war so long as it meets the "Just War" criteria. But you keep choosing to ignore my examples and just repeat your initial point. It's getting tedious.

So let me get this straight...

First you complain about people deciding not to follow their commands, then you complain about the religion itself not being flexible?

I complain about people in the religious institution bending the commandments and the rules to suit their own ends, and then I complain about the religion itself having rules that are counterproductive to it's followers, and those within the power structure who can absolutely change those rules not changing them because "oh, this is how it is". But they can change other rules and condone horribly immoral and illegal practices (child molestation by the clergy) because it suits their ends. That's my issue, a perfectly reasonable one I think, but to you it seems ridiculous.

You do also realize that there's a command in the Bible to adhere to your nation's laws, right? Or did you miss the whole section of "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's?"

Some Christians seem to have as well since they've been covering up the pedo priests for years. So explain how that one works to me. Why is the religion absolved in this case when the Pope (according to his faith) is the representative of God on earth? When he has it written into the dogma that any law he makes on earth God will thereby honor in heaven which gives the Pope the power to interpret God's law and actually ADD to God's Law and he chooses to use this power for ill? You just keep dancing right around these kind of points.

There clearly isn't a God, I don't know why people bother with religion, it's pointless.

At 4/5/10 10:35 PM, Exonerate wrote: There clearly isn't a God, I don't know why people bother with religion, it's pointless.

That I think is false and most scientists would agree with me (60%). Check out Arizona Republic.

Ever notice that everything else in life requires proof...

...except for religion?

At 4/5/10 11:17 PM, drDAK wrote: Ever notice that everything else in life requires proof...

...except for religion?

Now back up a second. Evolution is a theory, yet they make it mandatory to learn in every school. Also, archeology is always finding more evidence to support Christianity. The Shroud of Turin, Noah's Ark in Turkey, etc. Science in my opinion does not need much evidence (Big Bang Theory). These are only theories with little to no proof at all.

At 4/5/10 11:30 PM, PepperJoe wrote:

At 4/5/10 11:17 PM, drDAK wrote: Ever notice that everything else in life requires proof...

...except for religion?

Now back up a second. Evolution is a theory, yet they make it mandatory to learn in every school. Also, archeology is always finding more evidence to support Christianity. The Shroud of Turin, Noah's Ark in Turkey, etc. Science in my opinion does not need much evidence (Big Bang Theory). These are only theories with little to no proof at all.

No. Evolution is a proven fact. I am an anthropology major and have studied it. Don't believe me? Google it, you will find credible sources. All of these are proven.

There is no evidence that zombie jesus came back to life.

At 4/5/10 11:40 PM, drDAK wrote: No. Evolution is a proven fact. I am an anthropology major and have studied it. Don't believe me? Google it, you will find credible sources. All of these are proven.

There is no evidence that zombie jesus came back to life.

Oh alright. Looks like PepperJoe's left. So I'll use his next argument for him. Let's get this overwith quickly...

Ok. Maybe it's a "proven fact" today, but with science, a proven fact today could turn out to be completely wrong tomorrow.

Going full circle again are we? Are you guys really that bored?

At 4/6/10 12:43 AM, amaterasu wrote: Going full circle again are we? Are you guys really that bored?

Yes. We are. In fact, we all got together earlier tonight and decided we'd fuck with all the rest of you reasonable people (I guess just you amaterasu), and start debating each other with junk arguments.

At 4/5/10 11:30 PM, PepperJoe wrote: Now back up a second. Evolution is a theory, yet they make it mandatory to learn in every school.

Wayt o trip at the first step. Theory (scientific term) has a different meaning thatn theory (colloqial expression). And god is just a hypothesis.

Also, archeology is always finding more evidence to support Christianity.

Oh this should be fun.

The Shroud of Turin,

Carbon dated forgery from the 1200's

Noah's Ark in Turkey,

HAHAHAHAHAHA

No.

A couple of eye-witness accounts don't make up proof, and no solid evidence exists. And even then, don't you realise how fucking ridiculous it all is? Where'd all the water come from? Where'd it go? How did you get all the myriads of species from a walking distance from a desert in the middle east?How did the animals get back to their homes. If you're gonna answer "god did it", then why was Noah necessary in the first place?.

etc. Science in my opinion does not need much evidence (Big Bang Theory). These are only theories with little to no proof at all.

The big bang theory was foormulated BASED on the evidence, mostly, background radiation and the observation of the universe expanding. They calculated backwards and deduced that it all had to be in one point somewhere along the road.

Evolution has been proven so far beyond doubt, I can't even fantom how anyone who's had a second look at the evidence can still be as dense as you lot. Or let me guess, you were taught "the controvercy"? There is no controvercy. The existance of gaps is not proof of "holes" in the theory. Evolution doesn't work in stages -- species A -> species B, and that there should be some sort of "transitional" fossils. All offsils are transitional! Between the previous generation and the next.

At 4/5/10 11:40 PM, drDAK wrote: Evolution is a proven fact.

Lies. Your sources are biast and full of shit. All of them. It's been proven that people can lie so it's obvious that your sources are lying here. You'll have to prove to me evolution is real or just shut the fuck up and leave this forum you stupid twat.